WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: value of re-testing after manual accessibility audit

for

From: Colleen Gratzer
Date: Jun 10, 2020 9:21AM

I agree on all points, especially the need for anyone developing on the
site or adding content to it to get some training in accessibility (even
if it's just best practices), both for the website and for the documents
they create.


Colleen Gratzer
Website Accessibility Course
https://academy.creative-boost.com
Design Mentor and Host of the Design Domination podcast
http://creative-boost.com
Certified Branding Expert + Accessibility Specialist, Gratzer Graphics LLC
https://gratzergraphics.com



On 6/10/20 10:57 AM, England, Kristina wrote:
> Agreed with Tim. Honestly, if there's any way to get your developers trained on both accessible code and manual testing as part of the initial audit, that would be extremely beneficial over time. Otherwise you won't have that knowledge going forward and any changes to your sites will need to be outsourced for review, which will be both expensive and inefficient.
>
> Kristina England
> Senior Digital Experience and Accessibility Specialist
> University Information Technology Services
> UMass Office of the President
> 333 South Street, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
> 774-455-7874
>
> [UMass Logo]
>
>
>
> UITS Most Valued Behaviors: Communicate Thoughtfully + Foster a Growth Mindset + Take a Holistic View + Embrace a Culture of Inquiry + Practice and Protect Courage
>
>
> > From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > on behalf of Tim Harshbarger < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 10:39 AM
> To: 'WebAIM Discussion List' < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] value of re-testing after manual accessibility audit
>
> [External Sender]
>
> Barbara,
>
> Before I share my opinions I just want to disclose that I do work for Deque
> Systems which is a company that does accessibility assessments.
>
> In my personal opinion any good accessibility test should include both
> automated and manual testing. The automated testing helps reduce the work
> needed for manual testing. Manual testing catches those things automated
> testing can't. Automated testing shouldn't be a safety net for manual
> testing. Instead it should complement manual testing.
>
> Once your developers address the issues in the accessibility reports they
> receive, you likely will want to ensure the problems were actually fixed.
> If your developers have a way to validate their fixes, you may not need help
> with retesting. However, if your developers lack the ability or you are
> trying to solve particularly challenging accessibility problems retesting
> can be invaluable.
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> Thanks!
> Tim
> Tim Harshbarger
> Senior Accessibility Consultant
> Deque Systems
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of
> Barbara
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 9:17 AM
> To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> Subject: [WebAIM] value of re-testing after manual accessibility audit
>
> Hello, could anybody please help with some advice? I am looking into third
> parties to do an accessibility audit of our sites. We are a charity and we
> have multiple domains and sub-domains, so it can be potentially expensive.
>
> The companies I contacted quoted us on different variables, one of which is
> re-testing after the manual audit check for fixes or new problems created by
> the fixes.
>
> Another variable is automated testing on top of the manual as a safety net
> in case something has been missed by the manual one.
>
> How much value is there in re-testing? Is it risky to skip this step?
> Same for automated testing. How much value, if you have done a proper manual
> one?
>
> Many thanks,
> Barbara
> > > http://webaim.org/discussion/archives<;http://webaim.org/discussion/archives>;
> >
> > > > > > > > >