E-mail List Archives
Thread: Automated Tool Counter-Citations
Number of posts in this thread: 3 (In chronological order)
From: Peter Shikli
Date: Tue, Jun 12 2018 8:45AM
Subject: Automated Tool Counter-Citations
No previous message | Next message →
We're seeing more RFPs from organizations looking to buy automated
software tools to make their websites accessible. We have our speech
about how empowering a trained human analyst with tools is better than
hoping an autopilot approach will work, though we agree that is better
than nothing. We use logic, examples, and such, but we lack
authoritative citations, that is, references to standards (WCAG et al),
legal case conclusions, official W3 statements, or even quotes from well
known experts in our field to support the position that a totally
automated solution is not the best way to go.
Does anyone out there know of such citations?
Cheers,
Peter Shikli
Access2online
A Division of Bizware Online Applications, Inc.
29030 SW Town Center Loop East
Suite 202-187
Wilsonville, OR 97070
503-570-6831 - = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Cell: 949-677-3705
FAX: 503-582-8337
www.access2online.com
Prison inmates helping websites become accessible
From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Tue, Jun 12 2018 12:15PM
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Automated Tool Counter-Citations
← Previous message | Next message →
I would suggest looking at the most recent blog entry for Karl Groves' site: http://www.karlgroves.com/blog/
I think the best way to help people understand the issue might be by explaining to them some of the success criteria and other accessibility issues that need to be considered in testing. Just like Karl does in his article.
I suspect there is also another reason why we likely will never be able to automate testing for accessibility. Accessibility testing involves testing the human-computer interactions. While we can predict what the computer does, we still can't fully predict how humans will think about or do things and a big part of accessibility involves communicating with people in a way they can perceive and understand as well as making it possible for them to interact with the interface in a way that is meaningful and possible for them. It is difficult to write automated tests when some of the variables are unpredictable or not completely known.
-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Shikli
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:45 AM
To: WebAIM Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [WebAIM] Automated Tool Counter-Citations
We're seeing more RFPs from organizations looking to buy automated
software tools to make their websites accessible. We have our speech
about how empowering a trained human analyst with tools is better than
hoping an autopilot approach will work, though we agree that is better
than nothing. We use logic, examples, and such, but we lack
authoritative citations, that is, references to standards (WCAG et al),
legal case conclusions, official W3 statements, or even quotes from well
known experts in our field to support the position that a totally
automated solution is not the best way to go.
Does anyone out there know of such citations?
Cheers,
Peter Shikli
Access2online
A Division of Bizware Online Applications, Inc.
29030 SW Town Center Loop East
Suite 202-187
Wilsonville, OR 97070
503-570-6831 - = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Cell: 949-677-3705
FAX: 503-582-8337
www.access2online.com
Prison inmates helping websites become accessible
From: JR Accessibility
Date: Tue, Jun 12 2018 12:35PM
Subject: Re: Automated Tool Counter-Citations
← Previous message | No next message
[Screen reader users: there are a lot of raw hyperlinks in this email.
Apologies!]
Peter,
My go-to source for anti-automated-tool solutions is Karl Groves of
Tenon.io . He has written extensively on this topic on his personal blog
site, most recently until the title "Automated Lies, with one line of code"
(http://www.karlgroves.com/2018/05/25/automated-lies-with-one-line-of-code/
).
He also has an article on "What can be tested and how" (
http://www.karlgroves.com/2012/09/15/accessibility-testing-what-can-be-tested-and-how/
).
I also like his four-part series on "Everything you know about
accessibility testing is wrong"
part 1 -
http://www.karlgroves.com/2014/02/13/everything-you-know-about-accessibility-testing-is-wrong-part-1/
part 2 -
http://www.karlgroves.com/2014/02/20/everything-you-know-about-accessibility-testing-is-wrong-part-2/
part 3 -
http://www.karlgroves.com/2014/03/07/everything-you-know-about-accessibility-is-wrong-part-3/
part 4 -
http://www.karlgroves.com/2014/03/13/everything-you-know-about-accessibility-testing-is-wrong-part-4/
Hope this helps.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:00 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> From: Peter Shikli < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: WebAIM Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 07:45:15 -0700
> Subject: [WebAIM] Automated Tool Counter-Citations
> We're seeing more RFPs from organizations looking to buy automated
> software tools to make their websites accessible. We have our speech about
> how empowering a trained human analyst with tools is better than hoping an
> autopilot approach will work, though we agree that is better than nothing.
> We use logic, examples, and such, but we lack authoritative citations, that
> is, references to standards (WCAG et al), legal case conclusions, official
> W3 statements, or even quotes from well known experts in our field to
> support the position that a totally automated solution is not the best way
> to go.
>
> Does anyone out there know of such citations?
>