Page style:

A Blue Perspective: Accessible, yes; usable, no

Accessible, yes; usable, no
19 February 2004

It's always helpful when an anonymous reader sends you a message saying your site "fails miserably". In this case, it was my "claim" to Bobby AAA approval that they took umbrage to. It's best not to rebuke such scathing criticism directly, but needless to say that this site (or at least the home page) is now Bobby AAA approved, and all it took was three seconds and one full stop.

However, in the process of getting approval I discovered that I could indeed empathise with Anonymous_Reader_37's view of my site's accessibility. If you have a look at the Bobby report page with the error on it (saved for posterity) it looks like your page is an affront to the existence of the Internet. There's bold text, line numbers, warnings and priority levels all over the report. What isn't wrong with your site?

Unfortunately, if your site is approved, the report looks exactly the same. The only difference is that there's a rather small "Bobby AAA Approved" graphic halfway down the page, and that one previous error has disappeared. If you don't know what you're looking for, it still seems like your site is an affront to the existence of the Internet.

I can understand the exigencies of automated detection of accessibility compliance – there's much that a computer cannot (at least for the moment) determine, such as colour choice, and that's what most of the warnings are about. If you are diagnosing your own site, such advice is great, but it does confuse anyone who is quickly checking the accessibility of a site.

This could all be pretty easily solved by placing a prominent "All automated checks passed!" at the top of the page or – if it didn't pass – by listing the automated errors at the top of the page. I think that the W3C gets it pretty right when you're validating a web page. There's a nice big message at the top saying yay or nay, and forthcoming explanations of the nays (if you are unlucky).

Mr. Zeldman moved to Cynthia because of Bobby's supposed reliability, but she includes even less recognition of a site's overall goodness, albeit with less alarming warnings.

I realise that both sites are free and help in a very important area, and for that I bless them, but with some tiny changes they could be oh so much better.


1/9. 19 February 2004 @ 03:45, Unearthed Ruminator wrote:

I used to use Bobby, but now it won't connect to my site, so I use Cynthia Says. Bobby will test and approve it's own site ( for AAA, it fails Cynthia Says ( - but does pass it for 508 and A (not AA); Cynthia fails itself for AAA and AA (but not 508 or A), so at least they are consistent.

I agree that the interface on both sites could be much improved.

2/9. 19 February 2004 @ 10:02, James Craig wrote:

I'm guessing you probably already know this, but the "Bobby Approved" icon does not mean accessible. This is most accessibility consultants' biggest complaint with Bobby. What it should say is exactly what you've stated, "All automated checks passed." Maybe it should also have checkboxes for each of the user checks so that you can get to the "Bobby Approved" icon eventually, but not just after the simple automated checks.

I see so many sites claim full accessibility just because they saw the "Bobby Approved" icon. Some of the people that take the time to add that icon to their site, don't even take the time to do (or understand) a single user check.

3/9. 19 February 2004 @ 23:29, Unearthed Ruminator wrote:

That is true James. It's a whole lot easier to just print off the check lists from the W3C and go through them (although Bobby and Cynthia Says can help with some of the basics and while they might approve a site, they will still provide suggestions of where to still check things manually. Of course, how many people are going to scroll down past the little Approved Icon ;) ).

4/9. 19 February 2004 @ 23:37, Keith Bell wrote:

I agree that the Bobby report page looks like a dog's breakfast. I can also see your point of view about Cynthia's failure to make a clear and obvious statement that a page has "passed" -- but I think that's probably related to what James said in Comment 2. Cynthia probably does not want to give the impression because a page has passed the automated tests, that it is necessarily accessible. Maybe Cynthia hopes that will encourage users to review the report for those checkpoints that need to be verified manually.

From that point of view, I find Cynthia's tabular Yes/No/Other layout much more friendly than Bobby's report: I can scan down the columns quickly to pick out anything that needs investigation. As a result I've pretty much dumped Bobby in favour of Cynthia for accessibility checking (fickle creature that I am...)

5/9. 20 February 2004 @ 07:41, Jemal wrote:

It looks to me like this site won't pass if you ever have the same number of comments on two posts. Priority 2: "Do not use the same link phrase more than once when the links point to different URLs." "4 comments" is "4 comments."

For some automatically generated content, I can't imagine how you'd prevent this. On my blog I include a list of the recent comments. How should my CMS automatically come up with some creative text for each comment?

6/9. 20 February 2004 @ 09:14, The Man in Blue wrote:

"4 comments for 'Insert Title'"?

Thankfully, by commenting you changed the comment numbers :o]

7/9. 20 February 2004 @ 09:51, James Craig wrote:

As for links using the same link text, such as comment links and permanent links, you can either generate your link text or have a unique title attribute. IE. "6 comments on post: Accessible, yes; usable, no" or "Permanent link to post: Accessible, yes; usable, no."

The title attribute addition probably isn't as accessible as the plain text version, but it has the benefit of not mucking up your design with a bunch of extra long text links.

8/9. 24 February 2004 @ 10:59, Ash Donaldson wrote:

Accessibility requires a number of levels of validation.
First, it should be valid, structured XHTML, with valid, semantic CSS controlling presentation.
Next, the automated checks should be applied (N.B. I prefer CynthiaSays for as first pass because the reports aren't so clunky).
A great tool that provides a very visual way to check the semantic and structural layers is WebAIM's 'The Wave' (v3.5), which is always my next check.
An expert review is next on the checklist. Having performed a number of accessibility studies, and working with people of differing abilities, or those using different technologies allows me to apply a set of my own heuristics as I walk through a site e.g. don't hide skiplinks as they are just as useful to people with motor disabilities as they are to people with vision impairment; or don't use underlined letters to indicate accesskeys; etc.
Finally, there is the ultimate test - testing with users. I'm amazed how rare this actually seems to be. If Usability Engineers, HCI Consultants, or Human Factors Engineers relied upon automated checks and expert reviews, they'd be immediately discounted. These are only the beginning - somewhere to find areas for further investigation. For something to claim to cater for the target audience, it has to be tested with the target audience.

9/9. 20 March 2005 @ 02:04, folding poker table wrote:

<h1>Please check some information about<A HREF=""> full tilt </A> full tilt <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> seven card stud poker </A> seven card stud poker <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> omaha poker </A> omaha poker <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> invention of seven card stud </A> invention of seven card stud <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> free online texas holdem tournaments </A> free online texas holdem tournaments <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> holdem online </A> holdem online <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> holdem companion </A> holdem companion <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> handheld texas holdem </A> handheld texas holdem <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> texas holdem kit </A> texas holdem kit <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> plug and play+texas hold em </A> plug and play+texas hold em <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> texas holdem tools </A> texas holdem tools <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> texas holdem stratagies </A> texas holdem stratagies <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> texas holdem poker tips </A> texas holdem poker tips <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> texas holdem free casino game </A> texas holdem free casino game <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> texas holdem poker games </A> texas holdem poker games <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> texas hold em on line </A> texas hold em on line <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> womens texas hold em shirts </A> womens texas hold em shirts <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> texas holdem video game </A> texas holdem video game <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> holdem poker texas tip </A> holdem poker texas tip <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> casino texas holdem </A> casino texas holdem <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> texas holdem hands </A> texas holdem hands <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> irc video poker </A> irc video poker <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> free shipping poker chips </A> free shipping poker chips <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> poker runs </A> poker runs <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> custom poker tables </A> custom poker tables <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> poker accesories </A> poker accesories <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> poker odds calculator </A> poker odds calculator <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> texas holdem poker tables </A> texas holdem poker tables <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> free poker software </A> free poker software <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> tv poker </A> tv poker <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> folding poker tables </A> folding poker tables <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> texas hold em poker game </A> texas hold em poker game <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> world poker </A> world poker <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> poker tables for sale </A> poker tables for sale <A HREF=""></A> <br/><A HREF=""> online strip poker </A> online strip poker <A HREF=""></A> <br/>... </h1>

Post your own comments

Fields marked with an asterisk* are mandatory. All HTML tags will be escaped. http:// strings in comments will be auto-linked.