E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 15 (In chronological order)

From: Mark Guisinger
Date: Tue, Apr 27 2010 12:51PM
Subject: Testing for accessibility compliance
No previous message | Next message →

I'm working for a large company that is beginning to go down the road to making there website accessible. I'm starting to wonder about testing, as I'm not a tester. Do larger companies testing their websites for accessibility have a group of testers reviewing their pages with screen readers (one or more)? Or do they just validate that the code created is to spec? What tools are other companies using to test their websites for accessibility? Any guidance will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Tue, Apr 27 2010 1:21PM
Subject: Re: Testing for accessibility compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

I recommend:

1. Consider using automated tools for the easy stuff--flag images
without alternate text, flag form fields without alternate text, flag
tables which need scope and/or ID tagging, flag pages without skip-nave
standard doing, flag content which requires accessible plug-ins, flag
server-side image maps for removal or redundant text inclusion, flag
usemaps for alternate text, etc. Then consider using the web
accessibility toolbar for manual testing of pages for color usage,
dependency upon .css, flicker usage, etc. No tools really test for
keyboard access or time outs well to my knowledge, so manual testing is
needed.

2. Develop 508 test procedures, teach them, and use them.

3. Consider using Object Inspector or other "object" inspection tools
for more interactive aspects of software testing to ensure that
interface elements have name, role, and state provided.

4. Develop coding standards, teach them, use them. This will drive the
"right" way to code home to your developers. Use templates which
include the right way to code things and leave them alone accept when
you must change correct coding.

I hope this helps.

From: Claudia.Case
Date: Tue, Apr 27 2010 1:42PM
Subject: Re: Testing for accessibility compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

Mark,
I'm a team of one responsible for testing 100+ web apps at a large company. Here are the tools I use:
* Acrobat Pro's PDF Accessibility Checker /Adobe Systems
* ACTF aDesigner desktop accessibility tool / Eclipse
* AMP/InFocus 5 (Accessibility Management Platform) - SSB Bart Group
* Colour Contrast Analyser add-on for Firefox / Juicy Studio
* Firebug add-on for Firefox
* Firefox Accessibility Extension (FAE) add-on for Firefox - Illinois Center for Information Accessibility
* HTML Validator add-on for Firefox (set Options|Algorithm to "SGML Parser") - Mozilla
* JAWS for Windows Screen Reader desktop software / Freedom Scientific
* Juicy Studio Accessibility Toolbar add-on for Firefox / Juicy Studio
* Luminosity Colour Contrast Ratio Analyser / Juicy Studio
* MAGic Screen Magnification with Speech desktop software / Freedom Scientific
* Web Accessibility Toolbar (WAT) plug-in for IE / The Paciello Group
* Web Developer Toolbar add-on for Firefox

Claudia Case

From: Kevin Miller
Date: Tue, Apr 27 2010 2:42PM
Subject: Re: Testing for accessibility compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

All arguments aside about automated vs. human assessment (where I agree that
humans are needed to do it right), automated tests are helpful to catch the
easy, repetitive stuff as well as help point to where the biggest pain
points on a site are. Also, a good tool should be able to record tests that
should be reviewed manually and when that review was completed.

Trouble is, automated tools fail miserably on several fronts:


1. They assume end-users know HTML, which very frequently, they should
not need to know
2. They don't integrate with a CMS and know where an author's content
ends and a template begins
3. Their responses are highly technical and not helpful for end users
4. They are "reactive" in that they poll a site periodically for changes
and generate reports that someone has to wade through - in the meantime,
there's an accessibility problems out there.
5. Their reports look ugly and are unintuitive.

While WAVE is nicer, it's again going to suffer from first four problems
above.

<Begin Shameless plug>

At CSU Monterey Bay we started an open-source project called QUAIL (QUAIL
Accessibility Information Library) - available at http://quail-lib.org - to
start writing a generalized PHP accessibility library that could integrate
with a CMS. There's a web service around QUAIL so it can run as a service
for other non-PHP CMSes.

Out of that came the Drupal module Accessible Content (
http://drupal.org/project/accessible_content). Now we can customize error
messages, check content on the fly, and even prevent pages with severe
(read: easily automated) errors from being published. It also allows
permissioned users to override tests after manual review and can do
reporting. There's a video at the QUAIL site.

</End shameless plug>

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Mark Guisinger < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:

> I'm working for a large company that is beginning to go down the road to
> making there website accessible. I'm starting to wonder about testing, as
> I'm not a tester. Do larger companies testing their websites for
> accessibility have a group of testers reviewing their pages with screen
> readers (one or more)? Or do they just validate that the code created is to
> spec? What tools are other companies using to test their websites for
> accessibility? Any guidance will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>

From: Shawn Henry
Date: Tue, Apr 27 2010 3:57PM
Subject: Re: Testing for accessibility compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

Mark Guisinger wrote:
> I'm working for a large company that is beginning to go down the road to making there website accessible. I'm starting to wonder about testing, as I'm not a tester. Do larger companies testing their websites for accessibility have a group of testers reviewing their pages with screen readers (one or more)? Or do they just validate that the code created is to spec? What tools are other companies using to test their websites for accessibility? Any guidance will be greatly appreciated.

Hi Mark,

Quick answer: Yes. Good accessibility testing includes evaluation with users with disabilities, accessibility testing tools that help evaluate how the website meets WCAG, and accessibility expert review.

Some resources to learn more:

* WCAG Overview http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag
* Database of Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/Overview.html
* guidance on Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/selectingtools.html
* Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/users.html

* Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools Need People http://www.uiaccess.com/evaltools.html
* Just Ask: Integrating Accessibility Throughout Design http://www.uiAccess.com/JustAsk
The evaluation chapters start at http://www.uiaccess.com/accessucd/evaluate.html

Hope this helps!

(Note that ideally the goal is that your website is accessible to all, including people with disabilities. I think of "accessibility compliance", or meeting good accessibility standards, as one way to help achieve that, as opposed to compliance in and of itself being the end goal. :)

~Shawn


-----------
Shawn Henry
+1-617-395-7664
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.uiAccess.com/profile.html
-----------------------------

From: Mark Guisinger
Date: Wed, Apr 28 2010 10:39AM
Subject: Re: Testing for accessibility compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

I noticed that in the list of tools there was little to no mention of using screen readers to evaluate pages. Is this not common practice. If it is do you test with multiple screen readers?

Thanks,
Mark



----- Original Message ----
From: Mark Guisinger < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 1:50:25 PM
Subject: [WebAIM] Testing for accessibility compliance

I'm working for a large company that is beginning to go down the road to making there website accessible. I'm starting to wonder about testing, as I'm not a tester. Do larger companies testing their websites for accessibility have a group of testers reviewing their pages with screen readers (one or more)? Or do they just validate that the code created is to spec? What tools are other companies using to test their websites for accessibility? Any guidance will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark

From: ckrugman
Date: Wed, Apr 28 2010 12:00PM
Subject: Re: Testing for accessibility compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

It should be the standard practice because all screen readers and all
versions of screen readers don't perform the same.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Guisinger" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Testing for accessibility compliance


>I noticed that in the list of tools there was little to no mention of using
>screen readers to evaluate pages. Is this not common practice. If it is
>do you test with multiple screen readers?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Mark Guisinger < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 1:50:25 PM
> Subject: [WebAIM] Testing for accessibility compliance
>
> I'm working for a large company that is beginning to go down the road to
> making there website accessible. I'm starting to wonder about testing, as
> I'm not a tester. Do larger companies testing their websites for
> accessibility have a group of testers reviewing their pages with screen
> readers (one or more)? Or do they just validate that the code created is
> to spec? What tools are other companies using to test their websites for
> accessibility? Any guidance will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>

From: John E. Brandt
Date: Wed, Apr 28 2010 12:30PM
Subject: Re: Testing for accessibility compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

...and just because it has not been mentioned specifically, and is often
overlooked, make sure all video and audio files with spoken words are
captioned/transcribed.

John E. Brandt
jebswebs.com
Augusta, ME USA
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.jebswebs.com

From: deblist
Date: Wed, Apr 28 2010 12:39PM
Subject: Re: Testing for accessibility compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

If your testers are able-bodied and are not experienced users of
adaptive technology, have them try putting on some forced limits.
Can they use all functionality of the tool with the mouse
unplugged? What about with styles and images turned off in the
browser? What about with the browser set to a high level of
magnification?

These are easier things for testers to understand. Being able to
test with the monitor turned entirely off can be very difficult
for someone who is not experienced screen reader user, and being
able to test voice control will be very difficult for somebody
who is not an experienced voice user. But asking them to unplug
the mouse and turn off styles and images at the browser level
ought to be much easier in training. Since perfect testing it
extremely difficult, these steps might help you get closer to
good enough testing.

-deborah

From: Langum, Michael J
Date: Thu, Apr 29 2010 7:09AM
Subject: Re: Testing for accessibility compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

This is a great discussion. But in addition to automated vs. manual testing, there is the practical matter that rigorous testing requires more time and resources that many have available.

If there is anyone who manually tests all content (HTML, PDF, et al) in a moderate to large production environment, and still keep management happy, I'd like to know your secrets.

-- Mike

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Thu, Apr 29 2010 1:33PM
Subject: Re: Testing for accessibility compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

I don't think its automated vs. manual testing, accessibility cannot be
automatically determined with the current technologies available.

However:

Ensuring accessibility of large content and assets of information
requires some of the following:

Baseline automated scanning to gain visibility of easy to see
accessibility issues, e.g. alt-text, form-field labels, server-side
image maps, etc.
Content review process for new content which uses either very
extensive manual process, or manual process and an automated scanner.
This prevents degradation from baseline by newly authored content.
Remediation planning for baseline items--e.g. fix the stuff you
know is wrong over a determined time frame.
Period measuring/reporting of progress of remediation, and new
content documentation.

By looking at what you have, check pointing the new stuff, and setting
realistic goals for remediating the old stuff over time, you can get
there, and stay accessible.

From: Monir ElRayes
Date: Thu, Apr 29 2010 3:00PM
Subject: Re: Testing for accessibility compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

I would add to this the very important - and often overlooked - issues of:

1) Who is making content accessible; and
2) What type of content are we talking about.

These issues have a great impact on how much automation is required. Allow
me to explain.

Currently accessibility is still in the realm of "specialists". The average
author of content (i.e. almost everybody) knows very little about what is
required to make content accessible. This may not be such a big issue if all
we're talking about is websites, since the rate at which new content is
added to websites is relatively low. However, if we start to look at the
massive amount of content being created every day in the form of documents
(Word, excel, PowerPoint, PDF etc) by non-specialists, it becomes clear that
we need a tool-based approach that caters to the non-specialist author of
content.

Such author-level tools, by definition, are expert systems that guide the
non-specialist author and allow the creation of accessible content. Only by
equipping the authors with such tools can we deal with the incredible volume
of content being created every day.

Best Regards,

Monir ElRayes
President
NetCentric Technologies
613-270-9582 ext 203
613-797-8563
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.net-centric.com
 
This e-mail message is confidential, may be privileged and is intended for
the exclusive use of the addressee(s). Any other person is strictly
prohibited from disclosing, distributing or reproducing it. If the
addressee(s) cannot be reached or is unknown to you, please inform the
sender by return e-mail immediately and delete this e-mail message and
destroy all copies.

From: John E. Brandt
Date: Thu, Apr 29 2010 3:45PM
Subject: Re: Testing for accessibility compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

Yes YES! Accessible document are essential!

But, I disagree with your views regarding "websites." If you consider all
Content Management Systems from blogs to e-commerce sites, you are, I
believe, incorrect stating, "...the rate at which new content (by non
"specialists") ... added to websites is relatively low..." IN fact, I think
quite the opposite is true. I think more and more web content is being
produced by "non 'specialists'" - I prefer to call them "everyday folks."

All the more reason to continue to promote accessibility awareness to
everyone.

~j

John E. Brandt
jebswebs.com
Augusta, ME USA
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.jebswebs.com

From: Monir ElRayes
Date: Thu, Apr 29 2010 4:03PM
Subject: Re: Testing for accessibility compliance
← Previous message | Next message →

What I meant by "the rate at which new content is added to websites is
relatively low" is that the rate at which such content is added to websites
is low relative to all content created (most of which is created by users,
who know little about accessibility, in the form of "documents"). While I
agree that "everyday folks" are increasingly creating web content, I think
in the average workplace, as an example, you will find that far more content
is created on an average day in the form of "documents" as opposed to web
content.

Best Regards,

Monir ElRayes
President
NetCentric Technologies

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, May 03 2010 2:15PM
Subject: Re: Testing for accessibility compliance
← Previous message | No next message

I concur.

New content is eing added by nonspecialiasts at a much higher rate than
Web coders in general.
Just think of social media sites.