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

Re: hmmm

From: John T. Whelan <whelan@physics.utah.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:04:21 -0600
Message-Id: <199808181604.KAA52600@einstein.physics.utah.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Cc: bbailey@clark.net, dmclark@cast.org
>So, what do people think of the new Bobby reporting format?

>Personally, I preferred the binary okay / not-okay-and-here-are-the-reasons
>rating, even if such a quantifiable state was illusionary.  CAST has covered
>their bases, and provides much more information, but I wish the extra
>feedback was optional instead of default.

	I think the recommendations, questions and tips are useful,
since they may make people think of improvements that haven't occurred
to them, such as the ABBR and ACRONYM tags.  As long as the pass/fail
and errors come first, people who don't care about the rest don't need
to scroll any farther.  One change that might be useful is to put the
accessability rating at the top of the report, before the display of
the page's contents.

	Speaking of Bobby, I have to express some confusion over the
"If none of the web pages on your site contain accessibility errors"
condition.  How does one define a "site"?  My web pages fall into
several self-contained units, but each of them lives on a larger site
over which I have no control.  Is the Utah relativity homepage
<http://www.physics.utah.edu/research/relativity> only allowed to
display the "Bobby Approved" icon if all of the pages on
<http://www.physics.utah.edu/> pass muster?  That's impossible unless
we get every member of the department to make their personal pages
					John T. Whelan
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 1998 12:03:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:01 UTC