Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Bobby Validator messing with me, I think.
Ben Rogers
04-30-2004, 08:04 PM
I've recently tried to pass my page with the bobby validator (http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp) , and my page has failed. Previously, I thought it was accesible, so I'm unsure why it's saying this.
Most of the errors seem to stem from the linking images in my navigation, but they've had alt and title attributes on them- isn't this supposed to be enough..? Also, it's giving me some seemingly bogus errors about the links touching (They're in seperate paragraphs) animated images (none), as well as backgrounds and foregrounds not having enough contrast, and "default, place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas." (I have a select box).
I want to be able to link to a page with these results to show I've put effort into accesibility, but this validator seems to be making up errors... :confused:
Edit: Forgot the link to my validation page: http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/bobbyServlet?URL=http://projep.t35.com/
Might want to validate that XHTML, real quick, first. ;)
In priority 1 user checks, numbers 4 and 5 are referring to the footer images on your site - they check out fine. Your site is valid WCAG level A.
Priority 2, number 2 is referring to your SCRIPT tag - ignore it, your host does the popups, not you.
Priority 2, number 5 is referring to your footer images again, Bobby's wrong.
Every time you use a GIF image, it says "Do not create a blinking effect with animated gif images." Bobby, once again, is wrong.
Priority 3, number 1 means you should use the ALT attribute in your SELECT tag. It needs a text-representation of the form element. You actually should probably generate this select box via JavaScript, and use a NOSCRIPT tag with a list of style-switching links instead, anyway, since it has no real purpose for users without JavaScript.
Priority 3, number 2 means you need to put some kind of non-whitespace character to seperate your links, even though they're in paragraph tags. I usually use pipes (|) to do this, and hide them with SPAN tags.
Priority 3, number 1 (second list) is your select box again...
Priority 3, number 2 (second list) is also your select box, which has no tabindex attribute or accesskey.
Priority 3, number 3 means you need to use ABBR and/or ACRONYM tags for abbreviations and acronyms, such as WTF.
Priority 3, number 4 means you should have a skip navigation link.
Priority 3, number 5 means the same thing, just for every categorized list.
Priority 3, number 6 means you need to start using TABINDEX and ACCESSKEY on all your links.
Ben Rogers
05-01-2004, 10:53 PM
Thanks, Jona. First of all my XHTML... i beleive it is valid, except for the pop up code... wow i hate that pop up code..
Actually, that form is PHP powered, so I'm good there. I added alt and title tags to the select and options, as well as put the submit button within <noscript> tags.
I added <span style="display:none;">|||</span> after the links, to break up the links.
I don't think those are neccesarry.. mainly because I don't consider WTF a swear, but the "F-word" is, and I don't wish to have swears on Project Ε And, I think I;ve coded effectively enough to have the tabbing order how I want it.
Well thanks again... it still doesn't validate but now I don't think it will.
Well, when you redesign, and I know you will once you learn how to do graphics better, Bobby it along the way. Bobby is pretty stupid, I usually go with what Cynthia Says (http://www.cynthiasays.com/), myself. ;)
Ben Rogers
05-01-2004, 11:38 PM
Lol... I'm hurt, what my crappy scheme isn't good enough for you? And, I can't much learn to make better graphics... I have a watered down cheapass version of Adobe Photoshop called "adobe photodeluxe". I always try to keep it accesible while I'm making it, though.
The reason I wanted to use Bobby btw is because they have an image I can use as verification.. but yes, I may redesign soon.
Cynthia Says she has a button for if your site is valid too! :p
Ben Rogers
05-02-2004, 12:12 AM
Oh, it does? Can you link me to the page explaining it, I haven't seen it.
Cynthia Says (http://www.cynthiasays.com/org/cynthiatested.htm) everything. :D
Ben Rogers
05-02-2004, 12:18 AM
Lol... you're having a little too much fun with that methinks. But, thanks.. I'll have to pop one of those onto my site sometime soon.
Originally posted by omega
I'll have to pop one of those onto my site sometime soon.
Assuming Cynthia Says (http://www.cynthiasays.com/) she agrees with you and that you're following her guidelines. ;)
Ben Rogers
05-02-2004, 12:35 AM
Well, Cynth- Ah screw it, the validator agrees with me, I've "Passed Automated Verification", so I guess so.
508 or WCAG 1, 2, 3? ;) (Just curious, too lazy to validate it myself. lol.) If it's valid -- anything -- then you can use the button, though.
Ben Rogers
05-02-2004, 01:25 PM
I pass 508, as well as WCAG 1,2,3 although I do get warned for not using acceskeys or tabindex'es.
I guess that's good enough. ;)
Ben Rogers
05-02-2004, 02:35 PM
Good enough? I have more links than possible acceskeys... lol...
Damn underemphasis. Same with Paul's fossil worm. ^_^
Robert Wellock
05-04-2004, 10:12 AM
Both Cynthia and Bobby are morons personally I don't put any real value on either of those two imbeciles. Also their logo usage tends to give the wrong impressions about accessibility making the viewer assume because a robot spat out some results then the web author actually produced an accessible site.
Originally posted by Robert Wellock
Also their logo usage tends to give the wrong impressions about accessibility making the viewer assume because a robot spat out some results then the web author actually produced an accessible site.
Really? You have a point there, then. I found them partially useful, at least to help me to figure out how well I had made the site; does Bobby/Cynthia catch more errors than they should, or not enough?
By the way, I knew they were stupid all along, I really did. :D
Ben Rogers
05-04-2004, 02:59 PM
Sure you did, Jona. The thing is, though, that it's nice to have some proof that you took some time to make a nice n' accesible site. ^^;
I really did, honest! And I think Robert means he'd rather see a WCAG AAA button than a "Bobby Approved" or "Cynthia Tested" button. ;)
Ben Rogers
05-04-2004, 03:59 PM
Huh... where is the WCAG homepage now, anyways? And, still, a link to a validator is still nice.
BTW Rob... you should try to make an accesibility validator.... :)
EDIT: Realized I was unclear...
Robert Wellock
05-05-2004, 07:49 AM
An "accessibility validator", an interesting idea but there is no such thing in existence and there never can be it's impossibility.
Yes, you can probably design tools that check for colour contrast and other such things as the robots but in the end it requires human judgement on interpretation of the results.
It's fine using those two Muppet Robots; just don't rely too heavily on their judgements. It's like I could make a perfectly valid XHTML document, which lacked good semantics one could hence display Valid XHTML Logo but the page itself doesn't have to make sense.
For example: <h1><strong><b><em><i><u>Lorem</u></i></em></b></strong></h1> is perfectly valid syntax but not used very effectively for the text Lorem.
:D
Ben Rogers
05-05-2004, 03:53 PM
Huh... so no go, huh? ;)
I see your point though, even though I do doubt it's impossible to make a flawless validater (with some AI and CGI maybe ^_^.. yes I'm just stringing words together), but for now each does have some flaws. It's still a good idea to treat the validators as the valuable tool they are, catching mistakes you may've missed (Bobby Validator == Bad Example) and just using the validator as a tool to help you out. Not totally useless.