- From: Waddell, Cynthia <cynthia.waddell@ci.sj.ca.us>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:45:11 -0700
- To: "'uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu'" <uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu>, basr-l@trace.wisc.edu, w3c-wai-gl@W3.ORG
- Cc: chuckop@coppersoftware.com, w3c-wai-er-ig@W3.ORG, bobby <bobby@cast.org>
Thank you Michael. Cynthia D. Waddell --------------------------------------------------- Cynthia D. Waddell ADA Coordinator City Manager Department City of San Jose, CA USA 801 North First Street, Room 460 San Jose, CA 95110-1704 (408)277-4034 (408)971-0134 TTY (408)277-3885 FAX http://www.icdri.org/cynthia_waddell.htm -----Original Message----- From: Michael Cooper [mailto:mcooper@cast.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 4:21 AM To: uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu; basr-l@trace.wisc.edu; w3c-wai-gl@W3.ORG Cc: chuckop@coppersoftware.com; w3c-wai-er-ig@W3.ORG; bobby Subject: RE: Bobby output daunting on accessible page Hi all - sorry to make such a delayed response to this thread, I just got the messages today, my email access has been sporadic during my time in Amsterdam. I'll start by seconding what Phill Jenkins and Chuck Hitchcock have already said - we do attempt to provide completeness of coverage of the guidelines; currently this is at an expense of usability, which we fully acknowledge and are working on solutions. Coming up with these solutions requires significant design time, and we benefit greatly from feedback in forums such as this and our email at bobby@cast.org. Implementing solutions is also a large task for us in the current architecture, which is several years old, so the solutions have not come as quickly as many, including us, would like. We have a plan in place to rewrite Bobby from the ground up, with the specific intent of creating an architecutre that will enable us to address issues like this more quickly; we also want to enlarge the team to improve our response time. We have not yet ascertained how to fund this enlargement of the project as new sponsors have been slow to appear, but we are working on this and I am hopeful that we will in fact be able to move forward on that work soon. In the meantime, we have focused our efforts on developing a version 3.2 that, more or less, addresses the largest issues that have been brought to us. Many unexpected development cycle issues have delayed this release, including most recently the loss of our previous programmer, but we do think we are close to that release. As Phill mentioned, one of the projects has been to add the ability to filter guidelines out of the report that you don't want. The filter can be on the basis of a particular priority level, or on the "automaticity" of the guidelines so you aren't presented with issues that may or may not be relevant to a particular page, etc. The "Bobby Approved" rating will continue to require compliance with all Priority 1 checkpoints, so users who use this filter option will need to account for that if they seek to claim Bobby Approved status. For many people, though, that is not the goal and the suppression of unwanted checkpoints will increase the relevance of the report. The other major goal for this release has been to improve the accuracy of our evaluation as much as possible within the current architecture. Again, Phill mentioned the guidelines from the WAI Evaluation and Repair group, to which we have actively contributed and from which we have drawn extensively in the 3.2 implementation. We have moved many items from "partial detection" to "complete detection" status, and many more from "no detection" to "partial detection" status, so this version will also be inherently more useful even without the report filtering option. Here I should describe the distinction between the above detection types, which I think is at the core of the confusion I see here. Again, I acknowledge that the wording of the report does not explain this well, and we are trying to find a terse wording [a non-terse wording would introduce another usabilty problem] that will do so. Broadly, "complete detection" items can be detected definitively by Bobby. "Partial detection" items are more confusing - it means a trigger exists which tells Bobby it needs to ask a question, but it cannot answer the question fully on its own. For example, if a <TABLE> is found, there are guidelines that apply only if the table is used for layout, and others only if it is used for data, but Bobby does not have a heuristic to determine which role the table plays, so it has to ask, as in "If this table contains data in rows and columns ...". For another example, we have not yet written a module to allow Bobby to evaluate script languages, so whenever it detects a <SCRIPT> element it has to ask a series of questions related to scripts. The third category, "no detection", is straightforward though not clearly differentiated from the others in the report; basically there are no particular triggers we could give Bobby, such as the checkpoint to use navigation bars - there is no <NAVBAR> element, so any group of images and/or links may or may not be a navigation bar. Bobby just asks those questions in every report. I could go over each of the Bobby report items that confused you and fit them into the explanations above, but that's probably not a good use of this forum. Let me just speak to a couple that are especially relevant. The one about properly positioning form labels - that is triggered actually be the presence of form controls, not <LABEL> elements. This is because it's a backwards-compatibility checkpoint; people whose browsers, screen readers, Braille displays, etc. don't support the <LABEL> element have no way of knowing which piece of text functions as the label for a form control except by positional context. So proper use of the <LABEL> element does not, currently, remove the need to also consider label positioning. Another example, the advisory to use Q and BLOCKQUOTE elements - this is one of the ones asked on every page - Bobby can't detect the presence of quotes on the page that may need this markup, so it's just asked. Finally, the browser compatibility error - I tend to see those as advisories - they indicate elements, attributes, and values that are not supported by a particular browser. However, browsers support different sets (thus the need for browser compatibility tests), and since the usual behavior is to ignore unknown elements and attributes, if you know something functions properly in one target browser it's probably ok for the rest. Note too that as far as Bobby is concerned HTML 4.0 is a "browser" even though it's really a specification. We've been working on the explanations of these items (that you get by selecting the hyperlinked error title in the report) and hope they will also be much clearer in Bobby 3.2. The best ways you can help us to reduce confusions caused by Bobby's implementation of the Guidelines is to send us feedback to bobby@cast.org and, if you represent an organization that is a potential funder, contact our development officer, Don Giller, dgiller@cast.org. I assure you that we are committed to providing the best support for the guidelines possible for us, and to keeping Bobby available for free at the same time. Many thanks to our funders who have made the current work possible: IBM Special Needs Systems, Microsoft Accessibility, Misubishi Electric America Foundation, Sun Microsystems Enabling Technologies Program, and HalfthePlanet.com. Michael Cooper Bobby Project Manager CAST, Inc. 39 Cross St. Peabody, MA 01960 Tel +1 978-531-8555 x265 TTY +1 978-538-3110 Fax +1 978-531-0192 Email mcooper@cast.org http://www.cast.org/ http://www.cast.org/bobby/ -----Original Message----- From: owner-uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu [mailto:owner-uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu]On Behalf Of Charles Oppermann Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 4:07 PM To: uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu; basr-l@trace.wisc.edu Cc: bobby Subject: Bobby output daunting on accessible page In response to a question about multiple selection controls in HTML, I wrote an short page that demonstrates two examples of the <SELECT> tag in HTML. I used FrontPage 2000 to create the page and used it's built-in features to create the <SELECT> elements, <LABEL> elements and ALT attributes. I then took time to tweak the HTML for better accessibility by adding TITLE and ACCESSKEY attributes. The page is at http://www.coppersoftware .com/Software/accessibility/select_example.html . I used LYNX 2.8.1 (Win32 version) to test the page and then ran it through Bobby and was shocked to see the number of reported errors that were returned on the page. Here is a condensed list: "P1 - Manual check" (apparently things that Bobby can't figure out on it's own) 1. Ensure that descriptions of dynamic content are updated with changes in content. 2. Make sure that style sheets transform gracefully. 3. If any of the images on this page convey important information beyond what is in each image's alternative text, add a LONGDESC attribute. (2 instances) 4. If this table contains data in rows and columns (i.e. a spreadsheet), have you identified headers for the table rows and columns? (3 instances) 5. If any of the images on this page convey important information beyond what is in each image's alternative text, add descriptive (D) links. (2 instances) "P2 - Manual check" 1. Mark up quotations with the Q and BLOCKQUOTE elements. 2. Did you avoid using movement where possible? (2 instances) 3. Make sure that headings are nested properly. 4. Do not use pop-up windows or change active window unless the user is aware this is happening. (1 instance) 5. Do labels of all form controls immediately follow its control on the same line? (8 instances) 6. Have you provided a linear text alternative for all tables that lay out content in parallel, word-wrapped columns? (6 instances) 7. For long lists of selections, have you grouped items into a hierarchy? (2 instances) 8. Style sheets should be used to control layout and presentation wherever possible. (3 instances) "P3 - Manual check" 1. Use the ABBR and ACRONYM elements to denote and expand abbreviations and acronyms. 2. If this table is used to display data in rows and columns (i.e. a spreadsheet), have you provided a summary of the table? (3 instances) 3. Consider adding keyboard shortcuts to frequently used links. (1 instance) 4. Specify a logical tab order among form controls, links and objects. (2 instances) 5. Identify the language of the text, and any changes in the language. "Browser Compatibility Errors" 1. Unknown attribute TABINDEX in element LABEL. for browser(s): HTML4.0 (2 instances) While I got the "Bobby Approved" statement, what's disconcerting is the sheer number of benign errors that are reported to the author that really don't affect accessibility. It's a huge negative reinforcement issue. Instead of rewarding authors for doing the right thing, they are flooded with minor issues. Here's my perspective: I've used a extremely popular tool to create a very small page. I've worked to ensure accessibility by digging into the HTML. I've tested it. I know accessibility. Yet I'm told there are 19 different categories covering 41 problems! It's not hard to see why people feel that accessibility is a burden. Even when I do the right thing, like use Style Sheets, Bobby warns me: "Priority 1, item 2: Make sure that style sheets transform gracefully." Some of the reported problems are completely bogus, like: "Priority 2, item 1: Mark up quotations with the Q and BLOCKQUOTE elements." There are no <BLOCKQUOTE> elements in my document. "Priority 2, item 3: Make sure that headings are nested properly." Why can't Bobby figure this out? In my document, a H1 is followed by a H2 which is followed by another H2 then a H3. No nesting problem there. At least err on the side of the author because even if I screwed it up, it's not going to adversely affect the accessibility of the document. "Priority 2, item 5: Do labels of all form controls immediately follow its control on the same line? (8 instances)" I really think this one is bogus. The purpose of <LABEL> is to make a programmatic association between a control and it's label text. I use <LABEL> in my code, yet I get this error. "Priority 2, item 7: For long lists of selections, have you grouped items into a hierarchy? (2 instances)" My selections have 3 items in each. Bobby should have a cut off value so this isn't displayed when less than X selections are used. "Priority 3, item 4: Specify a logical tab order among form controls, links and objects. (2 instances)" I did exactly that with TABINDEX in the <LABEL> tag. Bobby should be smart enough to know that the <SELECT> control was nested inside the <LABEL> block and since the <LABEL> had a TABINDEX attribute should not report the error. This one I can understand, since HTML 4 doesn't allow TABINDEX in <LABEL>, thus the following error: "Unknown attribute TABINDEX in element LABEL. for browser(s): HTML4.0 (2 instances)" Internet Explorer allows for TABINDEX to be placed in nearly all elements, a major boost for accessibility, but since it's not part of HTML 4.0, it's not considered. So while I've great enhanced the accessibility of my page by using TABINDEX, it actually generates a warning message. If the community wants to prove that accessibility is not a burden to authors and that the benefits outweigh the cost, I suggest restructuring the Bobby output to focus on the positives, highlight major errors and hide minor issues from the summary, allowing authors to dig deeper if they choose. But if we're going to harp on Header nesting and incorrect usage of <BLOCKQUOTE>, then the recently expressed concerns of the authoring community are valid. Charles Oppermann Copper Software http://www.coppersoftware.com chuckop@coppersoftware.com
Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2000 12:51:38 UTC