Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > bobby approved?

Reply
Thread Tools

bobby approved?

 
 
mark | r
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004
im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved. its
complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit of
gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).

i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text, the ones
shown are being replaced by flash versions, in any event theres a text only
version viewable by using the lynx viewer

mark


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Matthias Gutfeldt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004
mark | r wrote:
> im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved. its
> complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit of
> gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).
>
> i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text, the ones
> shown are being replaced by flash versions, in any event theres a text only
> version viewable by using the lynx viewer


And your question is?


Matthias

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
mark | r
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004

"Matthias Gutfeldt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> mark | r wrote:
> > im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved.

its
> > complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit

of
> > gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).
> >
> > i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text, the

ones
> > shown are being replaced by flash versions, in any event theres a text

only
> > version viewable by using the lynx viewer

>
> And your question is?


do these online validation errors matter? could i still be justified in
proclaiming AA approval as the guideline alerts dont impeed the
functionality of the design?

mark


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004
"mark | r" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> do these online validation errors matter?


No, but the inaccessability matters. Ignore Bobby. Or, at most, when you
understand accessibility well, use Bobby as a coarse tool to check a few
things at times.

Bobby is not just grossly overrated; it is seriously misleading, see e.g.
the problems descibed at
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www/acctools.html

> could i still be justified in
> proclaiming AA approval


Of course not. You are not justified in claiming conformance to some
criteria if you don't actually conform to them (there's an ugly word for
such claims), no matter what we think about the criteria themselves. The
same applies to claiming conformance to "approval" by a particular
program, even when that program misleadingly describes its "approval" in
terms that make people believe that it coincides with the WAI criteria.

> as the guideline alerts dont impeed the
> functionality of the design?


The alerts do not affect the functionality the least.

Some of them may _reveal_ some problems in the functionality.

http://www.aarrss.com contains so gross and obvious obstacles to the
majority of people, not to mention disabled and elderly people, that it
is absurd to test it against accessibility criteria, still less run some
purported accessibility checkers. If you don't see at once that the page
is inaccessible and cannot be made accessible, except in the sense of
total redesign, the messages from checkers will at most confuse you more
and make you add some additional problems.

So try and find some accessibility primer and read it. Or attend some
crash course in accessibility.

Final hint: if you start presenting excuses for inaccessible solutions,
then you know you are wrong. Qui s'excuse, s'accuse.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html


 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Pugh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004
"mark | r" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved.


Presumably the version up there at the moment hasn't seen the benefits
of this work as it doesn't even come close to Level A.

>its
>complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit of
>gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).


Does the tooltip contain useful information? If it does then denying
it to users who don't use a mouse and/or JavaScript is an
accessibility problem. Make sure that the information in the tooltip
is available when JavaScript is switched off and make sure that it's
available to users when JavaScript is switched on but a mouse is not
being used (for starters you can look at the onfocus event as well as
the onmouseover one).

>i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text, the ones
>shown are being replaced by flash versions,


Have you tested the flash version with a screenreader?

>in any event theres a text only
>version viewable by using the lynx viewer


Why should users with minor visual difficulties need to resort to a
text only version? The problems with text as images are largely not
found by totally blind users (the alt attribute should help them out)
but by users with colour blindness (text and background must contrast
sufficiently) and with users with some visual impairment (text must be
enlargeable).

If you are forced to resort to a text only version (and it should be a
last resort) then make sure that a user landing on random page X of
your site can reach the text only version of page X straight away.

Bobby is just a tool, it has been known to pass inaccessible pages and
fail accessible ones. Close studying and understanding of the WCAG
guidelines is more important than getting a pat on the back from
Bobby.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <(E-Mail Removed)> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
mark | r
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004
> http://www.aarrss.com contains so gross and obvious obstacles to the
> majority of people, not to mention disabled and elderly people, that it
> is absurd to test it against accessibility criteria,


you're not on about text resizing or text as graphics are you?

mark


 
Reply With Quote
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004

"mark | r" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:40d2cc40$0$241$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved.


Why? Does your viewer care or even know about AA approval?

> its
> complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit of
> gloss (some border colour changes


The border changes could be done quite happily with CSS, no javascript
required.

> and a tooltip).


The tooltip is a bloody nuisance, it gets in the way of the content. Then
again I supose you have to have it there to negate your mystery meat
navigation. ( http://webpagesthatsuck.com )

If you want a tooltip use the title attribute, it works much better then the
square wheel you have invented.

> i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text,


Absolutely. If you know I am going to complain about them then why are they
there?

> the ones
> shown are being replaced by flash versions,


Oh my &deity. Replace something that only annoys a few people with something
that annoys a whole lot more?

If you are going to use flash for your navigation then your site will be
totally unusable for a lot of people and will be totally invisible (after
the first page) to search engine bots.

Also, If you insist that I have flash enabled then you have lost me, at
least, as a viewer.

> in any event theres a text only
> version viewable by using the lynx viewer


What if I want the text only version on the browsers I have open at the
moment? Can't I have it?

BTW have you viewed the page with a canvas width of:

700
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/700.jpg

1200
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/1200.jpg

1500
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/1500.jpg

I must admit it starts to get better at 2000, in an odd sort of way
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/2000.jpg

You must have some creative CSS in there to achieve these results

I would forget about bobby for the moment and just make the site usable.

--
Cheers
Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
mark | r
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004

"Steve Pugh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "mark | r" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved.

>
> Presumably the version up there at the moment hasn't seen the benefits
> of this work as it doesn't even come close to Level A.


according to the online checker it does!

> >its
> >complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit

of
> >gloss (some border colour changes and a tooltip).

>
> Does the tooltip contain useful information? If it does then denying
> it to users who don't use a mouse and/or JavaScript is an
> accessibility problem. Make sure that the information in the tooltip
> is available when JavaScript is switched off and make sure that it's
> available to users when JavaScript is switched on but a mouse is not
> being used (for starters you can look at the onfocus event as well as
> the onmouseover one).


no its just a bit of fancy, nothing important. please allow my indulgences.

> >i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text, the

ones
> >shown are being replaced by flash versions,

>
> Have you tested the flash version with a screenreader?


you can substitute flash for non flash version, which is probably whet ill
do.

> >in any event theres a text only
> >version viewable by using the lynx viewer

>
> Why should users with minor visual difficulties need to resort to a
> text only version? The problems with text as images are largely not
> found by totally blind users (the alt attribute should help them out)
> but by users with colour blindness (text and background must contrast
> sufficiently) and with users with some visual impairment (text must be
> enlargeable).
>
> If you are forced to resort to a text only version (and it should be a
> last resort) then make sure that a user landing on random page X of
> your site can reach the text only version of page X straight away.


its text replacement for non flash, not a text version of the site.

> Bobby is just a tool, it has been known to pass inaccessible pages and
> fail accessible ones. Close studying and understanding of the WCAG
> guidelines is more important than getting a pat on the back from
> Bobby.


but people look got the logos!

> --
> "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
> I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
>
> Steve Pugh <(E-Mail Removed)> <http://steve.pugh.net/>



 
Reply With Quote
 
mark | r
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004

"rf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:2QAAc.33401$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "mark | r" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:40d2cc40$0$241$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> > im working on aarrss.com and im trying to get it checkpoint AA approved.

>
> Why? Does your viewer care or even know about AA approval?


its s selling point.

> > its
> > complaining about my use of onmouseover, the use of which is just a bit

of
> > gloss (some border colour changes

>
> The border changes could be done quite happily with CSS, no javascript
> required.


im working on it

> > and a tooltip).


but would the tool tip work with the mouse motion?

> The tooltip is a bloody nuisance, it gets in the way of the content. Then
> again I supose you have to have it there to negate your mystery meat
> navigation. ( http://webpagesthatsuck.com )


Jacob is his own worst enemy. been listed before, got 1000 hits in an hour,
got 3 jobs from it

> If you want a tooltip use the title attribute, it works much better then

the
> square wheel you have invented.
>
> > i know you're all gonna complain about the use of images as text,

>
> Absolutely. If you know I am going to complain about them then why are

they
> there?


because you lot ALWAYS complain about text as graphics, ive made the
relevant text as big as i can so even at stupid resolutions, you should be
able to read it.

> > the ones
> > shown are being replaced by flash versions,

>
> Oh my &deity. Replace something that only annoys a few people with

something
> that annoys a whole lot more?


We'll find it dificult to sell to customers if we dont show at least SOME
bells and whistles.

> If you are going to use flash for your navigation then your site will be
> totally unusable for a lot of people and will be totally invisible (after
> the first page) to search engine bots.


not for navigation.

> Also, If you insist that I have flash enabled then you have lost me, at
> least, as a viewer.
>
> > in any event theres a text only
> > version viewable by using the lynx viewer

>
> What if I want the text only version on the browsers I have open at the
> moment? Can't I have it?


if you're going into that argument, then all sites should be bright yellow
or green text on black background.

> BTW have you viewed the page with a canvas width of:
>
> 700
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/700.jpg
>
> 1200
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/1200.jpg
>
> 1500
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/1500.jpg
>
> I must admit it starts to get better at 2000, in an odd sort of way
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/2000.jpg



lol no thanks, i need to stuff it into a wrapper then , i like some of the
results tho


> You must have some creative CSS in there to achieve these results
>
> I would forget about bobby for the moment and just make the site usable.
>


thanks Mark


 
Reply With Quote
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004

"mark | r" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:40d2e607$0$237$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> > http://www.aarrss.com contains so gross and obvious obstacles to the
> > majority of people, not to mention disabled and elderly people, that it
> > is absurd to test it against accessibility criteria,

>
> you're not on about text resizing or text as graphics are you?


Accessibility means, amongst other things:
Accessible to people with a disability.
Certain people have poor eyesight, a disability.
People with poor eyesight need larger text.
Text as graphics is not resizable.
People with poor eyesight can not read text as graphics.
Your site uses test as graphics.
Your site is not accessible to people with poor eyesight.
Ergo, your site is not accessible.

Pretty bloody obvious I would think...

No matter what bobby thinks.

--
Cheers
Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
xhtml 1.1 anchor tags in Bobby Richard Quick HTML 14 06-20-2005 03:00 PM
Ping Bobby TechGeekPro MCSE 2 07-13-2004 03:54 PM
Bobby and caption of a table Luigi Donatello Asero HTML 20 07-10-2004 06:01 AM
Bobby or something like that. Luigi Donatello Asero HTML 5 09-30-2003 01:42 PM
Bobby approved? T.J. HTML 3 09-08-2003 11:54 AM



Advertisments