Accesibility

W3C or Bobby?

[webboy1]

Hello,

We are going through a site making it as accessible as possible. The site is aimed at parents of chilrdren with special needs, so it makes sense that it should be as accesable as possible.

I am going through each page tidying up code, and so far have a few pages that are both "W3C HTML 4.01" and "W3C CSS" valid pages.

I have now moved on to have a look through the "Bobby" validator, and it has thrown up a whole lot more things that need fixed. I don't have a problem with making the changes, but what did concern me slightly is that Bobby picks up the W3C badge as being one of the reasons the page is not Bobby valid. W3C give you the code to put the badge on your site.

Do Bobby and W3C contradict each other? Which is best to follow? or is it safe to aim for both?

Webboy

[koocw]

I think the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards are the same as the Bobby ones... not really sure though. The W3C's set of standards is the WAI [w3.org]- Web Accessibility Initiative.

[vordmeister]

Oh dear - the W3C logo upsetting Bobby? What is Bobby picking up on? Is it the lack of border on the image link?

I find it useful to work off the full list of "W3C checkpoints for accessibility" Bobby is a really good automatic validator against the W3C checkpoints but doesn't cover everything.

Having said that, if Bobby seems convinced of a problem then I would tend to go with them.

[victor]

The trick with accessibility is to listen to all of Bobby's theoretical gripes, and fix the ones that really affect your site.

Also, try [cynthiasays.com...] for a second opinion/

[webboy1]

I have been trying to do just that. I cannot fix all the things bobby would like, but i have tried to fix as many as possible.

If anything it is good practice for me for future sites.

Thanks for the opinions,

Webboy

[D_Blackwell]

I think Bobby is best for finding things that definitely can/(should?) be fixed. Level 3 compliance is pretty automatic for me now. (But most of my work is pretty straight and simple XHTML CSS.) It's the user checks that I have trouble with. Lacking a clear understanding of what is "correct", and why, can be problematic. I haven't found a real good resource for accessibility questions/resources. (Cynthia Says is ok.) I figure that sincere effort and best guess is good enough for now. In good faith, I display WCAI AAA logo on Home pages and look forward to complaints that will useful. None so far. Maybe I'm doing ok. Maybe nobody cares. Most clients don't.

Vischeck can be helpful testing for color blindness issues. Color selection for links and :hover color are sometimes eye-opening.