- From: Julian Voelcker <asp@tvw.net>
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:00:08 GMT
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:11:04 +0200 (CEST), Tina Holmboe wrote: > I've heard this argument before, and I still don't agree with it. I > fail, you see, to understand where you'll get the *extraordinary* > amount of people needed to cover all the various groups and > accessibility issues. I understand your arguments, but in the context of the report, the chairman of the Disability Rights Commission was making the point that you cannot just run your site through Bobby and assume that if it passes all the tests it is Accessible. Bobby, and other testing tools cannot test every aspect of a site to ensure that it conforms to the guidelines so some human testing is required and it is best to use people with disabilities because they are better equipped to do the testing. OK, with your average test group you will never be able to test for every user scenario, but you will be able to do a far better job than just relying on the automated testing tools. Cheers, Julian Voelcker Cirencester, United Kingdom
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2004 09:58:23 UTC