E-mail List Archives
Thread: Bobby and asp
Number of posts in this thread: 9 (In chronological order)
From: Tony Trott
Date: Mon, Sep 09 2002 12:35PM
Subject: Bobby and asp
No previous message | Next message →
Hi. How is Bobby going to work on sites written in asp? Is it going to analyze the html before or after the processing or does it matter? I know that there are some issues with Bobby and that it cannot be the only accessibility tool used on a site, but it seems to me that it is one of the most recognizable and that the US government, for whom I do some work, would like to see a "Bobby Approved" graphic on any site that
From: Sarah Kuehnle
Date: Mon, Sep 09 2002 12:38PM
Subject: Re: Bobby and asp
← Previous message | Next message →
Bobby will run its tests on the HTML that is returned after the server has parsed your ASP code. So, just make sure that the HTML you're generating using ASP is nice and clean and you should be good to go.
Best Regards,
Sarah Kuehnle
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Trott
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 3:19 PM
Subject: Bobby and asp
Hi. How is Bobby going to work on sites written in asp? Is it going to analyze the html before or after the processing or does it matter? I know that there are some issues with Bobby and that it cannot be the only accessibility tool used on a site, but it seems to me that it is one of the most recognizable and that the US government, for whom I do some work, would like to see a "Bobby Approved" graphic on any site that they have
From: Mark Rew
Date: Mon, Sep 09 2002 12:50PM
Subject: Re: Bobby and asp
← Previous message | Next message →
Clarification on your second point. I work for the Government, and we do not require Bobby Approved on our sites. The standard that any site developed for or by the Government must meet is the Section 508 subsection 1194.22 Web based and Internet applications. Bobby can be a tool, but it usually is only a starting point for Section 508 compliance. Our web developers are having better success with the Dream Weaver MX Section 508 tools.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Trott
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 3:19 PM
Subject: Bobby and asp
Hi. How is Bobby going to work on sites written in asp? Is it going to analyze the html before or after the processing or does it matter? I know that there are some issues with Bobby and that it cannot be the only accessibility tool used on a site, but it seems to me that it is one of the most recognizable and that the US government, for whom I do some work, would like to see a "Bobby Approved" graphic on any site that they have
From: Tony Trott
Date: Mon, Sep 09 2002 1:03PM
Subject: Re: Bobby and asp
← Previous message | Next message →
"Bobby can be a tool, but it usually is only a starting point for Section 508 compliance."
I agree completely. As I said Bobby cannot be the only accessibility tool used on a site and though it is not "required," I think that Bobby Approved is a good first step. We must make sure, though, that it is not the only step in a website's journey to accessibility.
Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Rew
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: Bobby and asp
Clarification on your second point. I work for the Government, and we do not require Bobby Approved on our sites. The standard that any site developed for or by the Government must meet is the Section 508 subsection 1194.22 Web based and Internet applications. Bobby can be a tool, but it usually is only a starting point for Section 508 compliance. Our web developers are having better success with the Dream Weaver MX Section 508 tools.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Trott
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 3:19 PM
Subject: Bobby and asp
Hi. How is Bobby going to work on sites written in asp? Is it going to analyze the html before or after the processing or does it matter? I know that there are some issues with Bobby and that it cannot be the only accessibility tool used on a site, but it seems to me that it is one of the most recognizable and that the US government, for whom I do some work, would like to see a "Bobby Approved" graphic on any site that they have an intere
From: Leo Smith
Date: Tue, Sep 10 2002 6:12AM
Subject: Re: Bobby [and asp]
← Previous message | Next message →
<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/
From: Mark Rew
Date: Tue, Sep 10 2002 6:25AM
Subject: Re: Bobby [and asp]
← Previous message | Next message →
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.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo Smith" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS 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/
From: John Foliot - bytown internet
Date: Tue, Sep 10 2002 7:31AM
Subject: RE: Bobby
← Previous message | Next message →
I personally have a concern with the Bobby icon as any means of conveying
compliance.
Web pages are generally organic things... they change and are modified over
time. Yet most developers (honest now - you too) don't ALWAYs verify their
modifications... time is precious, we're under deadlines, it's Friday
afternoon at 5:15, etc., etc. Having a little icon down at the bottom of
the page lulls us into a false sense of security. In the past week alone
I've seen at least 6 pages with the Bobby Icon (and W3C HTML validation
icon) which did not qualify. Was the developer deliberately seeking to
mislead? I doubt it, but none-the-less it was "false advertising".
Until such time as Bobby (or another, equivelant application) can
dynamically parse a document and append a "stamp of approval" on ONLY
compliant pages, I take the inclusion of the icon with a huge grain of salt.
And since the "accessibility" of a site cannot be judged via mechanical
tests alone I don't think we'll ever see that day.
Don't get me wrong... stiving for and advocating accessible web sites
(especially in the private sector) is an admirable and forward thinking
position and it should be recognized appropriately, but is the Bobby icon
the right way to go? Perhaps an "Accessibility Matters" icon, with a link
to appropriate content would better serve the the common good. It would
convey that the developer was concerned about the site's accessibility, that
they worked hard at ensuring the site was accessibile, and if a user
discovered an issue that the developer would appreciate hearing about it so
that it might be corrected.
Paul, perhaps this would be a great initiative for WebAIM?
JF
>
From: Holly Marie
Date: Tue, Sep 10 2002 9:41AM
Subject: Re: Bobby
← Previous message | Next message →
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foliot - bytown internet"
| I personally have a concern with the Bobby icon as any means of
conveying
| compliance.
This exact topic has come up with any compliance type validation.
There are a few things that are glaring flaws.
W3 validator will validate for the mark up. However, just because mark
up validates does not necessary mean it is formatted correctly[headings,
paragraphs, etc... alt descriptors and their clarity.... colors and
their contrast... text and its sizing...] according to content
And...
In many cases a site may have a front valid page, but fall apart
completely for the rest of the 5 - 100s or 1000s that follow into the
site.
Passing a Bobby checkup, is much about opionions. Some of it is based on
structural facts, but the rest is really up to whomever looks and thinks
or feels their reviewed checkpoints pass the test. The language on that
check needs to be clearer and simpler.[therefor bobby fails on its own
run through] I know seasoned dev/designers that program and write or
author pages by hand and that set of items after a run, is confusing to
these people. So to the average author who may use editors that generate
mark up, and those that really do not know enough about mark up, these
people will be lost or guessing what it means.
==
Next. Validation at bobby is mostly based on opinion and interpretation,
and bobby also includes some validation flaws or guidance. I agree with
a previous writer and this needs to be fixed or ironed out if bobby is
to remain the tool that is available and predominantly noticed as *the
accessibility site* to check your work.
We have a hard enough time getting companies, gov entities, educational
institutions to look at access issues, let alone get their pages up into
*BOTH* the validator and Bobby along with other tools because both of
those tools fail on other levels. [and those items can be checked with
other online tools or methods.
| Web pages are generally organic things... they change and are modified
over
| time. Yet most developers (honest now - you too) don't ALWAYs verify
their
| modifications... time is precious, we're under deadlines, it's Friday
| afternoon at 5:15, etc., etc.
That is probably true, though I am very glad I learned to hand write the
markup and validate as I write, even before it gets uploaded or FTP
transported to the server for hosting. Validation and checking for
access should be ongoing things during development of any site doc, not
the once at the end set of tasks. And yes, it is easy to make one
modification and upload that page and have forgotten something or made a
mistake. So validate again once it is up, and these are habits people
need to be using or things that need to be one button installed into
every web editor. A round trip check and validation while working should
be available. [I often preview my pages in opera where I can choose the
Frame/Validate [w3c] option from my own desktop, before it is up on the
server.]
| Having a little icon down at the bottom of
| the page lulls us into a false sense of security. In the past week
alone
| I've seen at least 6 pages with the Bobby Icon (and W3C HTML
validation
| icon) which did not qualify. Was the developer deliberately seeking
to
| mislead? I doubt it, but none-the-less it was "false advertising".
Did you pop a note off to them? [/g]
Also, I have seen this too, and that is sheer ignorance on the part of
the web designer/developer or team of people in charge. If they are
displaying a web design company or firm that has that icon linked
directly to the check this page by having referrer in that link, someone
checking will find out soon enough - this company does not practise what
it preaches, or that design company will be actually giving some sort of
false message.... we talk about validation and guidelines, but it is not
that important really, because we don't pass either?
| Until such time as Bobby (or another, equivelant application) can
| dynamically parse a document and append a "stamp of approval" on ONLY
| compliant pages, I take the inclusion of the icon with a huge grain of
salt.
| And since the "accessibility" of a site cannot be judged via
mechanical
| tests alone I don't think we'll ever see that day.
I think you are correct. To expect the whole Internet to fall into some
sort of compliance and guidelines by some date, is rather an
impossibility. Most of the authoring tools out there cannot produce a
clean document as it is, nor do they give appropriate built in guidance
on access issues. Some have really expensive marketing extensions
stuffed in there with whatever ploy to come upgrade to the better
service, and even those are not all that accurate or working well.
Maybe the tools should not allow a save for any html page without it
passing structure validation [w3c], and pop some warning... oops sorry,
you cannot save this page yet, until you clean it up. [how is that for a
idealistic fantasy?]
Same holds true with search engines and directories, maybe one cannot be
listed if it fails at least the structure guidelines.
| Don't get me wrong... stiving for and advocating accessible web sites
| (especially in the private sector) is an admirable and forward
thinking
| position and it should be recognized appropriately, but is the Bobby
icon
| the right way to go? Perhaps an "Accessibility Matters" icon, with a
link
| to appropriate content would better serve the the common good. It
would
| convey that the developer was concerned about the site's
accessibility, that
| they worked hard at ensuring the site was accessibile, and if a user
| discovered an issue that the developer would appreciate hearing about
it so
| that it might be corrected.
I like that idea about Accessibility Matters, and a link to some clear
access info sites, or even the WAI quick tips, linked to the WAI A, AA,
AAA guidelines icons.
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Leo Smith
Date: Wed, Sep 11 2002 7:31AM
Subject: Re: Bobby [and asp]
← Previous message | No next message
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.
Leo.
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.
>
> Mark
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leo Smith" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS 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/
>
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/