E-mail List Archives
Thread: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
Number of posts in this thread: 29 (In chronological order)
From: John Hicks
Date: Fri, Jun 09 2006 7:00AM
Subject: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
No previous message | Next message →
Good afternoon, good morning, just a few hours to go...
A short announcement to coincide with the world's great football (ahem,
that's "soccer" for those of you over the pond) tournament, the World Cup.
Urbilog, the Accessibility experts in Europe, have recently begun a
public "ranking" service which measures and compares accessibility
(based on WCAG 1.0) of like structures. That is, we run tables of
comparisons between towns, or insurance companies, and local government
agencies, etc.
To expand this service beyond the borders of its homebase (France), and
to jump on the world cup bandwagon, Urbilog is introducing a page of
comparison for over 60 national sites. The top 20 are ranked in order
with details on numbers of accessibilty errors.
We will be running the country audits daily through out the World Cup
period, in case any web developers feel the urge to clean up, they will
see results immediately. Current leaders are the UK, France and Austria.
For further information, feel free to contact me personally by email,
otherwise, just sit back and let the games begin!
http://www.urbilog.fr/ranking.htm?type=5
Cheers for now,
John
PS. Apologies that the page itself is in French only. This will change
next week. The table is, however, of course, Accessible to All... no
matter what your language constraints.
--
__________________________________________
URBILOG "For a more accessible web"
80 rue d'I
From: John Hicks
Date: Fri, Jun 09 2006 7:10AM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
Very true. In fact, as stated on the page, the "measure" of
accessibility is really a lower bound, an underestimation, as we are
only checking automatisable rules. Obviously, manual testing on this
scale is not possible (100 pages per site, and 60 sites per day), but
the technology we are using is of a very high quality (it is not
commercially available).
The page will be in English next week, but since the real World Cup
starts today, I got trigger happy. The countries that appear without
arrows are those that have just been added. At the next run, there
direction (going up? going down?) will be apparent.
Your point is very important, but we believe that, other things being
equal, these mechanical tests give a pretty good sign of what the site
operator thinks of accessibility. As far as appearances are concerned,
it is interesting to see the relation ship between the overall average
and the number of detectable errors on the first page...
It would also be important to weigh the errors in terms of there WAI
priority levels.
Best wishes,
John
Patrick Lauke wrote:
>> John Hicks
>>
>
>
>> To expand this service beyond the borders of its homebase
>> (France), and
>> to jump on the world cup bandwagon, Urbilog is introducing a page of
>> comparison for over 60 national sites. The top 20 are ranked
>> in order
>> with details on numbers of accessibilty errors.
>>
>
> Am I right in thinking that you're doing a purely automated check, with
> no manual testing involved? If that's the case...how useful are those
> rankings in reflecting the *actual* accessibility of the different sites?
> Also, is there any page explaining exactly any heuristics your automated
> tools may be applying? Are you still testing against the "Until user agents..."
> checkpoints, even when modern practice tells us that most of them are now
> fairly obsolete?
>
> Patrick
> ________________________________
> Patrick H. Lauke
> Web Editor / University of Salford
> http://www.salford.ac.uk
> ________________________________
> Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
> http://webstandards.org/
> ________________________________
>
>
>
--
__________________________________________
URBILOG "For a more accessible web"
80 rue d'I
From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Fri, Jun 09 2006 7:20AM
Subject: RE: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
> John Hicks
> To expand this service beyond the borders of its homebase
> (France), and
> to jump on the world cup bandwagon, Urbilog is introducing a page of
> comparison for over 60 national sites. The top 20 are ranked
> in order
> with details on numbers of accessibilty errors.
Am I right in thinking that you're doing a purely automated check, with
no manual testing involved? If that's the case...how useful are those
rankings in reflecting the *actual* accessibility of the different sites?
Also, is there any page explaining exactly any heuristics your automated
tools may be applying? Are you still testing against the "Until user agents..."
checkpoints, even when modern practice tells us that most of them are now
fairly obsolete?
Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
________________________________
From: Tim Beadle
Date: Fri, Jun 09 2006 7:30AM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
On 09/06/06, John Hicks < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Your point is very important, but we believe that, other things being
> equal, these mechanical tests give a pretty good sign of what the site
> operator thinks of accessibility. As far as appearances are concerned,
> it is interesting to see the relation ship between the overall average
> and the number of detectable errors on the first page...
Interesting that the leading site (www.direct.gov.uk) has a rather
acute case of divitis/classitis, while being almost valid HTML 4.01
Transitional (1 error). It ticks all the right boxes (skip links, CSS
for layout, almost-valid HTML) while still somehow failing to have
high quality, well-structured, semantic markup.
Still, compared to the DTI's new site, it's a positive triumph for uk.gov...
Tim
From: John Hicks
Date: Fri, Jun 09 2006 7:40AM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
Before someone beats me to it, I should point out that I have just been
made aware of a rather large gaffe of validation errors on the ranking page!
Many apologies, for there is nothing worse than a page pointing the
finger at splinters in the accessibility of other sites when there are
beams and 2x4s on the page itself!
Unfortunately the dude who wrote the page itself is out til monday... so
a weekend of shame fast approaches.
Apologies,
John
--
__________________________________________
URBILOG "For a more accessible web"
80 rue d'I
From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Fri, Jun 09 2006 7:50AM
Subject: RE: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
Tim Wrote:
> Interesting that the leading site (www.direct.gov.uk) has a rather
> acute case of divitis/classitis, while being almost valid HTML 4.01
> Transitional (1 error). It ticks all the right boxes (skip links, CSS
> for layout, almost-valid HTML) while still somehow failing to have
> high quality, well-structured, semantic markup.
Well, I think my position on automated testing is fairly well known (if
not, see the links below): it's not a real measure, must publish
criteria etc.
Having said that, it is nice when a site you worked on comes out first
:)
Tim's right, the front end code was originally created by Java/CMS
programmers with no concept of structural code. In a tight timeline we
brought in late and had to 'insert' as much accessibility as possible,
in co-operation with said programmers. Although not 'elegant', under the
hood, I'm quite pleased with how it turned out, especially given the
amount of work changing the system was (for them, we just had to
persuade them to do it).
It would have been nice to have control over the templates (e.g. we
wouldn't have needed a table for the 4 banners across the top), but it
simply wasn't possible.
Kind regards,
-Alastair
Views on automated testing:
http://www.nomensa.com/resources/articles/accessibility-lifecycle.html
http://accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=5141&;postdays=0&postorder=asc&
start=30#37933 (point 2)
--
Alastair Campbell | Director of User Experience
Nomensa Email Disclaimer:
http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer.html
From: Tim Beadle
Date: Fri, Jun 09 2006 8:20AM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
On 09/06/06, Alastair Campbell < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Well, I think my position on automated testing is fairly well known (if
> not, see the links below): it's not a real measure, must publish
> criteria etc.
I'll check those links out.
> Having said that, it is nice when a site you worked on comes out first
> :)
Indeed - give yourself a pat on the back ;)
> Tim's right, the front end code was originally created by Java/CMS
> programmers with no concept of structural code. In a tight timeline we
> brought in late and had to 'insert' as much accessibility as possible,
> in co-operation with said programmers. Although not 'elegant', under the
> hood, I'm quite pleased with how it turned out, especially given the
> amount of work changing the system was (for them, we just had to
> persuade them to do it).
I feel your pain - I've had to retrofit accessibility before and it's no fun.
> It would have been nice to have control over the templates (e.g. we
> wouldn't have needed a table for the 4 banners across the top), but it
> simply wasn't possible.
As I mentioned, it's a pretty good result (for UK Gov), especially (as
it turns out) under the circumstances.
Tim
From: Tim Beadle
Date: Fri, Jun 09 2006 8:40AM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
On 09/06/06, Daniel Champion < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Without full details of what's being tested and how, they are of very
> little value IMHO. Why not rename it the "Validity World Cup" and measure
> something that's measurable?
What, like this?
http://www.timandkathy.co.uk/validaq/
(I always meant to automate it...)
Tim
From: Tim Beadle
Date: Fri, Jun 09 2006 8:50AM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
On 09/06/06, Tim Beadle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> As I mentioned, it's a pretty good result (for UK Gov), especially (as
> it turns out) under the circumstances.
Gah - talk about damning with faint praise! For "pretty good", insert
"excellent" :)
Tim
From: Daniel Champion
Date: Fri, Jun 09 2006 9:00AM
Subject: RE: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
Alastair wrote:
>Well, I think my position on automated testing is fairly well known (if
>not, see the links below): it's not a real measure, must publish
>criteria etc.
My position is also well-documented, and not a million miles from your
own. League tables, based on automated tests, claiming to reflect
accessibility? We've been here before. [1]
Without full details of what's being tested and how, they are of very
little value IMHO. Why not rename it the "Validity World Cup" and measure
something that's measurable?
/grouch
Dan
[1] http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=3540
This email and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving Clackmannanshire Council.
Clackmannanshire Council will not be liable for any losses as a result of viruses being passed on.
www.clacksweb.org.uk
From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Fri, Jun 09 2006 9:10AM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
More automated testing for functional accessibility features
can be found in a new tool we are developing at the University
of Illinois called the "Functional Accessibility Evaluator".
http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu
Try it out, would be interested in comments.
Jon
---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:08:33 +0200
>From: John Hicks < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
>To: Patrick Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Cc: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>Very true. In fact, as stated on the page, the "measure" of
>accessibility is really a lower bound, an underestimation, as
we are
>only checking automatisable rules. Obviously, manual testing
on this
>scale is not possible (100 pages per site, and 60 sites per
day), but
>the technology we are using is of a very high quality (it is not
>commercially available).
>
>The page will be in English next week, but since the real
World Cup
>starts today, I got trigger happy. The countries that appear
without
>arrows are those that have just been added. At the next run,
there
>direction (going up? going down?) will be apparent.
>
>Your point is very important, but we believe that, other
things being
>equal, these mechanical tests give a pretty good sign of what
the site
>operator thinks of accessibility. As far as appearances are
concerned,
>it is interesting to see the relation ship between the
overall average
>and the number of detectable errors on the first page...
>
>It would also be important to weigh the errors in terms of
there WAI
>priority levels.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>John
>
>
>Patrick Lauke wrote:
>>> John Hicks
>>>
>>
>>
>>> To expand this service beyond the borders of its homebase
>>> (France), and
>>> to jump on the world cup bandwagon, Urbilog is introducing
a page of
>>> comparison for over 60 national sites. The top 20 are ranked
>>> in order
>>> with details on numbers of accessibilty errors.
>>>
>>
>> Am I right in thinking that you're doing a purely automated
check, with
>> no manual testing involved? If that's the case...how useful
are those
>> rankings in reflecting the *actual* accessibility of the
different sites?
>> Also, is there any page explaining exactly any heuristics
your automated
>> tools may be applying? Are you still testing against the
"Until user agents..."
>> checkpoints, even when modern practice tells us that most
of them are now
>> fairly obsolete?
>>
>> Patrick
>> ________________________________
>> Patrick H. Lauke
>> Web Editor / University of Salford
>> http://www.salford.ac.uk
>> ________________________________
>> Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
>> http://webstandards.org/
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>
>
>__________________________________________
>
> URBILOG "For a more accessible web"
>
>80 rue d'I
From: Daniel Champion
Date: Fri, Jun 09 2006 9:20AM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
Dan Champion:
> Why not rename it the "Validity World Cup" and measure
> something that's measurable?
Tim Beadle:
> What, like this? http://www.timandkathy.co.uk/validaq/
Oh yes, very good, it would be splendid if someone produced something like
that on a regular basis for government sites, major corporates etc. I'd
wager valid (X)HTML is a reasonable proxy for accessibility on large
sites, and at least the ranking would be transparent.
Have you got automated processes behind ValiDAQ, or was it just a bit of
fun?
Dan
This email and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving Clackmannanshire Council.
Clackmannanshire Council will not be liable for any losses as a result of viruses being passed on.
www.clacksweb.org.uk
From: Tim Beadle
Date: Fri, Jun 09 2006 9:40AM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
On 09/06/06, Daniel Champion < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > What, like this? http://www.timandkathy.co.uk/validaq/
>
> Oh yes, very good, it would be splendid if someone produced something like
> that on a regular basis for government sites, major corporates etc. I'd
> wager valid (X)HTML is a reasonable proxy for accessibility on large
> sites, and at least the ranking would be transparent.
It would be good, and it wouldn't be hard to do (for someone with the
right skills).
> Have you got automated processes behind ValiDAQ, or was it just a bit of
> fun?
I always intended to, but time and my limited Perl-fu put paid to that
;) It was just a bit of fun, hence the three-years-old last updated
date...
Tim
From: John Hicks
Date: Fri, Jun 09 2006 10:10AM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
Actually you have a good point there!
Check the site next week. I just integrated opensp 1.5 into our tool
(having spent months trying to figure out why nsgmls.exe didn't give
quite the same results as the W3C validator... all those cascading
entity errors). I probably should have asked on this very forum, but
did not.
The Validity world cup... hmmm, yea. Will give you credit for that idea
when the list is up!
It's all automated and the validator theoretically works under the same
batch.... but will check all this before posting. On another forum I
am getting strung up for some sloppy programming in that table, though
actually the page developer is not here to take the heat!
Best wishes,
John
Daniel Champion wrote:
> Dan Champion:
>
>
>> Why not rename it the "Validity World Cup" and measure
>> something that's measurable?
>>
>
> Tim Beadle:
>
>
>> What, like this? http://www.timandkathy.co.uk/validaq/
>>
>
> Oh yes, very good, it would be splendid if someone produced something like
> that on a regular basis for government sites, major corporates etc. I'd
> wager valid (X)HTML is a reasonable proxy for accessibility on large
> sites, and at least the ranking would be transparent.
>
> Have you got automated processes behind ValiDAQ, or was it just a bit of
> fun?
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> This email and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving Clackmannanshire Council.
>
> Clackmannanshire Council will not be liable for any losses as a result of viruses being passed on.
>
> www.clacksweb.org.uk
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
--
__________________________________________
URBILOG "For a more accessible web"
80 rue d'I
From: St
Date: Sat, Jun 10 2006 8:20AM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
<quote who='Daniel Champion' when='09/06/2006 16:28'>
>> What, like this? http://www.timandkathy.co.uk/validaq/
>
> Oh yes, very good, it would be splendid if someone produced something like
> that on a regular basis for government sites, major corporates etc. I'd
> wager valid (X)HTML is a reasonable proxy for accessibility on large
> sites, and at least the ranking would be transparent.
<disclaimer>
I belong to the company who's cofounding the automated tool John's been
talking about.
</disclaimer>
Yeah, well, don't wager too much.
Most projects I work with say they don't mind about the overall quality
of their code (they're awfully invalid, and more awfully
less-than-structured most of the times), as long as we (I'm part of an
internal accessibility team for a big company) can test a 'pragmatic'
accessibility: blind, low-vision, daltonism, etc. A project manager even
went as far as accusing me of wanting (quote) "beautiful code" and
(quote again) "getting away from the initial intent which was to be
accessible enough for our needs".
(side note: I sure know it's awfully biased on vision and doesn't care
about the rest, especially interoperability, gracefully degrading with
no JS, etc. But we're working on broadening the mentalities.)
Yet the one thing many projects object about is when I tell them valide,
well-structured code is the first step. They've all moved to skip links
and unambiguous links etc.
On the other hand, I've seem many valid-valid-valid people who couldn't
care less about accessibility. They just cared about zero error in a
validator. And as all of us know this can be done with badly-structured
and non-accessible conception.
In a more recent message I see that John says he's merging validity into
the process. It's a good thing, as we've got to cross both tests:
validity in itself is not intrinsically a proof that accessibility is a
concern for any given site.
--
St
From: Stiofan Perkins
Date: Sun, Jun 11 2006 12:10PM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
I have tested the validity of the code for 186 US law schools, their law libraries, and the library pages of the 126 Association of Research Libraries.
The results:
law schools - 2 pages that passed the W3 validator;
law libraries - 6 pages passed
ARL libraries - approximattely 21 passed. Some people were doing browser sniffing and the page passed if view in IE but not in FF and vice-versa.
All-in-all, pretty dismal.
Regards,
Steven C. Perkins
Daniel Champion < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote: Dan Champion:
> Why not rename it the "Validity World Cup" and measure
> something that's measurable?
Tim Beadle:
> What, like this? http://www.timandkathy.co.uk/validaq/
Oh yes, very good, it would be splendid if someone produced something like
that on a regular basis for government sites, major corporates etc. I'd
wager valid (X)HTML is a reasonable proxy for accessibility on large
sites, and at least the ranking would be transparent.
Have you got automated processes behind ValiDAQ, or was it just a bit of
fun?
Dan
This email and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving Clackmannanshire Council.
Clackmannanshire Council will not be liable for any losses as a result of viruses being passed on.
www.clacksweb.org.uk
From: smithj7
Date: Sun, Jun 11 2006 3:40PM
Subject: RE: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
What a neat idea. :)
From: smithj7
Date: Sun, Jun 11 2006 3:50PM
Subject: RE: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
It can happen to the best of us. Sometimes we we get so focused or
excited about something, we make these types of errors...
From: smithj7
Date: Sun, Jun 11 2006 4:00PM
Subject: RE: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
Well I discovered that on the new template for my page the navigation
isn't set up as clearly as I thought. I like the best practice link
that shows how to fix the error cause I thought I had it right as the
css and xhtml past.
From: smithj7
Date: Sun, Jun 11 2006 4:20PM
Subject: RE: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
As a web person, I'd like to see my name a GOOD list. ;)
Jamie
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Sun, Jun 11 2006 4:30PM
Subject: RE: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Daniel Champion wrote:
> Without full details of what's being tested and how, they are of very
> little value IMHO.
I am a bit surprised at the lack of information of what is regarded as
automatically testable WCAG 1.0 rules and exactly how they have been
tested. But that's not important right now. The whole idea is
counterproductive even if we ignore this vagueness:
- it does not help to improve web sites; mere comparisons and tests do
not change anything in reality - you need something that makes people
_utilize_ them somehow
- it wastes accessibility affectionados' time and energy that could be
spent better
- it strengthens the tendency to focus on the measurable rather than
the important and to aim at WCAG 1.0 conformance rather than
accessibility (which are related, but surely not the same thing).
Rather, explain to decision makers why the government sites are poorly
accessible and why that matters. They won't be impressed by any relative
rankings on some mystic (to them) scale.
> Why not rename it the "Validity World Cup" and measure
> something that's measurable?
Assuming you mean markup validity is measurable only on an on/off scale.
Either a document is valid, or it is not. The number of error messages
just indicates how a validator reports that the document is not valid, and
it is generally much affected by decisions like "should we report a
particular type of error in all occurrences, or just the first one?". We
already know that the vast majority of web pages are invalid, so the
contest would not be particularly interested. Besides, validity as such
has very little impact on accessibility.
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: smithj7
Date: Sun, Jun 11 2006 4:40PM
Subject: RE: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
From: Daniel Champion
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 3:10AM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
Daniel Champion:
> I'd wager valid (X)HTML is a reasonable proxy for accessibility on
> large sites, and at least the ranking would be transparent.
St
From: Stephane Deschamps
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 3:40AM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
<quote who="Daniel Champion">
> I agree, that's why I specifically said it would be a reasonable *proxy*
> for accessibility. Developers of large sites who understand the value and
> benefits of valid HTML are also likely to understand and implement
> accessibility. Of course there will always be exceptions, and of course
> valid code alone does not make a site accessible.
>
> The point I trying to make is that automated testing of accessibility is
> extremely limited without manual checking, so publishing league tables is
> effectively meaningless - the number of checkpoints that cannot be
> accurately and confidently tested is much larger than the number that can
> be, so the margin for error renders the exercise pointless. A validity
> league table would be no better at measuring accessibility, but it would
> be less ambiguous and misleading.
<metooism>
I definitely agree with you and am looking forward to Urbilog's mixed
testing.
</metooism>
--
Stephane Deschamps
Paris Web 2006 :
http://www.parisweb2006.org/
(qualit
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 4:40AM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Daniel Champion wrote:
>> validity in itself is not intrinsically a proof that accessibility is a
>> concern for any given site.
>
> I agree, that's why I specifically said it would be a reasonable *proxy*
> for accessibility.
That sounds like a confusing attempt to use the technical term "proxy"
metaphorically. Human communication usually fails, and metaphors make
failures more or less inevitable.
Validity is trivial syntactic correctness and it has very little to do
with accessibility. Some syntax errors imply serious problems in
accessibility, most don't, though they may affect other aspects of
quality. If a syntax error causes an accessibility problem, then that
particular error needs fixing.
> Developers of large sites who understand the value and
> benefits of valid HTML are also likely to understand and implement
> accessibility.
Hardly. This is just an assumption, and often proven wrong.
> Of course there will always be exceptions,
Exceptions to what? There are accessible sites that are valid. _That_ is
an exception.
> and of course
> valid code alone does not make a site accessible.
The point is that it has almost no impact on it. On a sunny day, someone
will somewhat improve accessibility by adding some alt attributes just
because validation made him realize the need for such attributes. Much
more often, he will insert silly alt attributes just to please a validator.
> The point I trying to make is that automated testing of accessibility is
> extremely limited without manual checking,
I couldn't agree more, except possibly if you changed "extremely limited"
to "useless" or "worse than useless", but that would perhaps be too
extremistics. Automated testing has a little use - in the hands of a very
competent author or tester - though mostly it just confuses people and
wastes their time.
> A validity
> league table would be no better at measuring accessibility, but it would
> be less ambiguous and misleading.
Data about validity would be objective but mostly irrelevant. I'm not sure
about the objective part either, due to problems in validators; the W3C
validator has known limitations in processing XML and XHTML.
> This email and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to
> leaving Clackmannanshire Council.
I guess that text got added independently of you, but have you reported
to the appropriate people that such statements are foolish and may confuse
some people and annoy others? (It annoys me because I see the gross
absurdity too well.)
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Daniel Champion
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 5:10AM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela:
>> I agree, that's why I specifically said it would be a reasonable
*proxy*
>> for accessibility.
> That sounds like a confusing attempt to use the technical term "proxy"
> metaphorically. Human communication usually fails, and metaphors make
> failures more or less inevitable.
You're correct and I apologise, my communication was lacking. What I meant
was "proxy indicator", and I was wrong to assume that others would
appreciate that. It wasn't intended as a metaphor.
Notwithstanding your opinion on there being a relationship between
validity and accessibility, I still believe it to exist and believe it is
getting stronger. Unfortunately I can't prove it any more than you can
disprove it.
>> The point I trying to make is that automated testing of accessibility
is
>> extremely limited without manual checking,
> I couldn't agree more, except possibly if you changed "extremely
limited"
> to "useless" or "worse than useless", but that would perhaps be too
> extremistics.
Automated accessibility testing does have value, so "useless" or "worse
than useless" would be incorrect. I've certainly derived value from it,
but where it is valueless is as a comparitor between web sites.
>> This email and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to
>> leaving Clackmannanshire Council.
> I guess that text got added independently of you, but have you reported
> to the appropriate people that such statements are foolish and may
confuse
> some people and annoy others? (It annoys me because I see the gross
> absurdity too well.)
I have far too many battles to fight without looking for more. In the
words of Reinhold Niebuhr:
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the
courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the
difference."
Dan
This email and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving Clackmannanshire Council.
Clackmannanshire Council will not be liable for any losses as a result of viruses being passed on.
www.clacksweb.org.uk
From: John Hicks
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 6:50AM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
Daniel Champion wrote:
> Jukka "Yucca" Korpela:
>
>
>>> I agree, that's why I specifically said it would be a reasonable
>>>
> *proxy*
>
>>> for accessibility.
>>>
>
>
>> That sounds like a confusing attempt to use the technical term "proxy"
>> metaphorically. Human communication usually fails, and metaphors make
>> failures more or less inevitable.
>>
>
> You're correct and I apologise, my communication was lacking. What I meant
> was "proxy indicator", and I was wrong to assume that others would
> appreciate that. It wasn't intended as a metaphor.
>
The word proxy has a very technical connotation now, which is very
common, is that what you mean?
but it meant "standing in for something (or someone) else" for about 500
years before networked computers existed...
and you could vote by it probably a 100 years before that...
> Notwithstanding your opinion on there being a relationship between
> validity and accessibility, I still believe it to exist and believe it is
> getting stronger. Unfortunately I can't prove it any more than you can
> disprove it.
>
I will add a column indicating the number of HTML errors (and the mean
per page). It will be interesting. People can then look at a sort by
that number or by the accessibility score (the details of which --ie
which checkpoints -- will be put up soon). Hopefully the "Validity Cup"
(as someone here mentioned) will be there this week.
>
>>> The point I trying to make is that automated testing of accessibility
>>>
> is
>
>>> extremely limited without manual checking,
>>>
>
>
>> I couldn't agree more, except possibly if you changed "extremely
>>
> limited"
>
>> to "useless" or "worse than useless", but that would perhaps be too
>> extremistics.
>>
>
> Automated accessibility testing does have value, so "useless" or "worse
> than useless" would be incorrect. I've certainly derived value from it,
> but where it is valueless is as a comparitor between web sites.
>
Is it really that bad? Are there any quantitative studies on the
relationship between automated scoring and actual accessibility that
anyone knows of?
Italy up, Austria down over the weekend....
best wishes,
John
--
__________________________________________
URBILOG "For a more accessible web"
80 rue d'I
From: Daniel Champion
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 8:20AM
Subject: Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | Next message →
John Hicks wrote:
> The word proxy has a very technical connotation now, which is
> very common, is that what you mean?
No, I meant "proxy indicator", which has a specific meaning in the field
of research and statistics.
>> Daniel Champion wrote:
>> Automated accessibility testing does have value, so "useless" or "worse
>> than useless" would be incorrect. I've certainly derived value from it,
>> but where it is valueless is as a comparitor between web sites.
> Is it really that bad?
Well, what the league table is actually showing is how the sites performed
when tested against (presumably) a very small subset of the WCAG
guidelines. I'd assume it's ranking sites based on something like:
1. Presence of alt attributes (but not checkpoint 1.1 which cannot be
adequately tested automatically)
2. Checkpoint 3.2 (validity)
3. Checkpoint 3.4 (relative units)
4. Checkpoint 3.5 (headings)
6. Checkpoint 11.2 (deprecated technologies)
7. Checkpoint 12.4 (associate labels with controls)
Plus perhaps one or two more? Very few of these can be reliably tested
without human judgement.
You're presenting the table as though it's ranking sites on their
accessibility, when in fact it's ranking them on these few elements of
accessibility - something of a misrepresentation. To think of it another
way, you've got two cardboard boxes - box one is 100cm high, box two is
50cm high - which has the greater volume?
Dan
This email and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving Clackmannanshire Council.
Clackmannanshire Council will not be liable for any losses as a result of viruses being passed on.
www.clacksweb.org.uk
From: smithj7
Date: Wed, Jun 21 2006 7:30PM
Subject: RE: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
← Previous message | No next message
DAN wrote:
"Automated accessibility testing does have value, so "useless" or "worse
than useless" would be incorrect. I've certainly derived value from it,
but where it is valueless is as a comparitor between web sites."
I agree with your statement. I definitely feel that automated
accessiblity tools are useful expecially when the automatic tester takes
the web developer to a link to help correct the problem. As a new web
developer, I learned about accessible forms and tables using the old
Bobby. Unfortunately, many developers do rely on the automation only
even when it says manually check such and such and usablity issues like
click here or read more are often neglected. I'm lucky to have a peer
group that checks out new items on our site. Automated accessiblity
tools (and html validators), manual checks, and the peer group
recommendations seem to all be important to accessible website
development.