E-mail List Archives
Thread: RE: "New" Accessibility Validator
Number of posts in this thread: 4 (In chronological order)
From: Terence de Giere
Date: Sat, Oct 25 2003 10:35AM
Subject: RE: "New" Accessibility Validator
No previous message | Next message →
The Watchfire service appears to be using the same engine as in Bobby
5.0 (A Windows-only program) although I have encountered one Priority 2
(W3C 13.1 Do not use the same link phrase more than once when the links
point to different URLs) and one priority 3 item (W3C 10.5 - Separate
adjacent links with more than whitespace) where this engine incorrectly
reports faults under certain circumstances when elements are intervening
within the elements being checked (the the parsing of the group is
incomplete and Bobby returns a spurious error). Under the same
conditions, Bobby 4.01, the Java version of the programs appears to
perform correctly. Watchfire has also added a number of other features
in this service besides accessibility which also seem to be very useful.
There does seem to be trend for vendors of accessibility checking
software to add additional features associated with usability and other
matters to enhance the value, to make it appear more useful and
different from other vendor's software, perhaps hoping to make more
sales thereby, although these additional features sometimes contravene
workarounds designers and developers come up with to enhance
accessibility while retaining a graphical design, by reporting them as
an error, or as a problem that should be addressed. I am not sure it is
possible to create a complex page that passes all these different
accessibility checkers's automated routines due to bugs and these added
features.
Terence de Giere
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Randy Pearson
Date: Sat, Oct 25 2003 11:33AM
Subject: RE: "New" Accessibility Validator
← Previous message | Next message →
> There does seem to be trend for vendors of accessibility checking
> software to add additional features associated with usability
> and other matters to enhance the value, to make it appear more useful and
> different from other vendor's software, perhaps hoping to make more
> sales thereby, although these additional features sometimes
> contravene workarounds designers and developers come up with to enhance
> accessibility while retaining a graphical design, by
> reporting them as an error, or as a problem that should be addressed. I am
not
> sure it is possible to create a complex page that passes all these
different
> accessibility checkers's automated routines due to bugs and
> these added features.
For HTML validation, we've started using CSE's HTML Validator Pro. It has a
pretty nice way of organizing the validation messages you get. First of all,
there is an Accessibility tab in the results pane that lets you see just
those messages. Messaged are both grouped and catgeorized by type. The
groups include Tips, Section 508, WCAP Priority 1, Priority 2, and Priortiy
3. Each individual message is categrozied by type as Error, Warning, Message
or Commment. If you find a message you don't like, you can right click it
and either globally turn the message off, or change its type.
In addition to accessibility, it has many other areas it checks. Obviously
it validates HTML, but it also includes search engine advise, style tips,
etc. The product seems to have a very nice way of keeping messages out of
the way unless you are focusing on that area (such as accessibility).
Now, I'll eradily admit that I don't know how the accessibility rules engine
stacks up with the others being discussed here, but in general I am quite
pleased with this product so far. If anyone is interested:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
-- Randy
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Ineke van der Maat
Date: Sat, Oct 25 2003 11:56AM
Subject: Re: "New" Accessibility Validator
← Previous message | Next message →
Hello Randy,
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
I tested a site in this validator that is xhtml 1.1 and css valid and
can be tested in every accessibility tool as aaa-compliant. I got this:
CSE HTML Validator Professional v6.01 generated 0 error messages, 1
warning message, and 22 other messages when checking this web page.
These problems may damage this web page's search engine rankings as well
as cause viewing problems for visitors. It is highly recommended that
any problems be corrected.
ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION: Of all the messages generated, 3 messages had
to do with accessibility. While this page did not generate any
accessibility errors or warnings (Congratulations!), it is very likely
that there are opportunities to improve this web site's accessibility.
Consider reviewing this web site for accessibility issues. CSE HTML
Validator can help.
Where is stated that I also have to test my site manually for possible
accessibilityproblems that can not be detected automatically?
Most people who get this message, surely think their site is fully
accessible, so I don't think this testtool is therefore very usuful.
Greetings
Ineke van der Maat
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Sat, Oct 25 2003 5:27PM
Subject: RE: "New" Accessibility Validator
← Previous message | No next message
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Randy Pearson wrote:
> For HTML validation, we've started using CSE's HTML Validator Pro.
It's phoney. It is _not_ a validator but advertized as one. This has often
been stated in different Usenet groups, and its author is aware of this
and decided to ignore it, saying that it's not a "formal validator", which
is nonsense. Either it is a validator, or it is not. And it isn't.
They still keep selling it as one.
> It has a
> pretty nice way of organizing the validation messages you get.
Irrelevant. It does not do validation, so anything it presents as
validation is just its author's opinion.
> First of all,
> there is an Accessibility tab in the results pane that lets you see just
> those messages.
I'm not holding my breath. If it calls itself a validator but isn't, my
expectations with regard to accessibility checking are very low.
> Now, I'll eradily admit that I don't know how the accessibility rules engine
> stacks up with the others being discussed here, but in general I am quite
> pleased with this product so far.
Well, if you submit a valid page to the "validator", it claims that the
page has some amount (say 20) errors, and asks you to buy the product to
see what it reports. This fits my definition of "lying". I would not take
anything they say about accessibility at face value either. (And, not
surprisingly, their Web page has lots of accessibility problems.)
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/