WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: THs with IDs, and Sitemorse

for

From: michael.brockington
Date: Jan 21, 2005 7:27AM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: paul.brown [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
> Sent: 21 January 2005 10:15
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] THs with IDs, and Sitemorse
>
> On the Sitemorse testing, I'd tend to take that with a pinch
> of salt and use Bobby instead -


I have heard mutterings about SiteMorse (and others) in the past, but haven't
heard any specifics. Can anyone out there give any examples of where their
testing is too severe, or too trivial?

I always get the feeling with them that they feel they need to have a unique
test (or two) that none of the other tools has, etc, in order to justify
their existance/cost.
In contrast, free tools like Bobby are trying to ensure clean sites, so
appear to be a little more positive. Does anyone else feel the same or are
they really better than everyone else.

The article I quoted seems like a good example of this - they give to quotes
from Patrick Edwards, firstly:
'You asked whether there were legal standards for web site accessibility and
there are not'
Then:
'There are duties under part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995...'
The report implies that these two statements are contradictory, when anyone
can see that they aren't. I think that SiteMorse are trying to frighten
people in to 'doing accessibility', and to confuse people further so that
they can retain their 'expert' status.

Mike


********************************************************************

This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you

Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting

********************************************************************