QuakerInfo.com Forum

[paul la c]

I know this wont be a major priority for you Bill but this site is quite innaccessable and really could cause quite a problem for blind/ poorly sighted friends. I think you ought to take a look at few of the following pages:

• The WAI guidelines
  
• Automated WAI check
  
• Section 508
  
• Automated section 508 check
  

_________________

[wsamuel]

I had checked it out a long time ago, and it checked out well. Clearly accessibility guidelines have changed, and furthermore Bobby does a much worse job than it used to, since it identified a huge number of apparently bogus errors (type of error identified actually not present, although for one error it was identified in almost every line) and only gives the most rudimetary classification to them. Furthermore, some things were identified as errors but the explanation shows the "errors" are actually compliant with accessibility guidelines and just not the most preferred way to do things. Some were "if" type statements applied to every line where a given characteristic occurs, although there is only a problem if manual analysis shows a particular criteria is met (like using longdesc if alt text is not adequate). However, there are some improvements I can make over time - particularly the use of table headers.

Actual examples of how people found things inaccessible would be more helpful than the Bobby reports.
_________________
Bill Samuel, Webservant, QuakerInfo.com

[paul la c]

[wsamuel]

The site doesn't look good in the lynx viewer, but content seemed quite readable with the exception of the few pages where content was in tables used other than for layout. The content of the home page, for example, was quite readable.
_________________
Bill Samuel, Webservant, QuakerInfo.com

[james]