At 5:30 pm +0000 27/10/03, Chris Beggs wrote:
>Hi, Louisa,
>
>All IMHO of course:
>
>Bobby was the first and is the best-known. IMHO it tends to pull up
>things which are not a problem, and is OK if the end-user knows HTML -
>horrid if not. [but I have the old free version, dunno what
>improvements - if any - have been made since].
I'm just about to give a local course on accessibility, so this is
close to home at the moment.
In my opinion, if you need to get a grip on the issues and have any
hope of avoiding them by designing round them, instead of fixing up
afterwards, you have to persist with Bobby and get to know what it
all means and whether it is important or not. Relying on a tool to
fix things is never going to address all the accessibility issues,
and is always going to put you in the position of making broken pages
and fixing them (or having them fixed for you) afterwards.
What I'm doing is stepping people through some Bobby reports and
helping them understand what is wrong and how to avoid it in future.
I realise this is perhaps a counsel of perfection but actually there
isn't an easy way to make your pages accessible without a bit of work.
--
**********************************************************
Helen Varley Sargan
Information Provision & Webmaster
University Computing Service
New Museums Site email [log in to unmask]
Pembroke St [log in to unmask]
Cambridge CB2 3QH Phone 01223 334480
**********************************************************
|