I think there is a problem inherent in using these tools.
HTML validators work because they check a document against a 'machine readable' set of grammars. Accessibility tools can't do this. What they do is look at a site based on a set of guidelines. However these guidelines are open to interpretation. Thus all tools like Bobby can do is help you spot obvious mistakes, they can't actually 'validate' your site.
Problems occur when clients/developers mistake the tools for the actual guidelines/checklists. A site should try to conform to a priority level, not an accessibility tool. I've seen a number of instances where 'Bobby' thinks a site doesn't comply, but from reading the guidelines I disagree. The point isn't to naively follow a set of rules. The point is to make your site more accessible too people. If your site complies to all the priority 3 guidelines but fails to comply one priority 2 guidelines, does this make the site less accessible than one that comply to all priority 2 guidelines, but no priority 3?
I think the clue really is in the language. These things are guidelines, not absolutes.
James Cowperthwaite wrote:
Hi - does anyone still use Bobby these days?
I ask because we really have only used: Cynthia™ Says - Web Content Accessibility Report (http://www.contentquality.com/)
On a site we are developing we pass all Checklist items up to and including Priority 3 Verification with Cynthia, however our client is testing using Bobby and Usablenet, stating these are the 'industry standard'.
Is this the case? If not could anyone hit me with a nice list objective comparison?
Andy Budd
http://www.message.uk.com/
***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
