WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!

for

From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Jun 9, 2006 9:10AM

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 REMOVED> >
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!
>To: Patrick Lauke < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>Cc: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL 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