WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Web application testing

for

From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Aug 5, 2016 6:40AM

I would strongly advocate that you start with automated testing before you even bother with doing any type of screen reader testing.

I think the key is just to ensure that the only tests you automate are always correct. If it says there is a defect, it should always be a defect. That simplifies things a great deal.

While automated testing won't catch everything that manual testing will, it is faster and cheaper to do.

Also, if you are working with other developers, it is a lot easier to teach them how to use the automated tool and its results.

Personally, I think it is essential to test with screen readers if you want to produce high quality user interfaces. However, testing with a screen reader adds a lot more complexity.

To test well with a screen reader, you need to know how to operate it and understand what kind of information it is going to convey if everything is working correctly. One of the tricky parts comes when you run into defects. Most of the time, it is fairly easy to determine if the defect is related to application code. Other times, it is difficult to figure out if the problem is the application code, the browser, or the screen reader.

My suggestion would be to check the code frequently with automated testing and then follow up with screen reader testing less frequently.

Thanks,
Tim



-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of sucharu
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 12:05 AM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List' < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Web applicationtesting

Hi,
As per my understanding, JAWS and NVDA behavior differently because of two facts
1. JAWS make some guess work in some situations like unlabeled forms
2. ARIA support is at different levels in both screen- readers
So, I think JAWS is likely to skip the errors easily catchable by freely available automated accessibility testing tools like AXE, a- inspector.
So, Is to test with automated tools first and then with JAWS, a better approach?
-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Sean Murphy
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 9:39 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Web applicationtesting

Sorry, you should test NVDA and Jaws on both of those browsers.

NvDA has been enhanced to work better with Firefox then IE. Jaws works better with IE and does work extremely well with Firefox.


> On 1 Aug 2016, at 9:22 PM, Jamous, JP < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
> Sucharu,
>
> As suggested, but here is a more solid approach.
>
> JAWS with Internet Explorer
> NVDA with FireFox
> VoiceOver with Safari on Mac, iPad and iPhone
>
> If you cover the above, you can be in a great shape.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On
> Behalf Of sucharu
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 5:46 AM
> To: 'WebAIM Discussion List' < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Web applicationtesting
>
> Dear listmembers,
> Can someone provide link to any resource about "screen- reader and browser combination: potential first choice"
> Best,
> Sucharu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On
> Behalf Of surbhi Mudgal
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 3:45 PM
> To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Web applicationtesting
>
> Hi all,
> Good day.
>
> Thank you so much for the valuable responses.
>
> Thanks & regards,
> surbhi Mudgal.
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:02 AM, surbhi Mudgal
> < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> Good Day.
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking for a very simple confirmation on testing a web page or web
>> application. Would just like to know if there is any basic standard
>> rule to test using different screen readers ( JAWS, NVDA, VOICE
>> OVER) or it depends up on the user comfort.
>>
>>
>>
>> And if any particular procedure to be followed can anyone please help
>> me understand the same.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>>
>> Surbhi Mudgal.
>>
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>