W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2001

RE: bobby compliant

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:26:12 -0500
Message-ID: <5DCA49BDD2B0D41186CE00508B6BEBD030055E@wdcrobexc01.ed.gov>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, "'Marti'" <marti@agassa.com>
Cc: "'bobby@cast.org'" <bobby@cast.org>
It is my understanding that this is exactly why CAST removed the prominent
"Bobby Approved" (with large "thumbs-up" graphic -- and before that the
stars) from the report.  One has to scroll down significantly, past all the
manual checks, before reading "This web page does not contain any Priority 1
accessibility errors that Bobby can detect" -- which is in plain body text.
The first thing in the report reads, "To be Bobby Approved, a page must pass
all of the Priority 1 accessibility checkpoints established by the WAI."
CAST has sincerely worked hard to promote the manual checks portion.
Really, what else they could do?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot.  They could consolidate about nine-tenths of the
manual checks so that people were more inclined to read that section!

In all fairness, this is much more a user problem than something CAST is
doing wrong.

> ----------
> From: 	Marti
> Sent: 	Monday, February 5, 2001 10:26 AM
> To: 	Bailey, Bruce; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Cc: 	kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com; bobby@cast.org
> Subject: 	Re: bobby compliant
> Hmm - I guess I sounded more derogatory of Bobby than I really meant to
> be.
> I think it is a very useful tool, the problem I see is not so much with
> Booby but with the way it is mis-used, mis-understood. It seems to me that
> the manual checks portion is often ignored, or least not taken seriously,
> leading to sites with the Bobby logo that are not really accessible.
> marti
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 10:26:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:11 UTC