Forum Moderators: open
Would you please comment on:
1-is this a viable idea or not?
2-would you put in the extra effort required to acheive Bobby approval in order to get a top level listing in ODP, perhaps in addition to your other listing there (not moved)?
3- please sticky mail me any urls you know of that may qualify.
* I am not refering to sites "ABOUT" Bobby or "How-To" make a site Bobby Friendly, I am referring to something FUN, or a site where blind persons could read today's news or how to fix there computer.
<snip>
As I was working on my site and trying (unsuccessfully) to get it fully compliant with the specifications outlined on Bobby, I could not help but thinking how extrordinarily difficult it was and how few sites out there are really 100% friendly to the blind.
I think it would be a huge incentive to alot of people to actually get their sites compliant if they would have a chance of get listed in the DMOZ.
Perhaps even a duplicate listing. One in the "regular" directory and one in the visually impaired friendly one.
Admission to it could be objectively based on the results of Bobby, and perhaps some visually impaired persons would be interested in reviewing the sites to see if they really do "read" well.
This could be a good opportunity for DMOZ to really make a positive impact on society and the web (not that it hasn't already but I am sure you understand what I mean)
The DMOZ has already instituted something like this with the kids-n-teens section so it is not to outragous an idea.
Any thoughts?
Here are a few sites that could start it out: (none of them are mine or link to mine)
[billsparks.org...]
Yup, that is about all I could find. not alot out there for them that is easy to find. I am sure it is there, but no good directory that would make surfing easy.
</snip>
TIA for taking the time to read the whole post.
I Think this could be a real "win-win" situation for everyone invloved.
Todd
I'd definately do it I don't bother for the most part as my eysight is a big bag of poo anyway so my sites are generally very sight friendly by default ;)
Game on!
Nick
I would of thought that the ODP would already have sections for such sites.
No, unfortunatley there are only two categories
Google Search for bobby approved leads me to these two cats ...
Computers/Software/Internet/Clients/WWW/Browsers/Accessibility/
Society/Disabled/Assistive_Technology/
neither of them are "FUN" they are both for webmasters or for blind people to GET the technology to be able to surf.
[w3.org...]
However, any search engine spider could easily identify the WAI WCAG labels on websites and make it simple to use that as a search criteria. I'd be happy to se this option on the Google advanced search page. :)
Regarding directories or search engines for sites that conform to accessibility standards, CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology) used to have a searchable database of Bobby approved sites. Apparently it's discontinued. :(
well, thats the third or fourth most intimidating response message I've seen posted on someone's idea. But I am sure that for the sake of good discussions it can sometimes help you to get blinded in enthousiasm, even though the objective can also be more kindly.
The Google aspect is akin to the question of boosting HTML valid pages. I love the idea, but what next? Political correctness? Things "they" agree with? Who are "they" in this context? I shudder. This is not the same as operational issues such as spam fighting or complying with law.
Google now have significant power to do good by manipulating their listings on moral grounds. In my opinion, the world is a better place if they don't.
worst idea I've heard in my life.
As far as my friend ciml's comments:
Google aspect is akin to the question of boosting HTML valid pages.
Google really has nothing to do with it. It would be something that happens on Google as a result of structure at DMOZ.
It would be something the Editors at DMOZ do. It requires no action on Googles part that they do not do already. It would merely be a category in the odp.
Do you really expect the editor to check every page at a site for usability
There was entirely to much emphasis put on Bobby, of course I put to much emphasis on it in my original post and title as well.
I also mentioned having the benificiaries of this project review it themselves, if they are interested.
If they are not interested it is entirely pointless anyway!
The way it stands now there is no incentive to making sites accessable other than the boast that it is accessable.
There is also altruism. Altruism has its palce, but not in business.
Todd
On the other hand I'd be lying if I claimed never to have adjusted a link to help channel PageRank towards my most 'important' content, so why not?
> The way it stands now there is no incentive to making sites accessable other than the boast that it is accessable.
I'd argue with that on many points, but I'll stick to the Google relevant one.
My interest in accessibility goes back to early 1998, when Google was called backrub, and when I'd never heard of it. Most of what I do now to be Google friendly, I did back then to be disabled accessible.
> ...boast that it is accessable
Our sales literature has done that for a long time. :)
However, any search engine spider could easily identify the WAI WCAG labels on websites and make it simple to use that as a search criteria. I'd be happy to se this option on the Google advanced search page.
WAI labels are self-declared metatdata! No more trustworthy than META tags. Google is the engine that started the trend against trusting self-declared metadata, remember?
ciml:
The Google aspect is akin to the question of boosting HTML valid pages. I love the idea, but what next? Political correctness? Things "they" agree with? Who are "they" in this context? I shudder. This is not the same as operational issues such as spam fighting or complying with law.
Almost precisely my point whenever these discussions come up. Google is a "relevant content" service. If it starts fixating on things like HTML- or accessibility-conformance, it's penalizing naive producers who just work on their content. Any conformance-ranking system is going to end up favoring larger content producers. Mass media companies don't need any more help, damn it.
Hemsell:
The way it stands now there is no incentive to making sites accessable other than the boast that it is accessable.
There is also altruism. Altruism has its palce, but not in business.
Now, that was just silly. You really need to do some reading on Information Architecture [iaslash.org]. Unlike "web designers", the "information architects" already know that accessibility is good for business.
WAI labels are self-declared metatdata! No more trustworthy than META tags. Google is the engine that started the trend against trusting self-declared metadata, remember?
I sure do. However, the WAI labels are sort of special because they don't say asnything about content. They kind of state that a site works for a certain group of users.
It's self-declared meta-data, but it would be kind of stupid to force inaccessible sites on visually challenged users? Ok, I agree that there is a staggering number of stupid webmasters around.
It's just a nice-to-have feature. I able to write up a search statement that includes looking for WAI approval links, but I'm lazy enough to suggest a simpler way of specifying this. ;)
