E-mail List Archives
Re: Bobby [and asp]
From: Leo Smith
Date: Sep 11, 2002 7:31AM
- Next message: email@example.com: "508 and spreadsheets?"
- Previous message: Carol Foster: "Re: Table headers not behaving"
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: Holly Marie: "Re: Bobby"
- View all messages in this Thread
I don't disagree with this point......
The reality, however, is that many folks *do* use such testing
software, whether they are government based or not, as being the
final word on the accessibility of any particular site. In this regard,
Bobby is used very widely (whether to obtain the approval graphic
or not), and seems to be considered in many areas (including
among individuals who work in the assistive technology field) as
being the standard software testing tool for Web site accessibility
(probably through word-of-mouth - more folks have heard of Bobby
and it has been around longer than a lot of the other tools).
Some have noted on this list that achieving Bobby compliance may
do more harm than good to the accessibility of a page. Some have
also stated that we should choose accessibility over "compliance."
I totally agree with this latter philosophy, but as others have noted
they do not have this judgement flexibility as they have to follow the
letter of the guidelines (be they 508 or W3C - and this is also why
the W3C guidelines need to be revised [soon])
I will do some poking around and see if the new owners of Bobby
do indeed have some kind of suggestion forum.
On 10 Sep 2002, at 9:18, Mark Rew wrote:
> US Federal managers who want to see a Bobby Approved graphic on their
> sites are missing the point. They should have internal certification
> that their web sites are compliant with the Section 508 1197.22
> standards. It is the responsibility of the US Government Agencies to
> ensure the Section 508 compliance. This means that the Agency needs
> to include corresponding Section 508 standards in the requirements of
> the contract.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leo Smith" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> To: < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Bobby [and asp]
> > <snip>
> > I know that there are some issues withBobby = and that=20 it
> > cannot be the only accessibility tool used on a site, but it seems
> > to = me that=20 it is one of the most recognizable and that the US
> > government, for whom = I do=20 some work, would like to see a "Bobby
> > Approved" graphic on any site that = they=20 have an interest in
> > developing. </snip>
> > <response>
> > It seems that Bobby is becoming somewhat a stamp of approval
> > for many sites out there that are striving for accessibility, and
> > also perhaps as a way of saying to the world that is what you have
> > done (and why wouldn't you want to?).
> > My only concern, and one that others on this list have voiced, is
> > the validity and reliability of Bobby as a testing tool. I
> > personally have found Bobby to contain at least one (fairly major)
> > error, and to not be update with all or new technniques of coding
> > for accessibility.
> > I am wondering if it would be worth some time and effort for us to
> > begin suggesting ways that Bobby can be improved to the folks that
> > develop it - maybe some of you already have, and I would be
> > interested to hear about it.
> > Leo.
> > </response>
> > Leo Smith
> > Web Designer/Developer
> > USM Office of Publications and Marketing
> > University of Southern Maine
> > 207-780-4774
> > ----
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
> > visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
> visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
USM Office of Publications and Marketing
University of Southern Maine
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,