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

Re: bobby compliant

From: Marti <marti@agassa.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:26:26 -0500
Message-ID: <013801c08f88$020ffba0$a3d6db3f@cais.net>
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Cc: <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, <bobby@cast.org>
Hmm - I guess I sounded more derogatory of Bobby than I really meant to be.
I think it is a very useful tool, the problem I see is not so much with
Booby but with the way it is mis-used, mis-understood. It seems to me that
the manual checks portion is often ignored, or least not taken seriously,
leading to sites with the Bobby logo that are not really accessible.
marti

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>; <marti@agassa.com>
Cc: <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>; <bobby@cast.org>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: bobby compliant


> 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 -0500Subject: Re: bobby compliantI have to agree with Kynn
on this one.  Bobby is a useful tool, but toooften 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 10:05:58 GMT

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