Accessites.org Turns One
Over at Accessites we’ve been at it since January 1st of 2006: checking in (234) and grading sites (64), issuing awards (54) — also rejecting some (158) — and giving recognition to developers who are helping us prove accessible sites need not be plain Jane and boring, and publishing some related articles (31). Speaking of articles, I wrote one just for this one-year milestone. This post here on my blog is simply to host any comments or questions our readers/visitors/submitters/supporters may have.
Two things here, before I hand this over to you, dear reader, I would personally like to thank the members of Team Access who really work hard — putting in some serious hours over there — helping me make this a reality. I would also like to thank those who have submitted their sites, awarded or not, for going through the trouble. We know our criteria are tough, but we hope for you and your sites’ visitors it’s all worth it.
Please wish us luck in our second year and thanks for your support.
patrick h. lauke responds:
Posted: January 1st, 2007 at 2:32 pm →
nice one, chaps!
Mike Cherim responds:
Posted: January 4th, 2007 at 1:27 am →
Thanks Patrick.
Busy time of year, but I am hoping more people will wish us a happy birthday! *sigh*
Georg responds:
Posted: January 4th, 2007 at 1:08 pm →
Regarding ‘Criteria’
” 5. The cascading style sheet must be valid as well, as determined by the W3C CSS validator. ”
I would find that one a bit problematic with the CSS-support we have across browser-land at the moment. Some browsers still need additional, which sometimes mean well-selected but non-standard, ‘properties: values’ or whole style sets - just to play ball.
The rest looks alright enough.
Happy birthday!
Mike Cherim responds:
Posted: January 4th, 2007 at 3:00 pm →
Very valid point Georg. Thanks.
We have accepted sites that do not have a valid style sheet, the submitter just has to use the justification section on the submission form to tell us why it has to be so. An example: The clear fix or opacity hacks. We allow these as long as the submitter explains that they are aware of the invalid CSS and tells us why it has to be so. This ensures they know the issue and that they know that there is no valid workaround. We’re cool with that.