Re: CAST Announces Bobby upgrade & Beta release of Bobby Application

On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> Do we dare snub Bobby approval?
> Well, fantastic though Bobby is, my personal view is that Bobby is _one_ 
> of the tools that should be used to check pages. The cases raised (ALT="" 
> and simple tables) are good examples of where Bobby can fail the 

I think you misunderstand the issue.  This is a not a case of 'Bobby'
not only misidentifying an unaccessible page as accessible but vice versa.
Therefore, when we give 'Bobby' as a resource tool to web authors
interested in making their sites accessible, and it kicks back a page that
is accessible as not--- we are faced with much negativity to our cause.
Especially with the new all or nothing approach.

> tables ....
> anymore (I even took it out of my website today). The use of ALT="" is a 
> generally bad thing, although there may be individual cases to be made for 

If I go about suggesting to web authors not to use tables
because 'I don't like them,'  the conversation is going to end right there
-- and forget any efforts to make their web sites accessible. However, if
I can show the HTML 4.0 guidelines and the WAI guidelines and present the 
issues that multiple browsers including text browsers need to be able to
read their pages, -- then I have a sporting chance.  

HTML 4.0 and WAI guidelines should be our mainstay, right??? I can
appreciate personal opinion of what HTML 4.0 accepted protocol best to use
in a given situation, but not in the context of accessibility standards.
Or am I missing something here?

Wayne

             Wayne D. Crotts
          Network Administrator

Program on Human Development and Disability:
   A University Affiliated Program
   850 College Station Road                         (706)542-4968
   University of Georgia                      FAX   (706)542-4815
   Athens, GA  30602

Received on Sunday, 26 April 1998 03:30:56 UTC