E-mail List Archives
Thread: What is Cynthia (was Re: priority rating)
Number of posts in this thread: 2 (In chronological order)
From: Patrick Taylor
Date: Tue, May 27 2003 6:03PM
Subject: What is Cynthia (was Re: priority rating)
No previous message | Next message →
Hi Stephen
We seem to be in a "golden age" of accessibility checkers. Cynthia, I
believe, is short for Cynthia Says, the one of the latest accessibility
checkers (Bobby, Cynthia Says, Ask Alice, AccVerify, Wave ...)
Some resemble Bobby but have (according to their authors) more advanced
checking algorithms. Cynthia Says seems to be a bit better than Bobby
but still has it's share of dumb warnings -- it flags null alt tags on
images (ie putting alt="" on an image tag) when those are necessary for
purely decorative images. It has some other minor quirks.
YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary) but here is a dump of my accessibility
checker bookmarks:
Cynthia Says
http://www.cynthiasays.com/
Wave 3.0 Accessibility Tool
http://www.wave.webaim.org/index.jsp
[From WebAIM itself. Simultaneously very helpful and terribly
disorienting because it attempts to overlay its report graphically on
the webpage itself. Icons may be more confusing than helpful but I am
getting used to it. May be just to advanced for my brain]
Ask Alice
http://askalice.ssbtechnologies.com:8080/askalice/index.html
[haven't looked at it in a while but I seem to remember that it has an
annoying registration system that refuses to accept Canadian postal
codes. You need to enter 12345 or an American style zip code to use it]
AccVerify
http://www.hisoftware.com/access/sitetest.htm
Bobby Worldwide
http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp
Validators
W3C HTML Validator
http://validator.w3.org/
W3C CSS Validator
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
My own personal caveat: In the end no automated accessibility checker
can beat a good manual examination assisted by a checklist and trying
to apply best practices to the initial design. The checkers are useful
for catching some of the grosser mistakes, but I wouldn't depend on a
page being accessible on the say so of Bobby (for example).
cheers,
Patrick
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 06:15 PM, Stephen Morgan wrote:
>
> Dear Mike
>
> Read the posting. Have I missed something? What is Cynthia?
>
> Kindest regards
>
> Stephen Morgan
> Idamus Ltd
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "masadelante" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "Webaim" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 9:53 AM
> Subject: priority ratings
>
>
> Hello list,
>
> This is my first post here, so please excuse me if this has been
> covered
> in the past - I checked the archives, but couldn't quite find what I
> was
> looking for...
>
> I am currently designing three new sites, with the goal of 'AAA' for
> all
> of them. Browsing around the web checking out the 'accessibility'
> topic,
> I have found many sites that are 'AA' and not 'AAA'. I am curious as to
> why they don't move forward to 'AAA'... I wonder if this is a some sort
> of humility 'towards' the triple a status? Am I being a bit na
From: Holly Marie
Date: Wed, May 28 2003 5:09AM
Subject: Re: What is Cynthia (was Re: priority rating)
← Previous message | No next message
From: "Patrick Taylor"
> Hi Stephen
>
> We seem to be in a "golden age" of accessibility checkers. Cynthia, I
> believe, is short for Cynthia Says, the one of the latest
accessibility
> checkers (Bobby, Cynthia Says, Ask Alice, AccVerify, Wave ...)
>
> Some resemble Bobby but have (according to their authors) more
advanced
> checking algorithms. Cynthia Says seems to be a bit better than Bobby
> but still has it's share of dumb warnings -- it flags null alt tags on
> images (ie putting alt="" on an image tag) when those are necessary
for
> purely decorative images. It has some other minor quirks.
I believe there are options on the set-up, though I am not sure if you
can disclude the empty Alt tags... and maybe it should not be discluded.
My thoughts or feelings,... Some authoring tools may *automatically*
place alt="" into an image tag if a user does not specifically fill that
blank or give that description. That warning[it is not an error to
include empty alts] may flag and make the user aware of one or more they
may have meant to include but forgot?
> YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary) but here is a dump of my accessibility
> checker bookmarks:
>
> Cynthia Says
> http://www.cynthiasays.com/
Personally, I prefer to use the Cynthia Says model, and check against
the WCAG [all priorites], and Section 508[which I feel is weak in
several areas]. Checking and Meeting Section 508 only, may overlook some
key accessibility factors.
> Wave 3.0 Accessibility Tool
> http://www.wave.webaim.org/index.jsp
> [From WebAIM itself. Simultaneously very helpful and terribly
> disorienting because it attempts to overlay its report graphically on
> the webpage itself. Icons may be more confusing than helpful but I am
> getting used to it. May be just to advanced for my brain]
You are not alone, and I find the graphical interface may be very
confusing or overly busy. I imagine this tool might be overly busy or
distracting for some users. I would prefer the plain text checking mode,
though there are some added benefits to Wave [checking for linear
readability, etc...] , that are not present with other
validating/checking tools. On the other hand, the graphical interface
may be an excellent option for others.
> W3C HTML Validator
> http://validator.w3.org/
>
> W3C CSS Validator
> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
>
> My own personal caveat: In the end no automated accessibility checker
> can beat a good manual examination assisted by a checklist and trying
> to apply best practices to the initial design.
I agree, though they are quick checks for stand out errors or problem
areas. It is a part of the package when I check documents.
holly
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/