List of Charities
Descriptions of all graphics
This one-click charity is Not Recommended.
Note: this site has a partner shop portion that is hosted offsite under a different URL and managed by the partner company. Only pages under the iwantcleanair.com domain were examined for the purpose of this review.
Date of Review: December 6, 2001
Pertinent data for this site:
- Owned by: not stated
- Owner profit type: not stated, presumably for-profit since they have a sideline store
- URL: http://www.iwantcleanair.com/
- Donations go to:
- Percentage of revenue that goes to the beneficiary: not stated, but 1% of purchases also goes to beneficiary
- Method of payment: not stated
- Geographic limitations: USA
- Language(s): English
- Calendar day for this site starts at: not stated
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.
How this site scored on the criteria (version 1.21):
- I have confirmed that the beneficiaries are getting the money owed them as follows:
- The Clean Air Conservancy provides a link to the site from their main page. All attempts to contact The Clean Air Conservancy for further confirmation failed as there was no reply. Chances are, the beneficiary knows that the site is supposed to be sending funds, and given the lack of reply, I'll leave it up to the beneficiary to ensure that it does indeed received those funds.
- Contact data for the one-click company/individual is displayed on the site as follows:
- Email or Form Mail (required) - provided at the bottom of every page
- Phone number (strongly recommended) - not given
- Postal address (strongly recommended) - not given
- There is a clear description of who gets the money, as follows:
- There is clear indication that the site is still operating (as of the date of this review) as follows:
- There are no donation totals posted. Many graphics do not load, and some links to partner sites and news articles have expired. The headlines page is several months out of date, although it looks like it was maintained regularly until July. There is mention of a recent conference on the links page, but an event like that could have been listed long before, and the link above it mentions a due date in July, further indicating that no new updates have been made since July. Although there is a store with items shown on the I Want Clean Air site, the store is entirely managed by a partner company under a separate URL, so this cannot count towards demonstrating that the I Want Clean Air site is current and updated. Overall, the site gives the impression of abandonment since sometime in July.
- 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.
- The site counts donations regardless of user input or registration.
- As stated above, the donation now requires users to input their country, although there is probably nothing stopping anyone from submitting a false entry.
- There is no apparent conflict of interest.
- 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:
- Partnership in a store selling environmental products is well-stated throughout the site, although the actual details of whether or not the site owner is for-profit, their name, etc. is not stated. Given that there is the ulterior motive of drawing in users to do shopping, users should be provided with more ownership details regarding the site. It is unclear how deep this partnership with EFI (the company running the store) runs, although a whois check does show that the domains are owned by separate entities in different states.
- The site has up-to-date, accurate information throughout, as follows:
- The headlines page is several months out of date, although it looks like it was maintained regularly until July. There are broken, expired links such one to a company called BreatheFree, purported to be a seller of filters and health products. Other links are marked as having moved, but have not been updated, such as the link to the EPA Acid Rain Program on the links page. Several graphics are missing, possibly also expired.
- The site has a good frequently asked questions (FAQ) area.
- Although there isn't one single FAQ, there are a few pages that attempt to answer user questions. Some information is still missing, such as details of ownership, indications of when the calendar day begins, etc., but at least there is some information available. It needs improvement, but given how tough I'm being on other criteria, I'll give them credit on this one.
- The money is not just being collected for the future; it is in use now.
- The site specifies how much each sponsor pays per click as follows:
- The site is accessible to the disabled or to slow computers as follows:
- Bobby test results (for the main page only):
This site has failed to put an ALT on all graphics, which makes reading and navigation by text browsers or screen readers for blind users very difficult. Some of the user checks may also apply.
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 102, Line 110, Line 276, Line 303
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 7 item(s):
- If you use color to convey information, make sure the information is also represented another way.
- If this is a data table (not used for layout only), identify headers for the table rows and columns. (3 instances)
Line 243, Line 301, Line 324
- If an image conveys important information beyond what is in its alternative text, provide an extended description. (12 instances)
Line 89, Line 108, Line 247, Line 252, Line 259, Line 303, Line 306, Line 328, Line 335, Line 340, Line 354, Line 358
- If the submit button is used as an image map, use separate buttons for each active region. (1 instance)
- If style sheets are ignored or unsupported, are pages still readable and usable?
- If a table has two or more rows or columns that serve as headers, use structural markup to identify their hierarchy and relationship. (13 instances)
Line 80, Line 102, Line 105, Line 87, Line 243, Line 301, Line 298, Line 324, Line 320, Line 353, Line 229, Line 370, Line 122
- Provide alternative content for each SCRIPT that conveys important information or functionality.
- Standard elements such as ALT tags are NOT present
- Some parts of the main page look reasonable in Lynx because it is largely text-based. However, the donate graphic is missing entirely and there is no way to donate. This means anyone using a non-graphical browser probably cannot contribute, which excludes blind people using screen readers, people using older university or library terminals, people with slow Internet connections who have opted to turn graphics off for better page loading, etc.
- This site has good navigability as follows:
- Navigation information on every page (strongly recommended) - Navigation information is present on most, but not all pages. For example, it is missing from the shop entry page. The navigation information moves around on some pages, such as the headline page, which moves it from the sidebar where it is on most pages to the top of the page in a frame instead. Inconsistency like this can make navigation more frustrating than necessary for users.
- Navigational graphics and image maps have ALTs or other workarounds - the all-important link graphic has no ALT and no way to "click" it from Lynx.
- Good navigation elements include:
- URLs are short and logical
- The site is aesthetically pleasing and uncomplicated, as follows:
- Good design elements include:
- no animated gifs other than the ads
- good colour scheme
- The site does not promote, inadvertently or otherwise, poor behaviour such as spam.
- The tell a friend feature could potentially allow someone to spam unknown persons, either in a misguided attempt to help or out of prankster malice. There is no anti-spam policy discouraging this behaviour.
- Cookies are not required for donations to count.
- If the money collected is only going to one country or smaller geographical division, this is noted as follows:
- There is mention of the problem as it pertains to the US, and the implication is given that the money being raised will be used in the US almost entirely.
- There is detailed, accurate information about why the money is needed, and statistics are used in a responsible, contextual manner.
- Several pages provide detailed information on the problem of air pollution. There is no real citation of any of the facts, however, which minimizes the potential impact of the points being made. Statistics similarly are used without context or citation. But it looks like an effort was made to provide information, so I'll give the site this point for this review. However, if citations are not improved by the next review, I may consider downgrading this point.
- Donation totals are posted. Non-daily totals or batch-posted totals include a statement as to how often the totals are updated.
- No donation totals posted.
Considerations outside of criteria
This site starts off decently, appearing at casual glance to be one that began with a lot of well-intentioned effort. There are lots of news stories linked in May, June and July 2001, indicating that someone did a lot of work looking up current information. There are definitions and explanations that could do with citations, but otherwise are fairly strong.
However, it looks as though whomever was maintaining the site ceased to do so sometime in July. Banners and links no longer go where they're supposed to. There is no hint of recent news stories. The site gives the feeling of a good project that was unceremoniously dumped one day.
Normally, I do not count a mere link to the donation site from the beneficiary page as sufficient confirmation of receipt of funds. I usually seek out more specific confirmation unless the beneficiary site clearly says something to the effect of, "Go to this site and click to donate because we get money from them." In this case, however, I waited months for that extra bit of confirmation and it never arrived. Given that the donation site appears to be abandoned, I thought it best to do a full review and mark it as Not Recommended as a warning to potential users, despite the link from the beneficiary.
Missing/unclear information: owner details, percentage of click revenue that goes to beneficiary, when calendar day starts for clicking purposes, phone number, postal address, amount collected/donated per click, and whether cookies are required to donate. This information would be best collected into a single FAQ where users could access it easily. Statistics and facts should have citations for added legitimacy.
The site appears to have been abandoned around July, 2001. There is no indication of update past that point. News lists end abruptly then. Several links have expired, as have some graphics.
Because owner details are not provided, it is unclear whether or not the site has an ulterior motive of drawing in users to purchase products, or if that is simply a sideline interest.
Site is inaccessible due to missing ALTs. Plus, the donate button/link did not appear at all in a Lynx test, implying that non-graphical users may not be able to participate at all.
Navigation isn't always present, nor is it consistent. Plus, as stated above, there are broken and out-of-date links.
The tell-a-friend feature could encourage spamming, and there is no anti-spam policy.
No donation totals posted.
- Original Review
- Date: December 6, 2001
- Grade: Not Recommended
- Missing/unclear information:
- owner details
- percentage of click revenue that goes to beneficiary
- when calendar day starts for clicking purposes
- phone number
- postal address
- amount collected/donated per click
- whether cookies are required to donate
- Statistics and facts should have citations for added legitimacy.
- Site appears to have been abandoned in or around July, 2001.
- Users are required to enter a country of residence as part of clicking.
- Unclear owner details means it's hard to tell if there's an ulterior motive in selling products.
- Site is inaccessible due to missing ALTs.
- Donate button/link did not appear at all in a Lynx test.
- Navigation isn't always present, nor is it consistent.
- Several broken/expired links and graphics.
- The tell-a-friend feature could encourage spamming, and there is no anti-spam policy.