E-mail List Archives
Thread: Me again
Number of posts in this thread: 3 (In chronological order)
From: Paul Brown
Date: Fri, Jan 21 2005 5:00AM
Subject: Me again
No previous message | Next message →
I've been pondering my last note and hope it doesn't come across
as teaching people to suck eggs - I realise everyone on this
list will be fully aware of Bobby. My point was meant to be that
Bobby's criteria and results are well understood, and it's the
recognised standard.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Brown
Sent: 21 January 2005 10:08
To: ' = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = '
Subject: RE: THs with IDs, and Sitemorse
Hi all,
I've been lurking here for a while, but as there were a couple of items
in the last digest that struck a cord with me I thought it was time to
de-lurk... :)
On THs and IDs, my understanding of the limitation of the latter is that
only the most modern screenreaders implement them, and hence the
majority of users with older versions won't benefit from the ID
information. In which case it needs to be considered whether the table
can be simplified to not require IDs.
On the Sitemorse testing, I'd tend to take that with a pinch of salt and
use Bobby instead - http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp
From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Fri, Jan 21 2005 5:37AM
Subject: Re: Me again
← Previous message | Next message →
paul.brown wrote:
> I've been pondering my last note and hope it doesn't come across
> as teaching people to suck eggs - I realise everyone on this
> list will be fully aware of Bobby. My point was meant to be that
> Bobby's criteria and results are well understood, and it's the
> recognised standard.
>
>
> Paul
Standard? Hardly. Most marketed and recognized? OK...
Like any other testing tool, it is limited by the person who is running the
test. That Bobby is more "forgiving" in your particular circumstance
shouldn't be seen as a positive...
As for using ID's in your TH's: why would you not want to do so? Just
because some older software can't keep up is no reason to not code for the
future. Expanding on that line of thought to the absurd, why should I
include images in my web pages since some users of older browsers or text
only browsers won't be able to use them.
As developers, our jobs are to make the pages and sites we create as
accessible as possible. By the same token, we must work within the
reasonable assumption that our audience has a certain responsibility to stay
(relatively) current with their software; heck if not, why are we all
switching (switched?) to CSS based layouts... We should just stick to tables
period 'cause there are still people out there using Netscape 3.2 Gold.
Not meaning to come off as snarky as it may read
Cheers!
JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca 1.866.932.4878 (North America)
From: Mark Magennis
Date: Fri, Jan 21 2005 9:53AM
Subject: Re: Me again
← Previous message | No next message
> Bobby's criteria and results are well understood,
> and it's the recognised standard.
Bobby is not a standard, despite the fact that a number of people
wrongly "recognise" it as such. Bobby is a software tool that helps
accessibility auditors check a site's compliance with a standard. The
standards it helps with are WCAG 1.0 and 508.
The reason people think Bobby is itself a standard is because it
provides a cheery little logo with the words "Bobby Approved" and a
picture of a British policeman who looks about 6 years old. The fact is,
Bobby is not capable of "approving" anything. It may help a human
approve something, but that is as far as it goes.
This misunderstanding of the nature of Bobby and "bobby Approved" is one
of the major accessibility barriers on the Web today.
Mark
Dr. Mark Magennis
Director, Centre for Inclusive Technology (CFIT)
National Council for the Blind of Ireland
Whitworth Road, Dublin 9, Republic of Ireland
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = tel: +353 (0)71 914 7464