- From: David Clark <dmclark@cast.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 14:06:17 -0400
- To: "'John T. Whelan'" <whelan@physics.utah.edu>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Cc: <bbailey@clark.net>
Hi, Let me try to explain the logic from my prospective as part of the Bobby team. There is a real struggle (which I hope ER-IG will address) between webmasters' need for a quick binary (yes/no) answer, and the true definition of accessibility. When we talk about accessibility, we first have to ask for whom and with what, because the definition of accessibility is dependent on those factors. The guidelines group has addressed this issue with the interim/future distinction. There are also questions of how many errors of what kind constitute a failure. We started Bobby as a tool to assist web developing in creating accessible web pages. It was not our intent to create a "validator". Over time, however, Bobby has become the place people look to as a benchmark for accessibility. That is a difficult place to be in. We have always said, and continue to say, the Bobby Approved Icon is used at a webmaster's own discretion. The webmaster defines what a site is, and whether they should use the Icon. We provide "suggested requirements" as a guidepost in the decision. As always, we value input and discussion about Bobby and how it works. Input from WAI and others can only help us all move forward towards the goal of making a web that is accessible to everyone. David Clark CAST, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: John T. Whelan [mailto:whelan@physics.utah.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 12:04 PM To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Cc: bbailey@clark.net; David Clark Subject: 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. I think the recommendations, questions and tips are useful, since they may make people think of improvements that haven't occurred to them, such as the ABBR and ACRONYM tags. As long as the pass/fail and errors come first, people who don't care about the rest don't need to scroll any farther. One change that might be useful is to put the accessability rating at the top of the report, before the display of the page's contents. Speaking of Bobby, I have to express some confusion over the "If none of the web pages on your site contain accessibility errors" condition. How does one define a "site"? My web pages fall into several self-contained units, but each of them lives on a larger site over which I have no control. Is the Utah relativity homepage <http://www.physics.utah.edu/research/relativity> only allowed to display the "Bobby Approved" icon if all of the pages on <http://www.physics.utah.edu/> pass muster? That's impossible unless we get every member of the department to make their personal pages accessible. John T. Whelan whelan@iname.com http://www.slack.net/~whelan/
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 1998 14:02:59 UTC