I give the designer at my day job trouble if they are not on the money or at least close to the required numbers. These number are not even close to what they should be. I did notice that the color contrast is much great for items that are represented in the articles.

The color contrast and brightness also fail for WCAG 2.o and for all three color blindness tests. Try entering values to the following – Accessibility Color Wheel checker.

What is some one wanted to look at the tag “Leadership”, they would have a very hard time finding it in the navigation. Even when I pick “Leadership” from the navigation it does not highlight that item on the left. It does list articles in the content section of the page.

They also seem to not have any or many ALT tags on the home page. Even if they are hidden at some point with JavaScript or whatever they should still have ALT tags in case they become visible or an individual with a screen reader finds them and needs to know what they represent, unless they are decorative.

Not trying to be nit picky, just making sure I understand what I have read and put into practice.

Can I expand on your wonderful post?

The magazine team aim to tell the fundamental story of our world today and to provide information and knowledge to help us prepare for the story tomorrow.

There’s Development, Politics, Environment, Design, Business, Technology, Theory, Findings, and more.

This is an experiment in media, and yet an old cause in journalism…

The links on the left hand side are light on the *home* page.

But what happens when you read an article?

For instance, this article.

Look at the left-hand links now.

Notice that the relevant ones POP.

They are very easy to read. The contrast is strong.

This contrast — this popping almost out of nowhere — calls your attention to the tag feature and (by its contrast with the nearly invisible affect of the rest of the tags) visually explains how the tags work.

To me this is smart UI design.

The team didn’t fail to consider contrast.

Rather, they considered it deeply and used it effectively.

That’s my opinion, anyway.

(I find Jonathan Snook’s contrast tool invaluable in that respect)
http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html

but tags on the left are too light.

I agree. Visually, it kinda looks cool, however the design lacks functionally integrity. Having #ccc text on #fff background is one thing, but to leave out something as simple as :focus in their CSS demonstrates a very popular myopic understanding of standards-based design.

Of course, I’m being a bit persnickety, yet praise to copy and paste Meyerian reset CSS ought to be a bit more critical.

And why this? http://tinyurl.com/dd5h4z

it would appear that the validator is complaining about missing alt text on images in a slideshow. Some of those images are invisible (via display: none). To a machine, an image that is hidden from the user via CSS still requires an alt text. To a thinking human being, however, an image that is hidden does not require alt text.

Do the other images in the slide show require alt text? They probably do. On the other hand, Tim or Mike might have made the decision that only sighted people who browse with images turned on would bother to visit a JavaScript-powered photo slide show. Thus the absence of alt text in these photos would not be a problem for these users.

(I don’t know if they made that decision based on that rationale, or if the absence of alt text on slide show images is an oversight.)

1
2
3
…

And why this? http://tinyurl.com/dd5h4z

But must we say that Flash-based video players are not web-standards-based? Does that mean that all video isn’t standards-based? Why not throw in GIFs then, too?

@Stefan: Jeffrey wasn’t merely suggesting to visit those pages. He was suggesting to use the cool STUDIO nav feature. Try it.