WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: accessibility without testing?

for

From: Tom Babinszki
Date: Mar 13, 2008 9:00AM

Hi Aaron,

If I understand your question correctly, you would like to know if you
should use assistive technology to test for accessibility, and also if there
is a way to test a page automatically, without human intervention.

It depends what you are testing for, what do you want to be your page
accessible with. If you want to comply with an accessibility standard or
guideline, such as Section 508 or WCAG then testing with assistive
technology, such as JAWS is almost irrelevant, because you will have to
comply with a set of rules which you have to follow regardless of
technology. These standards are made so they are accessible for all people,
including all types of disabilities, using all kinds of assistive
technology. This sounds way too perfect, because the reality is a bit
different. Just because there is an accessibility regulation, it does not
mean that assistive technology works well with it. For example, consider
JAWS and AJAX. According to the WCAG you can create perfectly accessible
AJAX based products, but the JAWS screen reader might not read it properly.
In this case, the screen reader manufacturers should put more effort into
making their applications work with a set of internationally accepted and
use guidelines. However, in the meantime, blind people will have
difficulties using it. So, once you satisfied the accessibility standards
you have picked, depending on your page, it might be a good idea to ensure
that it works with a screen reader.

For testing with tools only: Look at the following page for more
information:
http://www.evengrounds.com/web/articles/article1.shtml
I'll soon have something on the site about testing with assistive
technology, as well.

But the short answer is the following:
Nowadays there are some very sophisticated tools which will help you test
for accessibility. But if you look at any of the standards or guidelines, it
will always require human interaction. For example, when you label a
picture. A testing tool will tell you if a picture has a label. It could
also tell you that it has a null tag (empty label), because it is a
decorative image, or it has a longer label, which contains a description.
But a testing tool will never be able to tell you if the description is
grammatically correct, if it makes sense, etc. And this is just one example.
I would use testing tools and add your personal judgment.

Let me know if I can help you with more details.

Tom


Tom Babinszki, PMP
Even Grounds
Accessibility consulting
E-mail: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Phone: +1 (703) 853-2990
http://www.evengrounds.com

-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Aaron Cannon
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:30 AM
To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: [WebAIM] accessibility without testing?

Hi all.

It has always been my understanding that in order to consistently create
accessible pages, particularly pages which are accessible to screen reader
users, it is necessary to conduct testing with assistive technology. I.E.
before you can say for sure something is accessible, someone has to go
check. Is this view accurate? Is there a more automated way of ensuring
accessibility that I'm unaware of?

I know that there have been some products marketed to be able to do so, but
I was under the impression that they were just snake oil. I also know of a
couple products, which are quite good at identifying potential problem
areas, but that they can't possibly identify them all, nor are they immune
to false-positives.

Any information would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Aaron Cannon

----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.