- From: iris <iristopa@yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:13:01 -0800 (PST)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
--- "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote: > For layout tables, we might take the pragmatic > approach that omitting > summary attributes is the simplest way and won't > cause protests except > from checkers. i wish it was that easy and normally i would only care about making a website truly accessible no matter what the automated checkers say. but then my boss, who hired me as an accessibility expert, says, why doesn't our site pass the bobby test? i might spend a few minutes trying to explain my decisions to him and might even succeed. but how do i defend myself against a publicly available report on the accessibility of higher education project websites where one of my sites is listed as failing bobby. i have applied numerous (what i consider) hacks to please bobby just so that my sites *look* accessible to outsiders. i'm not blaming bobby and its makers, they wanted to supply a useful tool to web designers and that's what they did. it is not a tool for people who have no understanding of the details and only look for the 'bobby approved' or 'repair needed' graphic. iris ===== ******************************* omnia mea mecum porto <http://www.jarmin.com/> <http://www.demos.ac.uk/> ******************************* __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 19:13:02 UTC