WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Accessibility training and scanning solutions providers

for

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Dec 14, 2016 12:11PM

I am wrapping up a very similar exercise for my employer.
I can't go into details other than saying our final candidates are
definitely not too far out of line with yours.
I can share a few of the evaluation criteria I used. An accessibility
testing platform needs to be:
* Accurate (automated testing should report the maximum number of real
issues but avoid reporting false positives, it takes too much time and
destroys the reliability of the platform).
* Flexible: You need a browser plug-in interface to run accessibility
scans on pages that are part of flows (e.g. that are displayed as a
result of filling in forms or logging in), or can perform scans after
selection an action on the page (that brings up a tab or a dialog).
Platforms that can only scan pages starting with a URL give you a very
incomplete picture for most web content.
* Test the DOM, not the html source (return 0 errors from testing
http://www.mothereffingtoolconfuser.com). This is almost a "needless
to say" requirement anymore, but there are still checkers out there
that only test the HTML source.
* Offer guidance for manual testing (this is not a must, but it helps
if the tool can guide your testers who do not have extensive
background in accessibility).
* Integrate with existing issue tracking systems (such as Jira, ALM,
Trac etc.). A strong selling point is an accessibility test platform
where results can be exported directly to the organization's issue
tracking system, no time wasted copying and pasting or manually
creating issues.
* Accessible: The dashboard and browser plugins need to be accessible.
This list is not exhaustive and does not fit everybody's needs, but
you may find it helpful to come up with such a list so you can compare
solutions.

In addition, I prefer it if the vendors have experts that participate
in standardization work, attend accessibility conferences and are
generally well known to be accessibility experts.
You may want to also consier Tenon as well. There is also Wave of
course, but who would know who they rae? *grin*
Cheers
-B


On 12/14/16, Lucy Greco < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> peter i think you have a good start to the list have you considered
> Siteimprove if you write me off list i would like to calaberate on this
> with you as we are about to start the same process thanks lucy
>
> Lucia Greco
> Web Accessibility Evangelist
> IST - Architecture, Platforms, and Integration
> University of California, Berkeley
> (510) 289-6008 skype: lucia1-greco
> http://webaccess.berkeley.edu
> Follow me on twitter @accessaces
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Bossley, Peter A. < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> wrote:
>
>> Hello, WebAIM list,
>> OSU is currently evaluating two aspects of improving our accessibility
>> compliance program.
>> First, we are looking at scanning and tracking solutions. Currently we are
>> looking at offerings from Deque, SSB Bart Group, and Compliance Sherriff.
>> Second, we are looking for robust training on web accessibility, document
>> accessibility, and native mobile app accessibility. Our evaluations on
>> this
>> front are planned to be Deque and SSB Bart Group.
>> I'm writing to ask the list if there are other solutions on either of
>> these fronts that we should be looking at.
>> Keep in mind that we have a fairly large and decentralized campus
>> environment, especially as it relates to websites. So a solution that
>> won't
>> scale efficiently is a showstopper for us.
>> Input or suggestions would be appreciated.
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> >>
> > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.