<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Looking for alternatives to Bobby and WebXact? Try these!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/tools/alternatives-to-bobby-and-webxact/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/tools/alternatives-to-bobby-and-webxact/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:27:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Simon Pointer</title>
		<link>http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/tools/alternatives-to-bobby-and-webxact/#comment-89402</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon Pointer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:42:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/general/alternatives-to-bobby-and-webxact/#comment-89402</guid>
		<description>I have been teaching accessibility and accessible web design for over 4 years now, and the webxact tool was always one of the best. However, in my experience most users have no idea how to read the results of a testing tool anyway, and need to spend more time working out what they are being told.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been teaching accessibility and accessible web design for over 4 years now, and the webxact tool was always one of the best. However, in my experience most users have no idea how to read the results of a testing tool anyway, and need to spend more time working out what they are being told.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin</title>
		<link>http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/tools/alternatives-to-bobby-and-webxact/#comment-56706</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:39:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/general/alternatives-to-bobby-and-webxact/#comment-56706</guid>
		<description>Bobby was far superior in identifying errors than other online tools. I have started to use other online tools now but they are not as good as they seem. I now may be constrained to buy software to guarantee accessibility at the highest level.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bobby was far superior in identifying errors than other online tools. I have started to use other online tools now but they are not as good as they seem. I now may be constrained to buy software to guarantee accessibility at the highest level.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Portejoie</title>
		<link>http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/tools/alternatives-to-bobby-and-webxact/#comment-56604</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Portejoie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:42:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/general/alternatives-to-bobby-and-webxact/#comment-56604</guid>
		<description>I would add to this list a tool I rediscovered recently with version 2: aDesigner (http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/adesigner).
This tool can be used to check HTML accessibility, to look at some usability issues beside compliance through simulations modes, and also allows developers of Flash/Flex content to enhance accessibility of their interfaces through accessibility information (MSAA/IA2) inspection functions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would add to this list a tool I rediscovered recently with version 2: aDesigner (http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/adesigner).<br />
This tool can be used to check HTML accessibility, to look at some usability issues beside compliance through simulations modes, and also allows developers of Flash/Flex content to enhance accessibility of their interfaces through accessibility information (MSAA/IA2) inspection functions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
