The One-Click Charity Check portion of is on hiatus. This page exists for archival purposes only. All information on this page should be considered out of date as of April 14, 2004.

Skip Navigation, Jump to Content.

One-Click Charity Check: A Resource for Supporters of One-Click Charities







Privacy Policy

List of Charities


Sample Charity


Content Ratings

Site Map

Open Directory Cool Site

A-Prompt A

Valid HTML 4.01!

Valid CSS!

Level A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0

Labelled with ICRA

SafeSurf Rated

Best viewed with ANY browser

Made with Notepad

Other awards:

2001-2002 Golden Web Award

Descriptions of all graphics

Clear Land Mines

Clear Land Mines

This site is graded C by One-Click Charity Check
This one-click charity is approved and has a grade of C.

Date of Review: July 23, 2001

Pertinent data for this site:

Jump to the summary of what this site should do to improve

Criteria that have been met will have a checkmark graphic, and criteria that have not been met will have an X-mark graphic, as shown below. Further details will be listed below each criteria specifying what elements resulted in the checkmark or X-mark.

[Checkmark] [X-mark]

How this site scored on the criteria (version 1.21):

Critical Criteria

  1. [Checkmark] I have confirmed that the beneficiaries are getting the money owed them as follows:
    • The site is owned by its beneficiary. This isn't clearly stated on the site, and should be. The Canadian Landmine Foundation site features a graphic and link to Clear Land Mines, and I received email confirmation from Jessamyn Waldman of The Canadian Landmine Foundation that Clear Land Mines is owned/operated by her organization. Obviously, since the beneficiary owns the site, they are getting the money from it.
  2. [Checkmark] Contact data for the one-click company/individual is displayed on the site as follows:
    • Email or Form Mail (required) - shown on the home page and another address on the sponsor page
    • Phone number (strongly recommended) - not given, and it should be since it is on the owner/beneficiary's page
    • Postal address (strongly recommended) - not given, and it should be since it is on the owner/beneficiary's page
  3. [Checkmark] There is a clear description of who gets the money, as follows:
  4. [Checkmark] There is clear indication that the site is still operating (as of the date of this review) as follows:
    • The Donation Totals page is current as of the day of the review, but that is because it is run by a script. I happen to have obtained proof that the site is still operating via the confirmation from the beneficiary, however, there is no other sign that the site is still active. I am giving Clear Land Mines credit for this review, but by next time if there is no other evidence that the site is still operating, I will downgrade this point. Ways to demonstrate that the site is still active could include: putting "last updated" dates on pages; providing up-to-date details on the progress of specific projects; or providing current land mine data and making sure this information has dates attached.
  5. [Checkmark] The site does not require users to visit another site, nor perform any activity other than clicking on a donate button/graphic for a donation to count.
  6. [Checkmark] The site counts donations regardless of user input or registration.

Important Criteria

  1. [Checkmark] There is no apparent conflict of interest.
  2. [X-mark] All possible ulterior motives (such as religious affiliation, being part of another organization, being part of a marketing campaign from some corporate entity, etc.) are listed as follows:
    • Ownership by the beneficiary is not stated. While this is not strictly an ulterior motive, it is negligent of the site to not state that it is owned by another organization.
  3. [X-mark] The site has up-to-date, accurate information throughout, as follows:
    • Except for the donation totals, which are run by a script, the information on this site is not current. The "current" cost of Internet advertising stated on the sponsor page is from June of 1999. The About Land Mines page has statistical information, but most of it is not dated, so it's impossible to know how current it is. The only date given is in reference to the US failure to sign the Ottawa treaty, which was in 1998.
  4. [Checkmark] The site has a good frequently asked questions (FAQ) area.
  5. [Checkmark] The money is not just being collected for the future; it is in use now.
  6. [Checkmark] The site specifies how much each sponsor pays per click as follows:
    • The Thank You page says each sponsor pays for 21 cm². The sponsor page specifies that sponsors pay 0.5 cents per click.
    • Type of currency is NOT stated, and should be.
  7. [X-mark] There is a clear privacy policy.
    • No privacy policy found.
  8. [Checkmark] Users can access information about the site, such as the FAQ, Privacy Policy, etc. before clicking to donate. Sites that require the user to donate before providing links to information are asking the user to donate blindly, and that is unfair.

Useful Criteria

  1. [X-mark] The site is accessible to the disabled or to slow computers as follows (NOTE: Bobby's test page was down during the review, so I used the downloaded Bobby software resident on my own computer to run the test. The results should be the same.):
    • Bobby test results (for the main page only):

      This page does not meet the requirements for Bobby Approved status. Below is a list of 1 Priority 1 accessibility errors found:

      • Give each frame a title. (3 instances) Line 10, Line 13, Line 16

      That portion of the test applies only to the HTML that establishes the frames. I pulled out the body frame and re-ran the test to get the following result:

      This page does not meet the requirements for Bobby Approved status. Below is a list of 1 Priority 1 accessibility errors found:

      • Provide alternative text for all images. (4 instances) Line 67, Line 68, Line 69, Line 70

      User checks are triggered by something specific on the page; however, you need to determine whether they apply. Bobby Approval requires that none of them apply to your page. Please review these 5 item(s):

      • For tables not used for layout (for example, a spreadsheet), identify headers for the table rows and columns. (2 instances) Line 77, Line 65
      • If an image conveys important information beyond what is its alternative text, provide an extended description. (12 instances) Line 68, Line 69, Line 70, Line 73, Line 79, Line 80, Line 83, Line 86, Line 89, Line 92, Line 95, Line 139
      • If a table has two or more rows or columns that serve as headers, use structural markup to identify their hierarchy and relationship. (2 instances) Line 77, Line 65
      • If you use color to convey information, make sure the information is also represented another way.
      • Provide alternative content for each SCRIPT that conveys important information or functionality.
      It looks like the missing ALTs are spacer graphics. While it is understandable to not want to have an ALT that will appear on a spacer, the fact is that spacers graphics are an inefficient, poor method of creating layout. If the site administrators are really set on using spacer graphics, they should provide ALTs so users who aren't able to see the graphics know that they're just spacers, and not something important.
    • Standard elements such as ALT tags are not always present
    • Site looks reasonable in Lynx
  2. [Checkmark] This site has good navigability as follows:
    • navigation information on every page except the Thank You page
    • navigation does not require javascript, frames, etc. without an alternative
    • all links seem to work and go where the user will assume they're going
    • navigational graphics and image maps have ALTs or other workarounds
    • URLs are short and logical
  3. [Checkmark] The site is aesthetically pleasing and uncomplicated, as follows:
    • no animated gifs other than the ads
    • good colour scheme
    • no javascript and other useless toys, although there are frames
  4. [X-mark] The site does not promote, inadvertently or otherwise, poor behaviour such as spam.
    • Most pages have a Tell-A-Friend feature, but there is no anti-spam policy on the site. While it is good that the Tell-A-Friend feature uses the sender's own email, thus reducing the chance of false addresses being used, it still enables a well-intentioned person to spam everyone they know. This is counterproductive to the cause, and could generate anger towards the site. The site should include a few sentences in the FAQ or elsewhere explaining that they would appreciate people not spamming in their name.
  5. [Checkmark] Cookies are not required for donations to count.
    • I denied the cookies in Lynx and was still able to donate, but I couldn't be sure if the donation counted. The site should make it clear in the FAQ whether or not cookies are required for donations to count. I'm giving the site the benefit of the doubt for this review, but if no declaration is posted by the next review, I may consider downgrading this point.
  6. [Checkmark] If the money collected is only going to one country or smaller geographical division, this is noted as follows:
    • Not applicable.
  7. [Checkmark] There is detailed, accurate information about why the money is needed, and statistics are used in a responsible, contextual manner.
    • The About Land Mines page has statistical information pertaining to the use, clearing, and ban of land mines. This information could be improved by citing a source and indicating how current it is.
  8. [Checkmark] Donation totals are posted.

Considerations outside of criteria

This is a professionally-designed site, as noted on most pages. As such, there isn't much excuse for small problems like untitled frames and missing ALTs on spacers, lack of phone number and address (which are posted on the owner/beneficiary's site, created by the same design company), and failure to mention that the beneficiary is the owner. While it might be in the design company's best interest to set up a site that runs without maintenance, users need some kind of assurance that sites such as this one haven't been abandoned. Donation totals run by a script could continue to count donations long after sponsors have stopped paying. As such, some indication that the site is still live should be present.

Most of the problems on Clear Land Mines are simple things that could be fixed. Whether or not the design company feels the opinions of a reviewer, or even users, are worth listening to remains to be seen. However, since this is a professional page, I won't give the same concessions I give to sites run by generous individuals. The next review will likely take a harder stance on some issues, particularly those related to demonstrating that the site is still active.

Summary of what this site should do to improve

The fact that the site is owned by its stated beneficiary should be mentioned somewhere on the site. The FAQ would be a good place for this.

This site needs something to indicate that it is still operational. The donation totals are run by a script, and could continue to function even if the site was no longer collecting money from sponsors. Putting "last updated" dates on pages, citing dates and sources for statistics, or some other means of letting users know the site is still live should be added. Old information should be updated or removed, or an explanation should be given as to why such old information is still being cited.

Given that the phone number and address of the owner/beneficiary are given on their site, there's no reason to withhold them on Clear Land Mines.

The type of currency being collected should be stated. Because a high proportion of Internet users and one-click sites are based in the US, many users will assume the currency is US dollars, which may be inaccurate given that this is a Canadian site. The fact that a page compares advertising rates stated in a US publication adds to the confusion.

The site should provide a privacy policy.

Frames should be titled in order to be disabled accessible, and ALT tags should be put on every graphic. Spacer graphics should probably be replaced by proper layout HTML, or labelled with ALTs at the very least.

The site needs an anti-spam policy to accompany it's tell-a-friend feature.

Clarification is needed as to whether or not cookies are required for a donation to count.

Review History:

  • Original Review
    • Date: July 23, 2001
    • Grade: C
    • Problems:
      • No mention that site is owned by beneficiary
      • No indication of currency except for donation totals run by a script
      • Sources for statistics should be provided, and stats should be dated
      • Phone number and address should be provided, since they are on beneficiary page
      • Type of currency should be stated
      • No privacy policy
      • Frames aren't titled (required for Bobby)
      • ALT tags missing on spacer graphics
      • No anti-spam policy to go with tell-a-friend feature
      • Clarification regarding cookies is needed

This page was last updated on July 23, 2001.

Home - About - FAQ - Criteria - Contact - Forum

Privacy Policy - List of Charities - Links - Sample Charity - Press - Content Ratings - Site Map

Copyright © 2001-2003 One-Click Charity Check. All rights reserved.

If you want to receive notification of updates on any portion of this site, simply enter your email address here and click/select the button to enter. You will be required to sign up for a free Yahoo! account to complete registration. Please note that Yahoo!'s privacy policy and other management are outside of's responsibility. Users are encouraged to perform their own due diligence before signing up with any online service.

To find out more about the list or read messages without signing up, please visit the Yahoo! page for the kimberlychapman updates mailing list.