W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: The Cult of Pseudo Accessibility

From: James Craig <work@cookiecrook.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:34:49 -0600
Message-ID: <3FD78369.5000007@cookiecrook.com>
To: "WAI Mailing list (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Cc: gdeering@acslink.net.au

Geoff Deering wrote:

> As a programmer you should know that all they have to do is at least in 
> this situation parse the functions calls and match them in a DOM tree 
> table to see if they meet critical or none critical criteria and flag 
> them as such?
> 
> Now why hasn't anyone done this?

As a programmer, building a validator that includes a JavaScript 
interpreter seems like an enourmously daunting task. You mentioned you 
were talking about changes that were "darn right easy to do."

Have you been watching the progress of the WAIzilla project? That where 
I'd start if you want that kind of functionality. Get involved in the 
project and help develop a better one. I suppose you might be able to 
modify the validator to work in conjunction with the DOM inspector, but 
even leveraging the tools available, it's a daunting task.

>> PS. I just know that last sentence is gonna come back to haunt me.
> 
> Well I do definitely know Bobby CAN be used for good.

I was just joking about my sentence being taken out-of-contenxt: "Bobby 
and guns can be used for good..." ;)

> But if I was involved in that project at Watchfire I'd be ashamed.

Well I believe at least one Watchfire developer is on this list. I've 
mentioned specific validation problems here before and they were fixed 
quite promptly.

If you have some specific milestones in mind, you might mention them 
here. Start small and be constructive. Since I'm not involved in the 
Bobby project, I was able to read through your frustration and 
understand your concerns. I'm afraid I may not have been as receptive to 
your ideas had I been involved; I probably would have been put-off by 
your initial tone.

I suggest you start a new thread with a subject like: "Bobby: suggested 
improvements" to get their attention in case they missed this thread. 
Remember, be constructive. I'm not trying to patronize by repeating 
that, but I realize how easy it is to be overly-critical. I do it too 
often, to mixed reception.

Good luck,
James Craig

-- 
http://cookiecrook.com/
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2003 15:34:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:13 GMT