W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: WCAG versus Bobby for site review?

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 10:31:27 -0400
To: Michael Cooper <michaelc@watchfire.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Cc: bobbysupport <bobbysupport@watchfire.com>
Message-id: <009201c30fee$5ac949c0$6501a8c0@handsontech>

the current practice of using information in the anchor after the > and
before the </a> is the best I have seen.  Other methods have befuddled
screen readers in one way or another.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Cooper" <michaelc@watchfire.com>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Cc: "bobbysupport" <bobbysupport@watchfire.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 10:16 AM
Subject: RE: WCAG versus Bobby for site review?

Hi - issue #1 (link separators) is a bug in Bobby, thanks for the heads up.
Bobby correctly does not require named anchors to have link separators, but
we overlooked the case of named anchors done with the "id" attribute instead
of the "name" attribute.

Issue #2 (unique link text) is implemented in this way because there is not
yet consensus from the WCAG group that the "title" attribute is alwyas
sufficient to differentiate links that otherwise have identical link text.
There is the suggestion to use that approach, but it is not clear that doing
so guarantees guideline conformance. I am working with the WCAG group to
resolve questions like these, and once the W3C takes a position we will make
the appropriate change, if any, in Bobby. I'd like to hear from people on
this list what methods you think should be considered sufficient link
differentiation. The WCAG group will take those suggestions into account
when making its recommendations.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Craig [mailto:work@cookiecrook.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 5:51 PM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: WCAG versus Bobby for site review?
> I feel I have a pretty good understanding of web accessiblity and
> believe that my personal site conforms (for the most part) to
> the Level
> Triple A guidelines of the WCAG. However, I have a few questions, or
> "user checks" if you will.
> I also know Bobby has shortcomings in some areas and these are mainly
> where my questions arise. Bobby has flagged some things that
> I think are
>   non-issues though I'm particularly unsure on one of them.
> 1. "Separate adjacent links with more than whitespace." is
> flagged with
> adjacent anchor tags even if they are not both links. I
> believe this is
> a Bobby bug and not an accessibility problem. Would you agree?
> 2. "Do not use the same link phrase more than once when the
> links point
> to different URLs." refers to WCAG Section 13.1 Priority 2
> which states
> "Clearly identify the target of each link." This is the one I
> am unsure
> about. I have permanent links to each of my web log posts
> where the link
> text is consistently "#" but each anchor has a unique title
> attribute of
> "permanent link to post <number>". Would this suffice for "clearly
> identifying the target"? Arguably, I could pick some link text that
> would be moer clear, like "link", but doesn't the unique
> title suffice
> the requirement for WCAG?
> The page in question is:
> http://www.cookiecrook.com/weblog.php
> I know Bobby has some bugs and that's why I list my
> accessibility link
> as "WCAG compliant" instead of "Bobby approved". I just
> wanted to see if
> the experts on this list had opinions on the noted issues. By
> the way,
> CynthiaSays doesn't flag them.
> Thanks in advance,
> James Craig
> -- 
> http://www.cookiecrook.com/
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 10:32:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:15 UTC