RE: Accessibility studies in the latest issue of First Monday

I'm reluctant to comment much on these reports with respect to Bobby and other products. I don't want to make an interpretation of the author's intent in a public forum, especially since I can be expected to be biased. It is important, due to the nature of my work with this group, thatI stay clear of such statements. I will say that the authors observed and reported on differences between the tools. Whether that leads to a value judgement that one tool is "better" is not clear in these articles. I have heard in the past from various people both the perspective that one tool catches more issues and is therefore better, and that the tool catches too many issues (which may not be real accessibility problems) and is therefore worse. Which view the authors of these papers would take, if any, is a question to put to them. However, I think they too did not want to be caught making any such claims. I think they were simply using tools to facilitate their research, and used more than one tool to help assure completeness. 

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Lee Roberts
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 12:14 PM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Accessibility studies in the latest issue of First Monday
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I think Michael can answer this.
> 
> Are these reports saying Bobby is better or that Cynthia
> doesn't check everything?
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 3 August 2004 15:25:22 UTC