Feck web accessibilty

Advert test
Status
Not open for further replies.
#2
Poor form I think not even MENTIONING the ones who did validate and adhere to best practices. That article just lumped names pulled from search results together and through some poor editorial skills, tarred them all with the same brush.
 
#5
I'd also like to hazzard a guess that this blog belongs to Erigena.

Have a read of the language, the other posts and the links TO Erigena.

Also, I believe I saw a similar blog with a misspelling linked to from Erigena. Something you are not telling us mate?
 
#8
Well I see that the comment I added to this idiots blog yesterday hasn't been approved. That's censorship for you! I posted something along the lines of automated accessibility validation tools being unreliable and lab/user tests being much more important. The guy's obviously way out of his depth and doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

I know that he probably posts on here, so I would challenge him to elaborate on his assertions with some actual evidence. Don't try to be an authority on web design unless you've got the onions to back it up.
 
#9
I posted aswell and it hasn't been approved so at the moment I'm presuming he hasn't got to it or something. Other than that, it would be super-censorship!
 
#11
That sort of criticism, no matter who does it, is not the way to get work.

Its disgusting, desperate and shameful.


Google doesn't validate often enough.
 
#13
Google is a whole other story. The lack of quality in Google's pages is so bad it doesn't come under the topic of standards or accessibility, we're just talking about plain sensible structure.
Have you seen the code on any page? Even pages they shouldn't have to optimize too much like product information pages are riddled with bits of CSS and the odd bit of Javascript, it's a shame.
 
#14
Its disgusting, desperate and shameful.
Hi folks,

err.. 1 word. linkbait..

That blog [which is meant as more of a splog] article [slapped together in 5 mins as you can see... ] simply pointed out that a majority of sites surveyed left a lot to be desired, and lets the user find out themselves which are standards compliant.

Its disgusting,
sure is.


Such an article was obviously going to lead to some ruffled feathers, but was not an assisination piece by a long-shot.

also, that site also has nothing to do with "trying to get work" as you put it.. it represents just another inlink...

no fingers pointed, no shame. house in order = no shame...

regarding comments, none were recorded by blogs.ie.. it is worse than boards.ie..
[edit: oops yeah there's a bunch of em..]

Broaching this subject shouldn't such cause a stir, and I daresay that If all 15 sites were up for some random web-award, we would all know about the (ironic) problems of the finalists.. via some blog or other..

3rigena
 
#15
Quite righht, 3rigena
boards ireland, can be horrible ( horrible un moderated comments, a month ago and towards persons who are trying to establish a web presence).

Responsible for over half a million pages globally ,moderator often, admin often, tis terrible the carry on over here.

However, the way forward is not to follow "suit", for anyone.
We're speaking generally, right?

Well, thats what I'm doing and assume that the reference to the irish boards is of a similar measure.

But what do we do now? Delete it (whoever), and move on.
 
#16
Quite righht, 3rigena
boards ireland, can be horrible ( horrible un moderated comments, a month ago and towards persons who are trying to establish a web presence).

Responsible for over half a million pages globally ,moderator often, admin often, tis terrible the carry on over here.

However, the way forward is not to follow "suit", for anyone.
We're speaking generally, right?

Well, thats what I'm doing and assume that the reference to the irish boards is of a similar measure.

But what do we do now? Delete it (whoever posted it, forgive and forget a mistake), and move on.
 
#18
Personally I think you're punching well above your weight.
sigh. what on earth are you talking about now. nobody is doing any punching..
would you care to be more specific mr judge jury and executioner. you aren't exactly awash with constructive criticism... quick to call people names I see. Oh this is going to be a good thread.
 
#19
Hi folks,

err.. 1 word. linkbait..
A few other words...unprofessional behavior, underhanded tactics, immature ramblings..

That blog [which is meant as more of a splog] article [slapped together in 5 mins as you can see... ] simply pointed out that a majority of sites surveyed left a lot to be desired, and lets the user find out themselves which are standards compliant.
It seems to be more of a low blow in my opinion. You used a blanket attack on 14 of your competitors without ever disclosing that you represented one of the valid 15 and further more you failed to name those who did validate thus making an attempt to tarnish as many of your competitors in one go.


Such an article was obviously going to lead to some ruffled feathers, but was not an assisination piece by a long-shot.
So what was the purpose of the piece? It's not like it was groundbreaking or served any purpose besides from boosting your own ego.


no fingers pointed, no shame. house in order = no shame...

regarding comments, none were recorded by blogs.ie.. it is worse than boards.ie..
[edit: oops yeah there's a bunch of em..]

Broaching this subject shouldn't such cause a stir, and I daresay that If all 15 sites were up for some random web-award, we would all know about the (ironic) problems of the finalists.. via some blog or other..
I have no idea what you mean here or the relevancy of boards.ie to your blogpost. It's kind of ironic that you mention blogging...what is stopping any of the 14 from trackingback your article and showing you up in the same manner that you tried to show others up.

It's a dangerous game that you're trying to play and no matter what you write in this thread you're not going to be able to clean up after yourself.
 
#20
So what was the purpose of the piece?
thepost said:
most sites contained more accessibility barriers than any automated tool can check for.
does that sum it up for you? everyone else seemed to get it fine.

it was a blog post. what is the point of your blog ramblings? Mine addressed something which I found distasteful. also, the post does not reflect any opinion of whomever I might be employed by and yada yada...


A few other words...unprofessional behavior, underhanded tactics, immature ramblings..
last time I checked, being a professional meant adhering to standards, being honest, keeping abreast of new stuff and so on.. something some people would do well to remember.

It seems to be more of a low blow in my opinion. You used a blanket attack on 14 of your competitors without ever disclosing that you represented one of the valid 15 and further more you failed to name those who did validate
well make up your mind.... It was meant as a wake up call. no need for low-blows when the writing is on the wall. I did go back and alter the post to reflect the sites that did pass, but you neglected to check that before your morning assasination attempt.

I fail to see how not mentioning that "my site" (as you put it) was in the list was bad form.. ?

thus making an attempt to tarnish as many of your competitors in one go.
that is a very stupid thing to say... obviously i would be tarnishing myself since my site(as you put it) is on the same list...

and the thread goes on..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top