WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: smithj7
Date: Jun 21, 2006 7:30PM

DAN wrote:
"Automated accessibility testing does have value, so "useless" or "worse

than useless" would be incorrect. I've certainly derived value from it,
but where it is valueless is as a comparitor between web sites."

I agree with your statement. I definitely feel that automated
accessiblity tools are useful expecially when the automatic tester takes
the web developer to a link to help correct the problem. As a new web
developer, I learned about accessible forms and tables using the old
Bobby. Unfortunately, many developers do rely on the automation only
even when it says manually check such and such and usablity issues like
click here or read more are often neglected. I'm lucky to have a peer
group that checks out new items on our site. Automated accessiblity
tools (and html validators), manual checks, and the peer group
recommendations seem to all be important to accessible website
development.

-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Daniel
Champion
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 6:50 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Yes!!! It's the Accessibility World Cup!


Jukka "Yucca" Korpela:

>> I agree, that's why I specifically said it would be a reasonable
*proxy*
>> for accessibility.

> That sounds like a confusing attempt to use the technical term "proxy"
> metaphorically. Human communication usually fails, and metaphors make
> failures more or less inevitable.

You're correct and I apologise, my communication was lacking. What I
meant
was "proxy indicator", and I was wrong to assume that others would
appreciate that. It wasn't intended as a metaphor.

Notwithstanding your opinion on there being a relationship between
validity and accessibility, I still believe it to exist and believe it
is
getting stronger. Unfortunately I can't prove it any more than you can
disprove it.

>> The point I trying to make is that automated testing of accessibility
is
>> extremely limited without manual checking,

> I couldn't agree more, except possibly if you changed "extremely
limited"
> to "useless" or "worse than useless", but that would perhaps be too
> extremistics.

Automated accessibility testing does have value, so "useless" or "worse
than useless" would be incorrect. I've certainly derived value from it,
but where it is valueless is as a comparitor between web sites.

>> This email and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to
>> leaving Clackmannanshire Council.

> I guess that text got added independently of you, but have you
> reported
> to the appropriate people that such statements are foolish and may
confuse
> some people and annoy others? (It annoys me because I see the gross
> absurdity too well.)

I have far too many battles to fight without looking for more. In the
words of Reinhold Niebuhr:

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the
courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the
difference."

Dan




This email and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to
leaving Clackmannanshire Council.

Clackmannanshire Council will not be liable for any losses as a result
of viruses being passed on.

www.clacksweb.org.uk