E-mail List Archives
Thread: Bobby Approved
Number of posts in this thread: 5 (In chronological order)
From: Ben Morrison
Date: Tue, Aug 05 2003 5:59AM
Subject: Bobby Approved
No previous message | Next message →
Hi everyone,
Ive been studying accesibility for a few months now,
I have been implementing css, valid html and accessible features as much as
possible in any sites that I have been building.
Complete control has been out of my hands - due to design/clients etc.
Basically a client wants us to re-design the front-end for them.
On their home page they have:
This website has been developed to help make the web accessible to everyone
With a bobby approved logo, it seems fine to me apart from missing Doctype
and other Valid HTML/CSS issues. It wont let me test it online either.
Since I cannot actually send them a site we have built that will pass the
bobby online test how do we go about saying/showing them that we can.
Any thoughts much appreciated.
Ben
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Tue, Aug 05 2003 7:22AM
Subject: RE: Bobby Approved
← Previous message | Next message →
Ben Morrison wrote:
> Since I cannot actually send them a site we have built that
> will pass the bobby online test how do we go about saying/showing
> them that we can.
Perhaps make your own companies site accessible?
I'm sorry if that sounds flippant, but if I were a client, that
would be the first place I look. Probably not the most
helpful comment in the short terms though ;)
Perhaps find out (or suggest to them) what would be acceptable as
proof and the provide that?
Ben then wrote:
> Ive decided to look at an existing website we have and make it bobby
> approved
I hope that is just to satisfy the client, as 'Bobby approval'
(i.e. any automatic check) can miss a whole host of issues.
-Alastair
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: jeb
Date: Tue, Aug 05 2003 7:51AM
Subject: RE: Bobby Approved
← Previous message | Next message →
There are a number of other validators out there. All have pluses and
minuses; none are perfect. There have been discussions on this list before
about the merits of "certifying" that a site is "compliant," "meets
standards," "accessible," etc. If you are looking to simply meet the
requirements of the Bobby site, that's fine, but it will leave you short in
terms of complete accessibility and usability. I'm sure others may want to
chime in here.
jeb
John E. Brandt
Augusta, ME 04330
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
www.jebswebs.com <http://www.jebswebs.com>;
From: Ben Morrison
Date: Tue, Aug 05 2003 7:56AM
Subject: Re: Bobby Approved
← Previous message | Next message →
On 5/8/03 2:19 pm, "Alastair Campbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Ben Morrison wrote:
>> Since I cannot actually send them a site we have built that
>> will pass the bobby online test how do we go about saying/showing
>> them that we can.
>
> Perhaps make your own companies site accessible?
>
We are currently re-designing it at the moment, out with the old flash site,
In with new table-less CSS layout, which will be made accesible.
Www.dog-e.co.uk/dogstar
Just the age-old scenario where other work has to take precedence over our
own site. Ill ask for some suggestions once we are near completion.
>
> Perhaps find out (or suggest to them) what would be acceptable as
> proof and the provide that?
>
> Ben then wrote:
>> Ive decided to look at an existing website we have and make it bobby
>> approved
>
> I hope that is just to satisfy the client, as 'Bobby approval'
> (i.e. any automatic check) can miss a whole host of issues.
>
Completely, its just for the sake of saying yes it can be bobby approved,
their current site has problems as it is.
Ben
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Ben Morrison
Date: Tue, Aug 05 2003 8:05AM
Subject: Re: Bobby Approved
← Previous message | No next message
On 5/8/03 2:48 pm, "jeb" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> There are a number of other validators out there. All have pluses and
> minuses; none are perfect. There have been discussions on this list before
> about the merits of "certifying" that a site is "compliant," "meets
> standards," "accessible," etc. If you are looking to simply meet the
> requirements of the Bobby site, that's fine, but it will leave you short in
> terms of complete accessibility and usability. I'm sure others may want to
> chime in here.
I agree completely, I did post:
For this example I'll just make the online test work - which to me isnt
really about accesible websites but will solve the problem at hand.
Sorry if I didn