Re: New web site

On Fri, May 22, 2026, 23:01 Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On 23-May-26 01:27, Salz, Rich wrote:
> >   *
> >     I would much rather have a non-Javascript site than one with
> worthless
> >   *
> >     misfeatures such as "as-you-type search" (mentioned upthread).
> >
> >
> > There’s no accounting for taste.  I love search as-you-type because it
> provides immediate feedback, I can stop the search as soon as what I want
> is found, or realize I’m using the wrong words.
> >
> > I wonder what the overlap is between the “no Javascript” folks and the
> “MUST USE IPv6” group.
>
> Purely incidental, I imagine. (Disclaimer: I am in neither of those
> groups.)
>
> More seriously, for a long time there were strong accessibility arguments
> against making js a requirement. I'd be interested in an accessibility
> analysis of the new site, compared to the old one.
>


We have an expert accessibility assessment of the new site occurring soon,
and we will share the results with everyone.

We did a previous assessment [1] which was focused on evaluating our RFC
HTML. We did not evaluate the entire site at that time, as we already knew
it was being redone.

We expect the html navigation of the new site on the info pages to be
greatly improved. But we also know that many issues are not addressed - the
images don't have descriptions, the math is inaccessible, etc. - because
those types of issues originate with the RFCs themselves.

We will share the results for the new site when we have them.

[1] https://www.ietf.org/blog/rfc-data-visualizations-accessibility-review/


>      Brian
>