W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: bobby compliant

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:42:48 -0500
Message-ID: <5DCA49BDD2B0D41186CE00508B6BEBD030055B@wdcrobexc01.ed.gov>
To: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "'marti@agassa.com'" <marti@agassa.com>
Cc: "'kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com'" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, "'bobby@cast.org'" <bobby@cast.org>
Dear Marti et al.,

I've been as much a critic of Bobby as anyone.  Still, I would disagree with
your statement that "passing Bobby does not mean a site is accessible".
Passing Bobby _IS_ a fair test for accessibility!

The problem is usually some combination of:
(1)  Ignoring the manual checks.
(2)  Testing only the homepage and not the site (this is NOT in conformance
with how CAST says the logo should be used).
(3)  Not re-testing pages when new content is added.
(4)  Using the logo as some sort of award badge -- without deserving it.

Please note that ALL of the above could happen with the WCAG conformance
logos or, the "valid html" buttons, or any "award" type graphic for that
matter!  I don't think it's fair to blame CAST for any of these abuses.

Seeing a "top 10 web site" graphic doesn't REALLY mean that the site is in
the top ten!  Seeing a "valid html" button doesn't REALLY mean that the site
uses syntactically correct HTML!  Presumably, in both cases, one has some
way to check on an author's claim.  This is the case for Bobby as well!
(Which is why it's a good idea to link the Bobby logo to a live test of the
page that claims conformance.  It is too bad that CAST hasn't done much to
encouraged this practice.)

On the other hand, a Bobby graphic is a good indication that the site owner
will fix the problem if approached in a business-like fashion.  My personal
experience with this has been very positive (although there were a few sites
who just took down the Bobby logo rather than fix the problems).

With regard to Kynn's understandable distaste for the cartoon policeman:
CAST offers alternatives that are more tame -- and I've posted a few to this
list that I made up myself that I thought were better (smaller, easier to
read, more muted).

Please CC your thoughts on Bobby to CAST.  They do listen, even if they
don't obey!

-- Bruce


Message-ID: <007f01c08ee6$a5441a60$a3d6db3f@cais.net>
From: "Marti" <marti@agassa.com>
To: "Robert Neff" <rneff@bbnow.net>, "Kynn Bartlett"
<kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: "W3c-Wai-Ig" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 15:11:22 -0500
Subject: Re: bobby compliant

I have to agree with Kynn on this one.  Bobby is a useful tool, but too
often mis-used and mis-understood. Wouldn't it be nice to have a short,
clear explanation of why passing Bobby does not mean a site is accessible?
Marti
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 09:43:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:53 GMT