Is the percentage of the list who might be interested an objective
criteria, for an objective standard like W3C.
AT LEAST 96.1% of the list (assuming that
_every_ member in Canberra
Coming to a town near you, a nip in the W3C bud time saves nine.
Tim
On 01/03/2007, at 11:12 PM, Joshua Street wrote:
On 01/03/2007, at 1:00 PM, John Faulds wrote:
> Rather than just dissing someone else's contribution, why don't you
> come up with a viable alternative instead?
On 3/1/07, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What a statement! Are we hear for W3C standards or fiction?
ANyone touting for work here should be fairly subject to at least W3C
validation tests!
Or else! What are the standards?
Please. Call the search for a usability contractor off-topic if you
will, but it's perfectly possible to have completely unusable sites
that are standards-perfect and accessible. That's why people do
research into site structures, eyetracking, and loads of other things
that have absolutely _nothing_ to do with what markup you are using.
That said, validity can be a _part_ of usability (and certainly the
only bit of relevance on this list) -- but if people are participating
in this list, it seems an awfully odd place to have to convince them
of the value of web standards. For the vast majority of users, web
standards or not are completely transparent. Accessible and usable
websites don't require the separation of presentation and content
(yes, I have my riot shield handy) for the overwhelming majority of
users -- which is, afterall, what usability testing is about (your
testing is only as good as your tester sample).
Good websites will accommodate all users, but my understanding of
usability testing was that it's more concerned with broader
architectural and interaction concerns than the technologies that
drive these -- though of course the technologies will have an impact
in certain cases.
I guess I think this whole thread is off-topic more than anything...
but maybe I missed something.
By the way, what on earth is "A viable alternative Validated W3C XHTML
1.0 Strict with multiple stylesheet options." supposed to mean? and
what does that have to do with evaluating websites -- reeling off a
list of technologies is not an applied usability solution, and bears
absolutely no relation to the original question.
~a generally quite flame-retardant Josh who will hopefully resist
touching this thread again
p.s. I'm no list mod, but I still recommend responding directly to the
OP about this. As Mike (who _is_ a core team member/mod) said,
potential sub-contractor usability consultants in Canberra is of
absolutely no interest to AT LEAST 96.1% of the list (assuming that
_every_ member in Canberra actually cares... which they won't).
--
Joshua Street
http://josh.st/blog/
+61 (0) 425 808 469
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
The Editor
Heretic Press
http://www.hereticpress.com
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
