Trick
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:36 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
I was just thinking about that and I don't think google.com (or for that
matter - anything that company creates) would manage to get more than 1
star
On 12/7/05, Alan Trick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was just thinking about that and I don't think google.com (or for that
> matter - anything that company creates) would manage to get more than 1
> star.
You just now realized that Google doesn't care at all about standards
compliance??? I think
I was just thinking about that and I don't think google.com (or for that
matter - anything that company creates) would manage to get more than 1
star.
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 12:00 +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
> > From: Herrod, Lisa
> >
> > Who really pays attention to the badges?
> >
> > Are the
>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Lea de Groot wrote:
http://www.energyrating.gov.au/con3.html
Ugly stickers; Very effective program.
From http://www.energyrating.gov.au/background.html
"Manufacturers
Lea de Groot wrote:
http://www.energyrating.gov.au/con3.html
Ugly stickers; Very effective program.
From http://www.energyrating.gov.au/background.html
"Manufacturers who produce / import appliances for the Australian market
are required to submit their products to an approved testing agency
Paul Noone wrote:
So, given that the W3C buttons enforce compliancy by returning errors if the
page isn't valid, what's wrong with them again?
WCAG buttons don't link to any validator. And, of course, accessibility
cannot be checked in any satisfactory way without *human* testing (let
me just
December 2005 12:37 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Peter Williams wrote:
> It has to be somehow enforced for it to have value.
And as that's not going to happen, the star rating will be meaningless.
To get back to
On 07/12/2005, at 11:21 AM, Peter Williams wrote:
It has to be somehow enforced for it to have value.
Clearly regulation of anything internet related is
problematic due to its distributed nature.
And, so the non-australians have a better idea of what we are
comparing too, (I assume) Peter is
Peter Williams wrote:
It has to be somehow enforced for it to have value.
And as that's not going to happen, the star rating will be meaningless.
To get back to the energy efficiency analogy, it's a situation where
every fridge manufacturer would be completely free to put an official
lookin
> From: Patrick H. Lauke
>
> But the question remains: who awards these stars? Self-accreditation
> would obviously be futile. And who monitors that stars are rightly
> awarded, and not used by sites that don't meet the criteria? Hey, if
> there's full-time jobs being created here, I'm in...
I
> From: Andreas Boehmer
> > From: Herrod, Lisa
> > surely you're not doing it for the elephant stamp?
>
> Could not have put it better.
Agreed, but wasn't this all started by someone wanting a way
to communicate the goodness of standards compliant sites to
a lay audience?
Wouldn't a scheme like
> From: Vincent Johansen
>
> The whole deal about putting buttons on websites we make for
> clients is in my humble opinion quite retarded. You're
> directing traffic straight out of your clients website
I'm not sure I'd word it quite that way, but I agree that
sending visitors away isn't a good
Peter Williams wrote:
It isn't a badge of honour/merit/exceptional anything.
If your site is crap it gets no stars, or 1 star, or two stars...
If it meets all the criteria fully it get 10 stars or 5 stars,
whatever is the highest in the system.
Same as appliance and car efficiency ratings.
Al
> From: Herrod, Lisa
>
> Who really pays attention to the badges?
>
> Are the badges useful? really? surely an accessibility page
> on the site is more informative and helpful/useful/clear
> to those who are interested.
>
> We work this way because it's best practice and the right
> thing to d
On 07/12/2005, at 9:14 AM, Herrod, Lisa wrote:
We already have a rating system with A - AAA conformence and the
pretty
badges to go with it.
It probably is 'just another button scheme' (hey, it was 6:30 in the
morning!) but the concept was for Joe Average to start seeing these
similar but
> From: Rimantas Liubertas
>
> Badge is something you get for being exceptional. And I think
> building websites to webstandards is not something we should
> talk about as a big achievement, but it must be the standard
> way of doing the web. The norm. When more clean and valid
> sites appear, the
I think there is still a mentality of any of those awards/certified/compliant buttons just being a click stealer.Remember those web award badges you could stick on your site with pride in the early 90's - until you realised that it was only there to get users to click off your site?
I believe the r
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Herrod, Lisa
> Sent: Wednesday, 7 December 2005 10:15 AM
> To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org'
> Subject: RE: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
>
The whole deal about putting buttons on websites we make for clients is
in my humble opinion quite retarded. You're directing traffic straight
out of your clients website and to a page where they go "Wha?" All of a
sudden you lost the user. Put those damn buttons on your own webpage if
you abso
> Personally, I don't think the logos Do It - they are too techie and
> Joe Average doesn't see what they mean.
>
i like the approach of this site that uses
text links(footer) in the overal style of the site
http://www.monc.se/work/
**
The
, usability etc.
surely you're not doing it for the elephant stamp?
lisa
-Original Message-
From: Patrick H. Lauke
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: 7/12/05 9:37
Subject: Re: [WSG] New logo scheme was talking points for standards
Peter Williams wrote:
> 1 star for con
> > Let the market regulate itself. Let standards-compliant markup sites
> > take over because of their benefits actually manifesting themselves
> > (easier to maintain, faster, etc). We don't need yet another
> > badge...imho of course.
>
> It's not yet another badge, it was a way to show complian
Lea,
I thought you're idea was excellent. It's true the icons are "techie",
but it has been all we've had I suppose. I already have a "Statement of
Accessibility" on my sites, but that is probably a bit long winded and
could do with some revision.
Anyway, I came up with a bit of a button a
> From: Patrick H. Lauke
>
> Peter Williams wrote:
> > 1 star for content to markup ratio
> > 1 star for validation of markup and css
>
> Let the market regulate itself. Let standards-compliant markup sites
> take over because of their benefits actually manifesting themselves
> (easier to maint
Peter Williams wrote:
1 star for content to markup ratio
1 star for validation of markup and css
These two should be able to be automated, just like the w3c validator.
1 star for accessibility
1 star for semantic markup
1 star for ? suggestions from the audience required.
These three
> From: Lea de Groot
>
> Lets apply the KISS principle - I think we should come up with a new
> scheme, and my first suggestion for a button is the words
> 'Made to Standard' , in a colour scheme to match the site.
>
> I think coming up with a standard wording on the button is an
> excellent
26 matches
Mail list logo
