- From: Paul Davis <paul@ten-20.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:21:17 -0000
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi Kynn, Quote The problem we face is that "Bobby Compliant" may become more important than "accessible." (Note that I think there is also a danger with "WCAG Compliant" in the same way, but at the moment that risk is smaller than the Bobby problem.) In other words, people get confused and they think that what they are trying to do is get a Bobby logo for their front page, when really what they -should- do is try to make their web pages more accessible. Pleasantly surprised to note we are singing from the same hymn sheet on this, ( did I really use that expression? sorry) Ten-20 recently lost out on a lucrative contract/web build because I stupidly mentioned in the tender that a Bobby compliant logo was not a vital requirement and did not always signify accessibility anyway. The contract went to poptel whose own website is totally inaccessible. Hypocrisy rules it appears. I am totally convinced that well meaning people in large charities and Government circles are too convinced of the infallibility of Bobby. Charley Brown zig zag smiles Paul Davis www.ten-20.com The portal website for disabled people and associated professionals.
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 04:45:59 UTC