Re: hmmm

So, what do people think of the new Bobby reporting format?

Personally, I preferred the binary okay / not-okay-and-here-are-the-reasons
rating, even if such a quantifiable state was illusionary.  CAST has covered
their bases, and provides much more information, but I wish the extra
feedback was optional instead of default.  It reminds me of the poor
supervisor who can't just say "you are doing a good job" but must also
comment on all the things I should be considering as I do that good job,
even though I am thinking of them!

IMHO the utility of Bobby to the mainstream lies its simplicity.  I find
that it is much less straight forward now, and not nearly as reinforcing to
use.  Does anyone know how to disable the "Accessibility Recommendations"
and "Accessibly Questions" and "Accessibility Tips" sections?  These
sections read as if they are passing judgment, even when a page is clean.
Has anyone constructed pages that sails through with a "Bobby Approved"
rating and _ends_ there -- without further comment (the "Browser Compatible
Errors" and "Download Time" don't bother me)?

My suggestion is that if a "Bobby Approved" rating is obtained, then a link
to "further information" would be generated.  This second page would include
the aforementioned "did you think about this" items.  Comments from the
group?


Kynn Bartlett wrote:

> At 06:58 a.m. 08/16/98 EDT, Lovey@aol.com wrote:
> >Hmmm interesting - but wouldn't it strip away content too?
> >How 'bout a META Tag (like Rsaci uses for content) to alert browsers of
> >accessbility or non?
>
> Accessibility isn't an on-off binary condition, though.
>
> In fact, it's not a quantifiable state at all.
>
> --
> Kynn Bartlett <kynn@hwg.org>
> Vice President, Marketing and Outreach, HTML Writers Guild
>   http://www.hwg.org

Received on Tuesday, 18 August 1998 11:07:18 UTC