W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 1998

Re: Bobby and Guidelines

From: Randall W. Clark <wz297@victoria.tc.ca>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
cc: Taylor-Made <taymade@csinet.net>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.980421105202.16307A-100000@vtn1>
Fuck off and die assholes take me off the fuckin mail list !!!

I would like to change the world but, 
    I dont have the source code.

Member of the Freedom of infromation (F.I.V.G)
ReBoot.

On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> Hey folks. Remember that Bobby is not perfect, but an attempt to 
> automatically check your code. For that matter the guidelines are 
> probably not perfect either.
> 
> The difficulty here is that Bobby has in the past given 4 stars to 
> inaccessible websites, and only one to very accessible ones. These 
> things need to be tempered with a bit of old-fashioned rainpower to work 
> as well as possible.
> 
> I had a look at Richard's deafwatch front page ( http://www.deafwatch.com/
> ), and thought that it was not too bad. Improvements could be made by
> removing MARQUEE as it is not an HTML element, giving IMAGES titles and
> longdesc/D-links as well as ALT text (more work, but hopefully it can be
> partially automated. My _personal_ feeling is that LONGDESC and a D-link
> should both be used, pointing to the same thing, that TITLE should provide
> the functional description of a resource and that ALT should attempt to
> capture whatever is most important in a few succinct words) and by using
> style sheets instead of hard-formatted styles. 
> 
> But so far as I can see there is nothing actually inaccessible about the
> page as it stands. (Any thoughts folks?)
> 
> Charles McCathieNevile
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 1998 13:59:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:39 GMT