W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: Alternative validation tools.

From: Chuck Hitchcock <chitchcock@cast.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:25:46 -0500
To: "'Tim Roberts'" <tim@wiseguysonly.com>, "'WAI list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001401c2a772$ea99e620$6501a8c0@CHTHINKPADA30P>

I'd like to mention that the free page test limits are due primarily to
the abuse of developers who wrote scripts to run against the Bobby
server attempting to replicate the functionality of the $99.00 Bobby

Those scripts were taking the CAST server down so often that there were
periods when Bobby was not available at all.  I understand that
Watchfire had the same experience and found it necessary to impose
similar limits.

Note that CAST has been very pleased that Watchfire has been willing
continue offering a free version of Bobby along with the $99 client
version.  They have already integrated Bobby into their desktop Web QA
product and their high end enterprise Web MX used by large corporations
where it is likely to have a significant impact on Web accessibility.
Fortunately, many of the testing and reporting improvements have also
been implemented in the $99 client as well.

I am completely sold on the idea of using one test suite for Web content
analysis that includes accessibility among other things such as link
integrity, syntax, privacy, and more.   

Chief Education Technology Officer

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Tim Roberts
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 9:13 AM
To: WAI list
Subject: Alternative validation tools.

Seeing as Bobby (under the control of Watchfire) is impeding the
efficiency of developers by limiting requests to one a minute, does
anyone have any suggestions for worthwhile validation tools?

Tim Roberts <tim@wiseguysonly.com>
Received on Thursday, 19 December 2002 10:30:11 UTC

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