E-mail List Archives
Thread: Enterprise Web Accessibility Tools
Number of posts in this thread: 5 (In chronological order)
From: Katherine Mancuso
Date: Fri, Aug 20 2010 5:33PM
Subject: Enterprise Web Accessibility Tools
No previous message | Next message →
Hi everyone,
I seek recommendations and evaluations of enterprise accessibility checking
tools from other people who work at large companies. Besides specific tool
recommendations (or suggestions to avoid a tool at all costs!), I'm
interested in general impressions of what these tools do, what they don't
do, etc, because I'm trying to figure out whether our requirements are
reasonable. I am particularly interested at this juncture in having
conversations with people who have used or evaluated Rational. Also if
anyone has any resources on the issue of evaluating these tools in general
that would be welcome.
I work at a very large corporation that has many websites; we mostly produce
ordinary web pages, we use a good bit of Flash & web-based video, and we
occasionally produce web applications and the like too but it's not a
primary focus. We are currently seeking a product that has customizable
error display using rules and one which will integrate with our existing
regression testing.
We have already evaluated HiSoftware, and we are currently evaluating IBM
Rational. I have been told that we should also evaluate Deque Systems's
Worldspace & SSB Bart's AMP. We are currently looking at WCAG 2.0 Level A
or AA compliance. Recommendations of other tools you've particularly liked
are welcome.
General thoughts about tools can be sent to the list; please keep in mind
when referring to specific tools that the tool's developer may be here on
the list, so it might be best to speak about specifics off-list.
I don't speak for my company in any way in making this query, for those of
you who might know where I work.
thanks,
Katherine
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Mancuso: crusader of community art, social technology, &
disability
Research:
Center for Assistive Technology & Environmental Access (http://www.catea.org
)
Georgia Tech, Digital Media (http://dm.gatech.edu)
Community:
The Vesuvius Group: metaverse community builders (
http://www.thevesuviusgroup.com)
Gimp Girl Community Liaison/Research Fellow (http://www.gimpgirl.com)
Alternate ROOTS: arts*community*activism (http://www.alternateroots.org)
Contact in the web, the metaverse, the world:
http://twitter.com/musingvirtual
http://muse.dreamwidth.org
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kathymancuso
SL: Muse Carmona
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Herb Schilling
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 8:09AM
Subject: Re: Enterprise Web Accessibility Tools
← Previous message | Next message →
On Aug 20, 2010, at 7:30 PM, Katherine Mancuso wrote:
> We have already evaluated HiSoftware, and we are currently evaluating IBM
> Rational. I have been told that we should also evaluate Deque Systems's
> Worldspace & SSB Bart's AMP. We are currently looking at WCAG 2.0 Level A
> or AA compliance. Recommendations of other tools you've particularly liked
> are welcome.
Hi,
We use Worldspace and like it. The interface maybe isn't the best. The people are great. I was not impressed with HiSoftware at al! IBM as too expensive.
-----------------------
Herb Schilling
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Michael.Moore@dars.state.tx.us
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 8:21AM
Subject: Re: Enterprise Web Accessibility Tools
← Previous message | Next message →
We are using IBM Rational Policy Tester/Watchfire. The tool works well and support from IBM for the tool has been good. We only use the automated checks for section 508 and have the manual checks turned off. We tried the manual checks but every page flags and that was just too much to deal with on a large site. Although the automated checks only give us a partial view of our html accessibility compliance it has given us a good opportunity to standardize our approach and fix problems within the templates. We have also found that when new pages are posted and get caught in the checks that we can identify developers who need further training and we can catch manually checked issues at that time.
Mike Moore
(512) 424-4159
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Katherine Mancuso
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:30 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [WebAIM] Enterprise Web Accessibility Tools
Hi everyone,
I seek recommendations and evaluations of enterprise accessibility checking
tools from other people who work at large companies. Besides specific tool
recommendations (or suggestions to avoid a tool at all costs!), I'm
interested in general impressions of what these tools do, what they don't
do, etc, because I'm trying to figure out whether our requirements are
reasonable. I am particularly interested at this juncture in having
conversations with people who have used or evaluated Rational. Also if
anyone has any resources on the issue of evaluating these tools in general
that would be welcome.
I work at a very large corporation that has many websites; we mostly produce
ordinary web pages, we use a good bit of Flash & web-based video, and we
occasionally produce web applications and the like too but it's not a
primary focus. We are currently seeking a product that has customizable
error display using rules and one which will integrate with our existing
regression testing.
We have already evaluated HiSoftware, and we are currently evaluating IBM
Rational. I have been told that we should also evaluate Deque Systems's
Worldspace & SSB Bart's AMP. We are currently looking at WCAG 2.0 Level A
or AA compliance. Recommendations of other tools you've particularly liked
are welcome.
General thoughts about tools can be sent to the list; please keep in mind
when referring to specific tools that the tool's developer may be here on
the list, so it might be best to speak about specifics off-list.
I don't speak for my company in any way in making this query, for those of
you who might know where I work.
thanks,
Katherine
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Mancuso: crusader of community art, social technology, &
disability
Research:
Center for Assistive Technology & Environmental Access (http://www.catea.org
)
Georgia Tech, Digital Media (http://dm.gatech.edu)
Community:
The Vesuvius Group: metaverse community builders (
http://www.thevesuviusgroup.com)
Gimp Girl Community Liaison/Research Fellow (http://www.gimpgirl.com)
Alternate ROOTS: arts*community*activism (http://www.alternateroots.org)
Contact in the web, the metaverse, the world:
http://twitter.com/musingvirtual
http://muse.dreamwidth.org
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kathymancuso
SL: Muse Carmona
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Katherine Mancuso
Date: Wed, Aug 25 2010 10:54AM
Subject: Re: Enterprise Web Accessibility Tools
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks to everyone who's given feedback so far (especially the many of you
who have given it off the list).
So I've considered whether we should just use single page checkers, but I
sort of wonder whether our volume (we're in the hundred thousands of pages,
I think, although people seem unclear) would make that too slow to work
well. Then again, it has the advantage of not presenting tons of
information all at once.
I would imagine that what one would do to check at large volume would be to
spend some time analyzing the structure of a certain set of pages (e.g. do
they all have the same menu system, other common elements) and then figure
out a system that combines manual testing & automated checkers. Although, I
think this would be true whether you were using an automated checker that
checked many pages or a single page one.
There seem to be pros and cons to both approaches.
I've gotten some feedback on general methodology around tool use, but if you
haven't replied, I'd love to hear from you about how you do this.
I'm particularly interested in how others integrate this into a general QA
regression test suite & bug tracking system like Jira; the one button filing
of jiras and the ability to run tests from the command line of our suite are
what appealed to us about the larger systems.
Thoughts? What's working for you?
Katherine
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Michael S Elledge < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi Katherine--
>
> Also be sure to look into the Web Accessibility Checker from the University
> of Toronto ATRC: http://achecker.ca/checker/index.php
>
> I don't know if you can set it up to automatically screen all the pages in
> a site (I wouldn't recommend that anyway), but it has the depth of detail of
> the other tools you mention and you can set the set the screening criteria
> (A, AA, 508, etc.).
>
> Mike Elledge
> Usability/Accessibility Research and Consulting
> Michigan State University
>
>
> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 01:30:09 +0200, Katherine Mancuso < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I seek recommendations and evaluations of enterprise accessibility
>>> checking tools from other people who work at large companies. Besides
>>> specific tool recommendations (or suggestions to avoid a tool at all
>>> costs!), I'm interested in general impressions of what these tools do,
>>> what they don't do, etc, because I'm trying to figure out whether our
>>> requirements are reasonable. I am particularly interested at this
>>> juncture in having conversations with people who have used or evaluated
>>> Rational. Also if anyone has any resources on the issue of evaluating
>>> these tools in general that would be welcome.
>>>
>> ....
>>
>>> General thoughts about tools can be sent to the list; please keep in mind
>>> when referring to specific tools that the tool's developer may be here on
>>> the list, so it might be best to speak about specifics off-list.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, it would be helpful to me, and probably others, to have both
>> general and specific stuff here to see...
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Chaals
>>
>>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Mancuso: crusader of community art, social technology, &
disability
Current work:
Walt Disney Imagineering & Parks and Resorts Online, Intern (work:
accessibility evangelism & interactive projects)
Research:
Center for Assistive Technology & Environmental Access (http://www.catea.org
)
Georgia Tech, Digital Media (http://dm.gatech.edu)
Community:
The Vesuvius Group: metaverse community builders (
http://www.thevesuviusgroup.com)
Gimp Girl Community Liaison/Research Fellow (http://www.gimpgirl.com)
Alternate ROOTS: arts*community*activism (http://www.alternateroots.org)
Contact in the web, the metaverse, the world:
http://twitter.com/musingvirtual
http://muse.dreamwidth.org
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kathymancuso
SL: Muse Carmona
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Wed, Sep 22 2010 7:03AM
Subject: Enterprise Web Accessibility Tools
← Previous message | No next message
Hi Katherine,
You could also try Imergo. It was developed by the Web Compliance Center
(WebCC) at Fraunhofer FIT. [1] [2]
I hope this helps.
Josh
[1] http://imergo.com/home
[2] http://webcc.fit.fraunhofer.de/
********************************************************************
National Council for the Blind of Ireland (NCBI) is a company
limited by guarantee (registered in Ireland No. 26293) .
Our registered office is at Whitworth Road, Drumcondra, Dublin 9.
NCBI is also a registered Charity (chy4626).
NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments
is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of
the content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify
the sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to
delete it and any attachments from your system.
NCBI endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated
by its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants. However,
it cannot accept any responsibility for any such which are
transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.
Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily
represent the views of NCBI
********************************************************************