<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Conversation with SiteMorse at AccessifyForum</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2006/05/conversation-with-sitemorse-at-accessifyforum/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2006/05/conversation-with-sitemorse-at-accessifyforum/</link>
	<description>Tips and Commentary on Web Accessibility, Usability, and Search Marketing best practices.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:51:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Dolson</title>
		<link>http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2006/05/conversation-with-sitemorse-at-accessifyforum/comment-page-1/#comment-23269</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Dolson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:21:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.joedolson.com/articles/?p=26#comment-23269</guid>
		<description>Not sure I&#039;d say this is an &quot;ongoing&quot; issue --- personally, I haven&#039;t followed any conversations concerning SiteMorse in any way for the last year and a half. 

At this point, I can say that yes, SiteMorse definitely says explicitly on their website that points should be reviewed manually; I can&#039;t speak to what you may have said 18 months ago. 

This is the problem with bringing up issues from older posts, you understand --- opinions change, stances change. I&#039;m not going to get involved in a discussion on this at this point; I don&#039;t remember the situation well enough to make it worth anybody&#039;s while.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not sure I&#8217;d say this is an &#8220;ongoing&#8221; issue&thinsp;&#8212;&thinsp;- personally, I haven&#8217;t followed any conversations concerning SiteMorse in any way for the last year and a&nbsp;half. </p>
<p>At this point, I can say that yes, SiteMorse definitely says explicitly on their website that points should be reviewed manually; I can&#8217;t speak to what you may have said 18 months&nbsp;ago. </p>
<p>This is the problem with bringing up issues from older posts, you understand&thinsp;&#8212;&thinsp;- opinions change, stances change. I&#8217;m not going to get involved in a discussion on this at this point; I don&#8217;t remember the situation well enough to make it worth anybody&#8217;s&nbsp;while.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: L Shaw</title>
		<link>http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2006/05/conversation-with-sitemorse-at-accessifyforum/comment-page-1/#comment-23268</link>
		<dc:creator>L Shaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:38:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.joedolson.com/articles/?p=26#comment-23268</guid>
		<description>hmmm, this seems to be an ongoing issue - simply put SiteMorse has never said automated testing is the only answer, you can not check a website completely - solely using either automated or manual testing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hmmm, this seems to be an ongoing issue - simply put SiteMorse has never said automated testing is the only answer, you can not check a website completely - solely using either automated or manual&nbsp;testing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

