W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2000

off topic at a tangent(formally Commercial Realities and Accessibility (was: Are Small Text buttons level 2 compliant)

From: Paul Davis <paul@ten-20.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:58:13 +0100
Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000928110815.00af4100@ten-20.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
I would like to thank Tim Stephen Springer for the answer to the mouse 
over/colour change question.

"To this end the new relesase of the diagnostic software we are working on
does take the hover psuedo attribute into effect when distinguishing color
contrast. That [the psuedo attribute] is what forces the color change when
a user moves their mouse over a link."

This however begs the question to be re-asked "does Bobby take colors into 
account" the answer is what I suspected from the start. Therefore it is 
perfectly possible (without being devious or rather imaginative) to obtain 
a bobby approval rating for an totally inaccessible site, after all how 
many sites provide a text only version for back up?

This leads on to what I was saying weeks ago, and got shot down over 
(temporarily, humph.) via private e-mail. Bobby as a tool is great, the 
rating however is academic, the objective is accessibility. Therefore too 
much importance is attached to this rating.

How I would love to copy this topic to Dial UK, but will resist the temptation.

Another question. Recently I wrote an article on the AOL/ NFB issue, I then 
highlighted the get out clauses in red. This posed us a problem of how to 
convey that these sentences are in red, without affecting the visual 
versions' readability. I am sure this is elementary stuff, err, any 
suggestions?

smiles
Paul Davis
www.ten-20.com The UK portal site for disabled people and associated 
professionals.
Received on Thursday, 28 September 2000 06:57:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:49 GMT