Re: Awards and award attitude :(

by "Paul Rudolf" <paul(at)>

 Date:  Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:20:52 -0700
 To:  "The Web Center" <admin(at)>,
  todo: View Thread, Original

-----Original Message-----
From: The Web Center <admin(at)>
To: hwg-basics(at) <hwg-basics(at)>
Date: Saturday, September 25, 1999 5:22 AM
Subject: Re: Awards and award attitude :(

>Hi, Paul...
>Interesting bit about the directory placement.  I have no awards (!), yet
>listed well in Yahoo on a couple of my chosen keywords, and even though I
>can't really effect placement of the others, I know at least that I'm in
>results!  I do believe your wife had an excellent response for that one!

Don't feel bad, I have no awards either, but I'm giving some serious thought
on starting the "Lights Out!" award.  The first test of the site would be to
turn the monitor off, and navigate the site!  :)

Actually, after my brief mission of last night, I would rather place an
image telling people I failed on a real award, than to put up a "marketing

>Design for accessibility is slow in being adopted, but will come.  I have
>doubt of that.  Have you looked at the new proposal for HTML 5?  It
>incorporates a base that has adopted many of the advantages of XML...which
>means finally a cross-platform markup.  That means it can be read by
>applications that will interpret the tags according to that application's
>function.  So finally, no matter who writes it, or for what audience, no
>browser will be excluded.

Unfortunately, this is where I believe the problems begin.  For which
browser (or level of HTML) should I gear my site?  My interpretation of a
universally browseable site means that your site will win the appearance and
layout awards when viewed with the new, up-to-date browsers, yet you won't
lose content, or visitors if they happen to be using a text based browser.

>In the meantime, much corporate-level thinking puts the Web on a level with
>TV.  That means they think of it as one huge commercial, and that means
>appeal to the numbers.  It is not (IMHO) the proper approach for this
>medium, because we are not just experiencing interactive commercials
>here...we are communicating.  However, a great deal of "flash" and money
>gone into promoting that commercial, blinking banner type of approach, and
>that is bound to affect the profiteers.  It is a growing pain of the Net,
>and one which you have captured well in your post.

Maybe this is why my favorite TV station is PBS.

>Stick to your guns.  The universal, people-first approach you are using
>triumph in the long run, because the Internet is a place where people talk
>to each other in common sense, everyday speech.  Some people are out to
>profit, and they can not hide that for long, as you have just proven.
>Others, like yourself, design for people...and that will get around, too.

Don't worry, I may not post my views here frequently.  I will never
intentionally criticize or reprimand an author, or try to force my views.
But, I will continue my marketing to sell my services.

Believe it or not, a member of a local Linux User Group is currently
designing a site for an organization that helps people with disabilities.
His attitude towards accessibility of the site is "What For?  I just want it
to look good.  And, I'm making good money here!"

Unless I've totally misunderstood the WAI guidelines and associated links,
It seems as if Accessibility of Web Sites will be required by law for many
commercial sites in the coming years.  The selfish side of me say, I want


HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA