Top | About SiteAnalyzer | Past Reports | Feedback

Send your comments. Please specify if you would rather your remarks were not published. In particular, we're looking for:

• Technical improvements of our analytical toolchest.
  
• Suggestions for new or improved measurements.
  
• Requests for analysis of particular segments on the nonprofit world.
  
• Anecdotes that comment our analysis.
  

Recent Messages:

From: wcrotts@arches.uga.edu

I am puzzled on why you think 'Bobby' is the godsend as to determining if a site is accessible or inaccessible.

Basically, Bobby is merely a tool to a end-goal of accessibility. There are inaccessible pages that Bobby grants its approval and there are accessible sites that Bobby flags (specifically any server sided image map). To ignore this fact and give Bobby the authority that you seem to be giving it is a horrible precedent.

I would hope you would conduct a more scientific and fair survey in the future.

Wayne Crotts
Network & Information Services
Institute on Human Development and Disability
College of Family & Consumer Sciences
University of Georgia

From: editor@outlookmagazine.com

I recently came across your survey of the accessibility of disability-related nonprofit websites, as measured by Bobby. I believe the survey lacked some details which could have been illuminating.

Accessibility is an issue for people affected by certain disabilities, yet the survey did not detail which disabilities were the focus of the sites examined. It would have been more revealing to examine which kind of accessibility errors were found, and on which category of sites. It would be more significant to find accessibility errors on sites related to visual impairment than, say, bowel cancer. It would also be a more significant test for Bobby itself, which is not a perfect indicator of accessibility.

You also failed to mention that Bobby's own home page [ http://www.cast.org/bobby/) ] has 20 browser compatibility errors, which suggests that this is an even less significant test of accessibility.

From my own experience, it is possible to design a website that is both fully accessible (ie works equally well in text and graphical browsers, degrading legibly in older versions, with no barriers) and fails the Bobby test. Without a more detailed real-world test of the accessibility of these sites, the survey is directly equating Bobby approval with accessibility, which even the designers of Bobby agree is not accurate.

If indeed you ever conduct a more broad survey of the accessibility of non-profit websites, I would be most interested in the results.

Regards,

Sean Lindsay
Editor - OutLook Magazine's Disability Web
The online magazine for the worldwide disability community
Web: http://www.OutLookMagazine.com
Email: editor@outlookmagazine.com

From: nfbcan@bc.sympatico.ca

I have read your comments about disability web site access. You have some valid comments. I work on the web site for our organisation. It has passed the "Bobby" test, but I will check and see what you say about other problems. However, from what you say, perhaps the "Bobby" logo has some problems of its own.

If you really wish to get completely depressed, perhaps you might try looking at some Canadian or U.S. Government web sites. They can be really intimidateing, particularly with multiple panes, .PDF file links and other glitzy show pieces. Even though Canadian government policies suggest "text accessible" sites, they are not too common.

Sincerely,

Ken Westlake

From: poehlman@clark.net

Bobby does not claim to be the be all and end all of web analysis for accessibility. It depends on several factors which are clearly stated in its pages. also, you miss a point that may be even more interesting from a non profit analysis point of view. I have found in my years of work with them that by and large, non profit disability organizations are not targeting people with disabilities with their publicity as much of it is intended for funding and they fel that the best way to get funding is to attract it through traditional streams. Some disability organizations even claim that it is too costly to produce their publicity in forms that are independantly useable by their mentored populations for the return they would get. It is often said that 70 percent of the blind for instance are either un or under employed, in fact, if we look at the disability population as a whole, we see much more alarming stats.

Check this out, Let's dialog?

Thanks for your study your efforts and the report. Please do not be mislead into thinking that the federal government is going to mandate anything here. it is not. It is going to come up with clearn standards, but the standards will not be funded so will not be adhered too even and especially within a number of agencies in the fed its self.

David Poehlman
Hands-On Technolog(eye)s