E-mail List Archives
Thread: Hardware and Software required for Accessibility Testing
Number of posts in this thread: 16 (In chronological order)
From: Sam S
Date: Thu, Dec 03 2009 5:42AM
Subject: Hardware and Software required for Accessibility Testing
No previous message | Next message →
Dear All,
I need to to test some websites for accessibility.
The websites should be tested thoroughly for WCAG 2.0 Compliance and need to
provide high level of accessibility/usability.
I would like to know what assistive technology software is needed to do the
testing.
Are multiple screen readers needed or will testing using either JAWS or
Window-Eyes or Supernova suffice ?
If the websites work well with any screen reader such as JAWS, can we say
that it is accessible to the blind ? Does the level of accessibility vary
with different screen readers?
Are screen magnifiers such as ZoomText or MAGic also need to carry out
accessibility testing for low vision persons ?
Are any other assistive devices such also needed to carry out accessibility
testing for persons with motor disabilities ?
Thanks,
Sam
From: Carin Headrick
Date: Thu, Dec 03 2009 6:21AM
Subject: Re: Hardware and Software required for Accessibility Testing
← Previous message | Next message →
I can't answer all of this, but I can say that accessibility levels do vary from screenreader to screenreader. Hmmm is Supernova even updated anymore? It would also be cool if you could get a mac-user to test some stuff, since there are more Voiceover-users out there.
It would also be good if you could test it for ease of use if you only use the keyboard and can't use a mouse because of mobility difficulties.
Carin
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam S
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 7:42 AM
Subject: [WebAIM] Hardware and Software required for Accessibility Testing
Dear All,
I need to to test some websites for accessibility.
The websites should be tested thoroughly for WCAG 2.0 Compliance and need to
provide high level of accessibility/usability.
I would like to know what assistive technology software is needed to do the
testing.
Are multiple screen readers needed or will testing using either JAWS or
Window-Eyes or Supernova suffice ?
If the websites work well with any screen reader such as JAWS, can we say
that it is accessible to the blind ? Does the level of accessibility vary
with different screen readers?
Are screen magnifiers such as ZoomText or MAGic also need to carry out
accessibility testing for low vision persons ?
Are any other assistive devices such also needed to carry out accessibility
testing for persons with motor disabilities ?
Thanks,
Sam
From: Owens, Parker
Date: Thu, Dec 03 2009 6:33AM
Subject: Re: Hardware and Software required for Accessibility Testing
← Previous message | Next message →
It would be of benefit to test with as many different readers as you can, because they do read differently, however, it may be of more use to test in multiple browsers and operating systems.
Testing for low vision is a completely different animal, and yes, you need to do it. For Mobile accessibility and usability, try navigating with the tab and enter buttons only, no mouse. Try popping up an onscreen keyboard and see how that works with the other windows.
What is ideal is getting feedback from actual users, but there is a danger in using one or two users and thinking that their comments represent everyone with disabilities, because nothing could be further from the truth.
Also test for cognitive issues and readability.
From: Randi
Date: Thu, Dec 03 2009 7:42AM
Subject: Re: Hardware and Software required for Accessibility Testing
← Previous message | Next message →
I might be doing some testing for someone's company, and I use an
apple with Voiceover. We will also be testing with Jaws and Window
Eyes if this all pans out. I've only been blind a year and a half, and
I know when I first started using a screen reader, I thought things
were inaccessible just because I didn't know enough yet. Might keep
that kind of thing in mind too. Life long screen reader users will
have different things to say possible, then another who hasn't been
doing it long. There are so many levels of skill out there. Kudos to
you for doing this, and I can't touch on anything else. Oh maybe think
about finding someone who can test with a braille output display.
~Randi
http://raynaadi.blogspot.com/
From: deblist
Date: Thu, Dec 03 2009 7:45AM
Subject: Re: Hardware and Software required for Accessibility Testing
← Previous message | Next message →
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Sam S wrote:
> Are any other assistive devices such also needed to carry out accessibility
> testing for persons with motor disabilities ?
I would recommend also testing speech recognition (at a minimum
Dragon NaturallySpeaking, but preferably also Windows 7 speech
recognition and Mac speech dictate) and Firefox Mouseless
Browsing. These are heavily used by many people with motor
disabilities.
-deborah
From: Keith Parks
Date: Thu, Dec 03 2009 12:18PM
Subject: Re: Hardware and Software required for Accessibility Testing
← Previous message | Next message →
On Dec 3, 2009, at 4:42 AM, Sam S wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I need to to test some websites for accessibility.
> The websites should be tested thoroughly for WCAG 2.0 Compliance and
> need to
> provide high level of accessibility/usability.
>
So far the responses have listed various hardware/software
combinations to test the user experience with. And there are a variety
of sites and tools out there that test for compliance, for instance <http://www.cynthiasays.com/
>, or WebAIM's own WAVE tool.
And I don't mean to discount the value of real-world testing, but if
your content is properly structured and coded to standards and "best
practices", and your presentation markup is tested for color contrast,
isn't the idea then that you don't need to do individual testing?
Isn't that what the "standards" are for? So that every developer
doesn't *need* to become an accessibility expert, nor do they need to
do real-world tests on each site?
I realize I'm talking about an ideal world here, which the "Table
Navigation" thread clearly shows we have not yet reached, in terms of
the standards themselves, or their implementation by AT. But the
principle that in order to "do the right thing" on accessibility,
developers need to be testing their sites with multiple versions of
screen readers, magnifiers, voice-recognition technology, etc., seems
to be setting the bar a bit too high.
******************************
Keith Parks
Graphic Designer/Web Designer
Student Affairs Communications Services
San Diego State University
San Diego, CA 92182-7444
(619) 594-1046
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/communications
http://kparks.deviantart.com/gallery
----------------------------------------------------------
A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, served with a side of
slaw.
From: Keith Parks
Date: Thu, Dec 03 2009 12:36PM
Subject: Re: Hardware and Software required for Accessibility Testing
← Previous message | Next message →
On Dec 3, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Keith Parks wrote:
>> or WebAIM's own WAVE tool.
Ooops, sorry.
As Jared mentioned the other day...
> Our
> approach with WAVE is to ignore compliance and to focus on
> accessibility - to show you everything we can about accessibility
> issues and let you determine what that means for your site's
> compliance.
******************************
Keith Parks
Graphic Designer/Web Designer
Student Affairs Communications Services
San Diego State University
San Diego, CA 92182-7444
(619) 594-1046
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/communications
http://kparks.deviantart.com/gallery
----------------------------------------------------------
Yes We Can!*
*should not be interpreted to mean that we necessarily will
From: Don Mauck
Date: Thu, Dec 03 2009 12:42PM
Subject: Re: Hardware and Software required for Accessibility Testing
← Previous message | Next message →
I don't think that WCAG 2.0 implies that you test with all screen readers, I think rather its more about being sure that somewhere in the testing cycle preferabley after all the audimated testing is done, that some AT testing is done. No matter how good the testing tools are, we at Oracle have learned that you half to test for meaningful content. While you certainly cannot test every page in every APP, you need to do some good random testing and that at the end of the day, somebody with a good working knowledge of how to use whatever AT package you use needs to be in the testing loop.
From: Jared Smith
Date: Thu, Dec 03 2009 12:45PM
Subject: Re: Hardware and Software required for Accessibility Testing
← Previous message | Next message →
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Keith Parks wrote:
> And I don't mean to discount the value of real-world testing, but if
> your content is properly structured and coded to standards and "best
> practices", and your presentation markup is tested for color contrast,
Keith brings up a really good, and perhaps somewhat controversial
point. For the vast majority of content, you can be reasonably sure
that it is accessible by following the guidelines and using evaluation
tools to verify compliance and accessibility (to the limited extent
that they can do so). Is there really a need then for intensive user
agent and user testing? In many cases, I would say no. It would be a
bit overkill to test a basic page of content with a group of users on
multiple user agents and assistive technologies if you're pretty sure
you've implemented accessibility correctly.
On the other hand, the only way to absolutely ensure screen reader
accessibility is to test in a screen reader, for example. And this is
certainly necessary for more advanced and interactive content - things
for which the guidelines and standards don't provide much direction,
or for things like Flash or PDF or AJAX, where evaluation can't be
automated. And for things like this, having 'experts' that understand
the complexities of accessibility certainly are better suited to do
the work.
So the key is finding a balance that puts evaluation and development
resources in areas that will result in a cost-effective, yet highly
accessible product.
> As Jared mentioned the other day...
>> Our
>> approach with WAVE is to ignore compliance and to focus on
>> accessibility - to show you everything we can about accessibility
>> issues and let you determine what that means for your site's
>> compliance.
This doesn't at all suggest that WAVE wouldn't be useful in compliance
testing. We think it's VERY useful. The point is that we don't tell
you if you're compliant or not (though any error in WAVE is almost
certainly a compliance issue). Only a human can do that. Instead, we
reveal as much about accessibility as we can and leave it up to you to
determine whether the content is accessible or compliant or whatever.
Jared
From: Geof Collis
Date: Thu, Dec 03 2009 3:00PM
Subject: Re: Hardware and Software required for Accessibility Testing
← Previous message | Next message →
I've had cases where people said they tested their sites with focus
groups, claimed it was accessible but clearly wasn't and they take
their findings to the bank and damn anyone who states to the contrary.
cheers
Geof
At 02:40 PM 12/3/2009, you wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Keith Parks wrote:
>
> > And I don't mean to discount the value of real-world testing, but if
> > your content is properly structured and coded to standards and "best
> > practices", and your presentation markup is tested for color contrast,
>
>Keith brings up a really good, and perhaps somewhat controversial
>point. For the vast majority of content, you can be reasonably sure
>that it is accessible by following the guidelines and using evaluation
>tools to verify compliance and accessibility (to the limited extent
>that they can do so). Is there really a need then for intensive user
>agent and user testing? In many cases, I would say no. It would be a
>bit overkill to test a basic page of content with a group of users on
>multiple user agents and assistive technologies if you're pretty sure
>you've implemented accessibility correctly.
>
>On the other hand, the only way to absolutely ensure screen reader
>accessibility is to test in a screen reader, for example. And this is
>certainly necessary for more advanced and interactive content - things
>for which the guidelines and standards don't provide much direction,
>or for things like Flash or PDF or AJAX, where evaluation can't be
>automated. And for things like this, having 'experts' that understand
>the complexities of accessibility certainly are better suited to do
>the work.
>
>So the key is finding a balance that puts evaluation and development
>resources in areas that will result in a cost-effective, yet highly
>accessible product.
>
> > As Jared mentioned the other day...
>
> >> Our
> >> approach with WAVE is to ignore compliance and to focus on
> >> accessibility - to show you everything we can about accessibility
> >> issues and let you determine what that means for your site's
> >> compliance.
>
>This doesn't at all suggest that WAVE wouldn't be useful in compliance
>testing. We think it's VERY useful. The point is that we don't tell
>you if you're compliant or not (though any error in WAVE is almost
>certainly a compliance issue). Only a human can do that. Instead, we
>reveal as much about accessibility as we can and leave it up to you to
>determine whether the content is accessible or compliant or whatever.
>
>Jared
>
From: deblist
Date: Thu, Dec 03 2009 4:45PM
Subject: Re: Hardware and Software required for Accessibility Testing
← Previous message | Next message →
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Keith Parks wrote:
> I realize I'm talking about an ideal world here, which the "Table
> Navigation" thread clearly shows we have not yet reached, in terms of
> the standards themselves, or their implementation by AT. But the
> principle that in order to "do the right thing" on accessibility,
> developers need to be testing their sites with multiple versions of
> screen readers, magnifiers, voice-recognition technology, etc., seems
> to be setting the bar a bit too high.
By the same token, though, you could say that if you write
standards-compliant HTML + CSS you shouldn't have to test on
multiple browsers, and until about a year ago that wasn't true at
all. The fact is that the user agents weren't at all standards
compliant, and if you didn't test on multiple browsers you'd find
a site that didn't work at all in Internet explorer 6. (it's not
like that status quo has changed; all that's changed is the
willingness for sites not to work on Internet Explorer 6.) Until
a couple of years ago, any Web developer who actually wanted
to make sure that a site worked in most major browsers had to
test in multiple browsers -- and this is not entirely untrue
even today.
As you say, it's not an ideal world. The reality is that as a
sighted user who browses with non-screenreader adaptive tech, I
find that *many* so-called accessible sites aren't accessible to
me, because of a combination of the necessary fuzziness of the
standards and inadequate standards-compliance on the part of
adaptive technology.
I don't test on every available tool myself, just as I didn't use
to test on every available browser + platform combination. But I
do try to test on Firefox 3, IE 7/8, Opera 9/10, Lynx, and
Safari; XP and OS X; Jaws 10, DNS 10, Mouseless Browsing, and
NVDA. It's a thoroughly incomplete subset and I often don't hit
every item on my own incomplete list, but if standards-compliance
were enough to make all of these work, trust me, I wouldn't still
be testing with such a large set of choices.
-deborah
From: ckrugman
Date: Thu, Dec 03 2009 5:30PM
Subject: Re: Hardware and Software required for AccessibilityTesting
← Previous message | Next message →
As a screen reader user that is skilled in usage whether there are standards
or not the bottom line is that If I can't access it because the standards
did not fit the situation and it was not tested individually then the bar is
never too high. If standards were rigorously enforced and applied we would
not have sites that have inaccessible captcha, consumer survey sites that
present product descriptions in an image or JPEG format only that is not
readable with screen reading software. sites that responses to be dragged
and dropped without keyboard alternatives, and on and on. Perhaps we need to
be focusing on the practical applications of accessibility compliance rather
than the theoretical.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Parks" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Hardware and Software required for
AccessibilityTesting
>
> On Dec 3, 2009, at 4:42 AM, Sam S wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I need to to test some websites for accessibility.
>> The websites should be tested thoroughly for WCAG 2.0 Compliance and
>> need to
>> provide high level of accessibility/usability.
>>
>
> So far the responses have listed various hardware/software
> combinations to test the user experience with. And there are a variety
> of sites and tools out there that test for compliance, for instance
> <http://www.cynthiasays.com/
> >, or WebAIM's own WAVE tool.
>
> And I don't mean to discount the value of real-world testing, but if
> your content is properly structured and coded to standards and "best
> practices", and your presentation markup is tested for color contrast,
> isn't the idea then that you don't need to do individual testing?
>
> Isn't that what the "standards" are for? So that every developer
> doesn't *need* to become an accessibility expert, nor do they need to
> do real-world tests on each site?
>
> I realize I'm talking about an ideal world here, which the "Table
> Navigation" thread clearly shows we have not yet reached, in terms of
> the standards themselves, or their implementation by AT. But the
> principle that in order to "do the right thing" on accessibility,
> developers need to be testing their sites with multiple versions of
> screen readers, magnifiers, voice-recognition technology, etc., seems
> to be setting the bar a bit too high.
>
> ******************************
> Keith Parks
> Graphic Designer/Web Designer
> Student Affairs Communications Services
> San Diego State University
> San Diego, CA 92182-7444
> (619) 594-1046
> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/communications
>
> http://kparks.deviantart.com/gallery
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, served with a side of
> slaw.
>
>
From: Keith Parks
Date: Thu, Dec 03 2009 5:45PM
Subject: Re: Hardware and Software required for Accessibility Testing
← Previous message | Next message →
On Dec 3, 2009, at 3:45 PM, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
> By the same token, though, you could say that if you write
> standards-compliant HTML + CSS you shouldn't have to test on
> multiple browsers, and until about a year ago that wasn't true at
> all. The fact is that the user agents weren't at all standards
> compliant, and if you didn't test on multiple browsers you'd find
> a site that didn't work at all in Internet explorer 6.
I had thought about the cross-browser and cross-platform testing
analogy. And I agree that any Web developer worth their salt will be
testing their sites in multiple browsers.
In my earlier reply I hadn't realized the initial post came from
someone at Oracle. So I can see it would be a more reasonable "burden"
for a corporation like that to do more rigorous real-world tests on
the sites or Apps they develop. The same would go for large
institutions or government bodies that develop their own content.
But my heart and thinking lie more with the many, many small shops and
individual developers out there, who create sites for the many, many
individuals and small to medium size business and organizations. If we
(counting myself amongst the promoters of Web accessibility) want the
notion of accessibility to catch on, I think it needs to be, there's
no other way to say it, easy for people to accomplish. Or at least
easy to do a decent job at, for those developers who care, or have
clients who care. The lower the bar is set, the easier the hurdle.
So I guess I *wish* the folks who are developing the guidelines and
standards could learn from the mistakes of the "browser wars", and the
AT makers and experts could, well... just get together and make up
their minds on how things are supposed to be done. And I'm sure the
overwhelming majority of them have the best intentions. As well as
their own, sometimes competing interests, commercial and otherwise.
Then again, if we can learn anything from the past, it's that people
don't learn from the past.
******************************
Keith Parks
Graphic Designer/Web Designer
Student Affairs Communications Services
San Diego State University
San Diego, CA 92182-7444
(619) 594-1046
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/communications
http://kparks.deviantart.com/gallery
----------------------------------------------------------
A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, served with a side of
slaw.
From: Moore,Michael (DARS)
Date: Fri, Dec 04 2009 8:30AM
Subject: Re: Hardware and Software required for Accessibility Testing
← Previous message | Next message →
Geof wrote,
I've had cases where people said they tested their sites with focus
groups, claimed it was accessible but clearly wasn't and they take
their findings to the bank and damn anyone who states to the contrary.
cheers
Geof
And I have had developers demonstrate that they can make everything work with JAWS. I just turn off their monitor and ask them to do it again. I love that deer in the headlights look...
Mike Moore
(512) 424-4159
From: Geof Collis
Date: Fri, Dec 04 2009 8:42AM
Subject: Re: Hardware and Software required for Accessibility Testing
← Previous message | Next message →
Precious! LOL
At 10:29 AM 12/4/2009, you wrote:
>Geof wrote,
>
>I've had cases where people said they tested their sites with focus
>groups, claimed it was accessible but clearly wasn't and they take
>their findings to the bank and damn anyone who states to the contrary.
>
>cheers
>
>Geof
>
>And I have had developers demonstrate that they can make everything
>work with JAWS. I just turn off their monitor and ask them to do it
>again. I love that deer in the headlights look...
>
>
>Mike Moore
>(512) 424-4159
>
>
>
From: Don Mauck
Date: Fri, Dec 04 2009 9:06AM
Subject: Re: Hardware and Software required for Accessibility Testing
← Previous message | No next message
Not only do you need to turn off the monitor but then you also need to unplug the mouse, that's really gets them!!!
Regards,
Don
Oracle
Don Mauck | Accessibility Evangelist
Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
7700 Technology Way
Denver CO 80237
Phone (303) 334-4184
Email = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Green Oracle
Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment