Good work Michele. This ends in 2006.

I've started putting up basic content with barebones details on the current awards.

Feel free to contribute

HOWEVER

Please do not make any abusive comments or make any comments that could be perceived as slander / libel.

The only way that we, as a community, can be taken seriously by the media is if we rise above that sort of thing

Seeing as soon or later RedCardinal is going to run a coach and four through archiseeks standards compliance.... i want to say in advance that I am currently rebuilding the entire site into css instead of the weird hybrid html css it currently is.... and that the area that is closest to being compliant but isnt yet is canada.archiseek.com

as archiseek is not based on any cms system - this is a slow process

Originally Posted by Paul Clerkin

Seeing as soon or later RedCardinal is going to run a coach and four through archiseeks standards compliance.... i want to say in advance that I am currently rebuilding the entire site into css instead of the weird hybrid html css it currently is.... and that the area that is closest to being compliant but isnt yet is canada.archiseek.com

as archiseek is not based on any cms system - this is a slow process

Hi Paul

It had dawned on me that your site was there. My intention with all this is to draw attention to the GS as opposed to hurting any individual site.

In case you haven't noticed, my test is simply upon the landing page listed on the GS short-list. Although I do have a validation spider that can dig deeper, it is time-expensive I don't have the time to spare

Rgds

Richard

I think it needs to be stressed that the purpose of this campaign is to question the whole concept and validity of the Golden Spider Awards. They are the target of the campaign, not the individual sites.

If a site is criticised, it is not intended as a critique of that site. It is questioning the standards by which that site was included for the awards.

The exeption to this of course is the category for "Best Web Design Agency Website" for these are the companies who should, by nature have the highest possible standards.

What we are questioning is the criteria by which sites are shortlisted for awards. We are claiming that the selection process is arbitrary at the very least. We are questioning the fact that judges are also entrants.

In short, we are questioning the entire concept of the Golden Spiders and why they are being taken as a benchmark.

Peter has started adding content to the wiki this morning:
Criteria - IrishWebAwards

Anyone else want to join in?

Originally Posted by richardo

I thionk it needs to be stressed that the purpose of this campaign is to question the whole concept and validity of the Golden Spider Awards. They are the target of the campaign, not the individual sites.

If a site is criticised, it is not intended as a critique of that site. It is questioning the standards by which that site was included for the awards.

The exeption to this of course is the category for "Best Web Design Agency Website" for these are the companies who should, by nature have the highest possible standards.

What we are questioning is the criteria by which sites are shortlisted for awards. We are claiming that the selection process is arbitrary at the very least. We are questioning the fact that judges are also entrants.

In short, we are questioning the entire concept of the Golden Spiders and why they are being taken as a benchmark.

I would go one step further and say that there is absolutely no compulsion on any website owner to create valid or accessible code. None whatsoever.

There should be, however, some compulsion on any award ceremony showcasing the Internet industry's top achievers to ensure that those websites represent industry best-practice in standards and accessibility.

I apologise to any site owner who feels victimised by what I have presented - it is not my intention to create a witch-hunt.

Part 3 is now available for your pleasure. It's not getting any better, and the e-business and online retailers are perhaps the worst offending sites coding-wise thus far.

Golden Spiders Take #3 | Search Engine Optimisation Ireland .:. Red Cardinal

Rgds

Richard

on a side note:

Golden Spiders

Criteria
Judges will be looking for the quality of service delivered to clients in the areas of innovation, meeting requirements, delivery, ROI as well as client and end-user satisfaction

Really? So do they go out and meet each company's client base? Plus talk to everyone who uses these websites? I mean c'mon, that is a very, very vague criteria - nothing specific and nothing that would cause any company to sweat.

Final Results of the tests:

Total Sample: 128 sites;
Valid CSS: 33 (26%);
Valid HTML: 12 (9%);
Valid Section 508: 28 (22%);
Valid WCAG 1.0 Priority 1: 26 (20%);
Valid WCAG 1.0 Priority 2: 4 (3%);
Valid WCAG 1.0 Priority 3: 3 (2%);
Valid TV Core: 37 (29%);
Valid TV HTML: 15 (12%);
Valid TV WCAG 1.0 Priority 1: 43 (34%);
Valid WAVE Overlay: 27 (21%);
Sites with consistent mark-up: 76 (59%);

CSS, HTML, Section 508 & WCAG 1.0 Priority 1 Compliant: 6 (5%)

Everything is laid bare on my blog.