- From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 09:37:59 -0400
- To: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: <chuckop@coppersoftware.com>, <uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu>, <basr-l@trace.wisc.edu>, "Michael Cooper" <mcooper@cast.org>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
The voices championing usability were just as loud (on the WAI lists anyway) as those arguing for philosophical completeness. The sad thing is that such choices were NOT mutually exclusive. Cast choose the academic over the practical, and that's their right to make such a decision. They are, after all, providing a great a valuable service for free! I am very much looking forward to this new version you refer to. > -----Original Message----- > >> Yep. The Bobby report is verbose to the point of being useless. >> The CAST folks think that this is a feature. What can be done? > > I put more of the "blame" on us WAI folks for forcing or at least > requesting that CAST make Bobby check every little thing that the WCAG > guidelines ask for - even if it had to be a manual check. > Sometimes we err > on academic purity rather than practical usefulness. But the good news is > that the next release of Bobby will allow one to select which checks to > conduct. For example, you could ask Bobby to only check the machine > checkable priority one items. You will even be able to select which > priority one items to check. Of course CAST have been working to improve > the algorithms of the checking that it does. So most of the problems that > Charles noted should be fixed as well as others he didn't note. > > What else can be done you ask? - review and comment on the Evaluation and > Repair Techniques document - upon which Bobby will be basing it's checking > algorithms. See http://www.w3.org/TR/AERT > > Regards, > Phill Jenkins, IBM
Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2000 09:41:53 UTC