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

RE: Bobby rating over rated

From: Robert Neff <rneff@bbnow.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:23:59 -0600
To: "Paul Davis" <paul@ten-20.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AHENJNNCANEHAIIBJNDGGEJACEAA.rneff@bbnow.net>
Sorry to hear this example. There is so much mis-information out there and
maybe the EO would like to consider addressing this.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]  On
Behalf Of Paul Davis
Sent:	Monday, February 05, 2001 2:21 AM
To:	w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject:	Bobby rating over rated

Hi Kynn,

Quote
The problem we face is that "Bobby Compliant" may become more
important than "accessible."  (Note that I think there is also a
danger with "WCAG Compliant" in the same way, but at the moment that
risk is smaller than the Bobby problem.)

In other words, people get confused and they think that what they are
trying to do is get a Bobby logo for their front page, when really
what they -should- do is try to make their web pages more accessible.

Pleasantly surprised to note we are singing from the same hymn sheet on
this, ( did I really use that expression? sorry) Ten-20 recently lost out on
a lucrative contract/web build because I stupidly mentioned in the tender
that a Bobby compliant logo was not a vital requirement and did not always
signify accessibility anyway. The contract went to poptel whose own website
is totally inaccessible. Hypocrisy rules it appears. I am totally convinced
that well meaning people in large charities and Government circles are too
convinced of the infallibility of Bobby.

Charley Brown zig zag smiles
Paul Davis
www.ten-20.com The portal website for disabled people and associated
professionals.
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 10:21:49 GMT

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