E-mail List Archives
Thread: value of re-testing after manual accessibility audit
Number of posts in this thread: 10 (In chronological order)
From: Barbara
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2020 8:16AM
Subject: value of re-testing after manual accessibility audit
No previous message | Next message →
Hello, could anybody please help with some advice? I am looking into third
parties to do an accessibility audit of our sites. We are a charity and we
have multiple domains and sub-domains, so it can be potentially expensive.
The companies I contacted quoted us on different variables, one of which is
re-testing after the manual audit check for fixes or new problems created
by the fixes.
Another variable is automated testing on top of the manual as a safety net
in case something has been missed by the manual one.
How much value is there in re-testing? Is it risky to skip this step?
Same for automated testing. How much value, if you have done a
proper manual one?
Many thanks,
Barbara
From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2020 8:39AM
Subject: Re: value of re-testing after manual accessibility audit
← Previous message | Next message →
Barbara,
Before I share my opinions I just want to disclose that I do work for Deque
Systems which is a company that does accessibility assessments.
In my personal opinion any good accessibility test should include both
automated and manual testing. The automated testing helps reduce the work
needed for manual testing. Manual testing catches those things automated
testing can't. Automated testing shouldn't be a safety net for manual
testing. Instead it should complement manual testing.
Once your developers address the issues in the accessibility reports they
receive, you likely will want to ensure the problems were actually fixed.
If your developers have a way to validate their fixes, you may not need help
with retesting. However, if your developers lack the ability or you are
trying to solve particularly challenging accessibility problems retesting
can be invaluable.
I hope that helps.
Thanks!
Tim
Tim Harshbarger
Senior Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems
From: England, Kristina
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2020 8:57AM
Subject: Re: value of re-testing after manual accessibility audit
← Previous message | Next message →
Agreed with Tim. Honestly, if there's any way to get your developers trained on both accessible code and manual testing as part of the initial audit, that would be extremely beneficial over time. Otherwise you won't have that knowledge going forward and any changes to your sites will need to be outsourced for review, which will be both expensive and inefficient.
Kristina England
Senior Digital Experience and Accessibility Specialist
University Information Technology Services
UMass Office of the President
333 South Street, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
774-455-7874
[UMass Logo]
UITS Most Valued Behaviors: Communicate Thoughtfully + Foster a Growth Mindset + Take a Holistic View + Embrace a Culture of Inquiry + Practice and Protect Courage
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of Tim Harshbarger < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 10:39 AM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List' < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] value of re-testing after manual accessibility audit
[External Sender]
Barbara,
Before I share my opinions I just want to disclose that I do work for Deque
Systems which is a company that does accessibility assessments.
In my personal opinion any good accessibility test should include both
automated and manual testing. The automated testing helps reduce the work
needed for manual testing. Manual testing catches those things automated
testing can't. Automated testing shouldn't be a safety net for manual
testing. Instead it should complement manual testing.
Once your developers address the issues in the accessibility reports they
receive, you likely will want to ensure the problems were actually fixed.
If your developers have a way to validate their fixes, you may not need help
with retesting. However, if your developers lack the ability or you are
trying to solve particularly challenging accessibility problems retesting
can be invaluable.
I hope that helps.
Thanks!
Tim
Tim Harshbarger
Senior Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems
From: joe
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2020 9:00AM
Subject: Re: value of re-testing after manual accessibility audit
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Barbara,
Working for a consulting company (The Paciello Group) I have a little
insight.
If you have a lot of pages for all your sites and most pages in a site have
similar templates, content, etc. I think a automated scan will help find
issues with the templates or common content (header, navigation, footer,
etc.) that may not be part of the manual review.
The automated scan will generally find 1000's of issues, reporting the same
exact issue on each page where it exists. This can help you get more bang
for your buck and Identify common issues across a large number of pages.
Having said that, automated tests are limited to what they can automatically
test so they may miss issues or have false positives/negatives.
In terms of re-review, this can be helpful to ensure that your developers
correctly addressed any issues discovered during the manual review. This
requires that fixes have been completed other wise the re-review will report
the same unfixed issue. A re-review can be important if you are documenting
your conformance for legal or business reason.
Often, when my company is contracted to do a re-review a VPAT (Voluntary
Product Accessibility Template) is part of that work and documents the
accessibility of the "product" at that point in time.
So both options can be worth the money, but you will need to decided that.
Hopefully this helps.
Thankx,
Joe Humbert
Accessibility Champion
Android & iOS Accessibility Novice
From: Colleen Gratzer
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2020 9:21AM
Subject: Re: value of re-testing after manual accessibility audit
← Previous message | Next message →
I agree on all points, especially the need for anyone developing on the
site or adding content to it to get some training in accessibility (even
if it's just best practices), both for the website and for the documents
they create.
Colleen Gratzer
Website Accessibility Course
https://academy.creative-boost.com
Design Mentor and Host of the Design Domination podcast
http://creative-boost.com
Certified Branding Expert + Accessibility Specialist, Gratzer Graphics LLC
https://gratzergraphics.com
On 6/10/20 10:57 AM, England, Kristina wrote:
> Agreed with Tim. Honestly, if there's any way to get your developers trained on both accessible code and manual testing as part of the initial audit, that would be extremely beneficial over time. Otherwise you won't have that knowledge going forward and any changes to your sites will need to be outsourced for review, which will be both expensive and inefficient.
>
> Kristina England
> Senior Digital Experience and Accessibility Specialist
> University Information Technology Services
> UMass Office of the President
> 333 South Street, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
> 774-455-7874
>
> [UMass Logo]
>
>
>
> UITS Most Valued Behaviors: Communicate Thoughtfully + Foster a Growth Mindset + Take a Holistic View + Embrace a Culture of Inquiry + Practice and Protect Courage
>
>
> > From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of Tim Harshbarger < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 10:39 AM
> To: 'WebAIM Discussion List' < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] value of re-testing after manual accessibility audit
>
> [External Sender]
>
> Barbara,
>
> Before I share my opinions I just want to disclose that I do work for Deque
> Systems which is a company that does accessibility assessments.
>
> In my personal opinion any good accessibility test should include both
> automated and manual testing. The automated testing helps reduce the work
> needed for manual testing. Manual testing catches those things automated
> testing can't. Automated testing shouldn't be a safety net for manual
> testing. Instead it should complement manual testing.
>
> Once your developers address the issues in the accessibility reports they
> receive, you likely will want to ensure the problems were actually fixed.
> If your developers have a way to validate their fixes, you may not need help
> with retesting. However, if your developers lack the ability or you are
> trying to solve particularly challenging accessibility problems retesting
> can be invaluable.
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> Thanks!
> Tim
> Tim Harshbarger
> Senior Accessibility Consultant
> Deque Systems
>
From: Barbara
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2020 9:45AM
Subject: Re: value of re-testing after manual accessibility audit
← Previous message | Next message →
thank you all - your views are really helpful and informative.
Barbara
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:21 PM Colleen Gratzer < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> I agree on all points, especially the need for anyone developing on the
> site or adding content to it to get some training in accessibility (even
> if it's just best practices), both for the website and for the documents
> they create.
>
>
> Colleen Gratzer
> Website Accessibility Course
> https://academy.creative-boost.com
> Design Mentor and Host of the Design Domination podcast
> http://creative-boost.com
> Certified Branding Expert + Accessibility Specialist, Gratzer Graphics LLC
> https://gratzergraphics.com
>
>
>
> On 6/10/20 10:57 AM, England, Kristina wrote:
> > Agreed with Tim. Honestly, if there's any way to get your developers
> trained on both accessible code and manual testing as part of the initial
> audit, that would be extremely beneficial over time. Otherwise you won't
> have that knowledge going forward and any changes to your sites will need
> to be outsourced for review, which will be both expensive and inefficient.
> >
> > Kristina England
> > Senior Digital Experience and Accessibility Specialist
> > University Information Technology Services
> > UMass Office of the President
> > 333 South Street, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
> > 774-455-7874
> >
> > [UMass Logo]
> >
> >
> >
> > UITS Most Valued Behaviors: Communicate Thoughtfully + Foster a Growth
> Mindset + Take a Holistic View + Embrace a Culture of Inquiry + Practice
> and Protect Courage
> >
> >
> > > > From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of
> Tim Harshbarger < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 10:39 AM
> > To: 'WebAIM Discussion List' < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Subject: Re: [WebAIM] value of re-testing after manual accessibility
> audit
> >
> > [External Sender]
> >
> > Barbara,
> >
> > Before I share my opinions I just want to disclose that I do work for
> Deque
> > Systems which is a company that does accessibility assessments.
> >
> > In my personal opinion any good accessibility test should include both
> > automated and manual testing. The automated testing helps reduce the work
> > needed for manual testing. Manual testing catches those things automated
> > testing can't. Automated testing shouldn't be a safety net for manual
> > testing. Instead it should complement manual testing.
> >
> > Once your developers address the issues in the accessibility reports they
> > receive, you likely will want to ensure the problems were actually fixed.
> > If your developers have a way to validate their fixes, you may not need
> help
> > with retesting. However, if your developers lack the ability or you are
> > trying to solve particularly challenging accessibility problems retesting
> > can be invaluable.
> >
> > I hope that helps.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Tim
> > Tim Harshbarger
> > Senior Accessibility Consultant
> > Deque Systems
> >
From: Greg Jellin
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2020 10:01AM
Subject: Re: value of re-testing after manual accessibility audit
← Previous message | Next message →
Barbara,
I would add one thing to the great comments of others; Accessibility
should be part of your ongoing process. It isn't something can be
checked for once and you are all set. I recommend that you partner with
a consultant for a long term relationship. So, they would do your
initial eval, work with your developers to implement the suggestions,
then validate the fixes. Then what? You will be adding new content, new
features, new pages, etc. These will need to be evaluated as well.
Greg
On 6/10/2020 8:45 AM, Barbara wrote:
> thank you all - your views are really helpful and informative.
> Barbara
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:21 PM Colleen Gratzer < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
>> I agree on all points, especially the need for anyone developing on the
>> site or adding content to it to get some training in accessibility (even
>> if it's just best practices), both for the website and for the documents
>> they create.
>>
>>
>> Colleen Gratzer
>> Website Accessibility Course
>> https://academy.creative-boost.com
>> Design Mentor and Host of the Design Domination podcast
>> http://creative-boost.com
>> Certified Branding Expert + Accessibility Specialist, Gratzer Graphics LLC
>> https://gratzergraphics.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/10/20 10:57 AM, England, Kristina wrote:
>>> Agreed with Tim. Honestly, if there's any way to get your developers
>> trained on both accessible code and manual testing as part of the initial
>> audit, that would be extremely beneficial over time. Otherwise you won't
>> have that knowledge going forward and any changes to your sites will need
>> to be outsourced for review, which will be both expensive and inefficient.
>>> Kristina England
>>> Senior Digital Experience and Accessibility Specialist
>>> University Information Technology Services
>>> UMass Office of the President
>>> 333 South Street, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
>>> 774-455-7874
>>>
>>> [UMass Logo]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> UITS Most Valued Behaviors: Communicate Thoughtfully + Foster a Growth
>> Mindset + Take a Holistic View + Embrace a Culture of Inquiry + Practice
>> and Protect Courage
>>>
>>> >>> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of
>> Tim Harshbarger < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 10:39 AM
>>> To: 'WebAIM Discussion List' < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] value of re-testing after manual accessibility
>> audit
>>> [External Sender]
>>>
>>> Barbara,
>>>
>>> Before I share my opinions I just want to disclose that I do work for
>> Deque
>>> Systems which is a company that does accessibility assessments.
>>>
>>> In my personal opinion any good accessibility test should include both
>>> automated and manual testing. The automated testing helps reduce the work
>>> needed for manual testing. Manual testing catches those things automated
>>> testing can't. Automated testing shouldn't be a safety net for manual
>>> testing. Instead it should complement manual testing.
>>>
>>> Once your developers address the issues in the accessibility reports they
>>> receive, you likely will want to ensure the problems were actually fixed.
>>> If your developers have a way to validate their fixes, you may not need
>> help
>>> with retesting. However, if your developers lack the ability or you are
>>> trying to solve particularly challenging accessibility problems retesting
>>> can be invaluable.
>>>
>>> I hope that helps.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Tim
>>> Tim Harshbarger
>>> Senior Accessibility Consultant
>>> Deque Systems
>>>
From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2020 7:55PM
Subject: Re: value of re-testing after manual accessibility audit
← Previous message | Next message →
If you can only invest in either training or audits, invest in training.
Here's how I would go about it.
1. Choose one of the free accessibility tools (axe, Wave or ARC, all 3
are great, I can't speak directly for other tools).
2. Run that tool on all your pages, especially key pages, the goal
should be 2 or less errors reported by the tool, per page, errors, not
warnings. Try to focus on common areas of the page (headers, footers,
anything generated from a single template or piece of code).
3. Get an expert to review any common components manually and make fix
recommendations, also get a review of the homepage, contact us page,
and key sign up pages or flows on the site, maybe go with pages with
the highest hit count or most common flows. Act on those
recommendations, see if the expert is willing to re-review those pages
for a discount (once someone is familiar with the pages confirming a
review should take 1/2 the original time or less).
4. Get your developers educated on accessibility, using resources like
W3C Tutorials (free), the EDX WCAG course (free to audit or $99 for
certification) or Deque University or another vendor source for online
self-paced learning (preferably a learning platform where you can
track progress), training is relativeley modestly priced.
Don't fall for accessibility overlay schemes or any of that, it'll
only waste money without improving the situation.
You can have a vendor do the audit or look for an accessibility expert
who is willing to do audits as an individual, it could save you some
dough.
Make sure the individual has a solid resume and understanding e.g. a
WAS (Web Accessibility Specialist) certification from the IAAP.
If you are a non-profit you may be able to benefit from the Open Air
mentoring effort from Knowbility (though that only takes place in the
fall, so you've 3 or 4 months from the next round).
Cheers
-B
On 6/10/20, Greg Jellin < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Barbara,
>
> I would add one thing to the great comments of others; Accessibility
> should be part of your ongoing process. It isn't something can be
> checked for once and you are all set. I recommend that you partner with
> a consultant for a long term relationship. So, they would do your
> initial eval, work with your developers to implement the suggestions,
> then validate the fixes. Then what? You will be adding new content, new
> features, new pages, etc. These will need to be evaluated as well.
>
> Greg
>
> On 6/10/2020 8:45 AM, Barbara wrote:
>> thank you all - your views are really helpful and informative.
>> Barbara
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:21 PM Colleen Gratzer
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree on all points, especially the need for anyone developing on the
>>> site or adding content to it to get some training in accessibility (even
>>> if it's just best practices), both for the website and for the documents
>>> they create.
>>>
>>>
>>> Colleen Gratzer
>>> Website Accessibility Course
>>> https://academy.creative-boost.com
>>> Design Mentor and Host of the Design Domination podcast
>>> http://creative-boost.com
>>> Certified Branding Expert + Accessibility Specialist, Gratzer Graphics
>>> LLC
>>> https://gratzergraphics.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/10/20 10:57 AM, England, Kristina wrote:
>>>> Agreed with Tim. Honestly, if there's any way to get your developers
>>> trained on both accessible code and manual testing as part of the
>>> initial
>>> audit, that would be extremely beneficial over time. Otherwise you won't
>>> have that knowledge going forward and any changes to your sites will
>>> need
>>> to be outsourced for review, which will be both expensive and
>>> inefficient.
>>>> Kristina England
>>>> Senior Digital Experience and Accessibility Specialist
>>>> University Information Technology Services
>>>> UMass Office of the President
>>>> 333 South Street, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
>>>> 774-455-7874
>>>>
>>>> [UMass Logo]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> UITS Most Valued Behaviors: Communicate Thoughtfully + Foster a Growth
>>> Mindset + Take a Holistic View + Embrace a Culture of Inquiry + Practice
>>> and Protect Courage
>>>>
>>>> >>>> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of
>>> Tim Harshbarger < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 10:39 AM
>>>> To: 'WebAIM Discussion List' < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] value of re-testing after manual accessibility
>>> audit
>>>> [External Sender]
>>>>
>>>> Barbara,
>>>>
>>>> Before I share my opinions I just want to disclose that I do work for
>>> Deque
>>>> Systems which is a company that does accessibility assessments.
>>>>
>>>> In my personal opinion any good accessibility test should include both
>>>> automated and manual testing. The automated testing helps reduce the
>>>> work
>>>> needed for manual testing. Manual testing catches those things
>>>> automated
>>>> testing can't. Automated testing shouldn't be a safety net for manual
>>>> testing. Instead it should complement manual testing.
>>>>
>>>> Once your developers address the issues in the accessibility reports
>>>> they
>>>> receive, you likely will want to ensure the problems were actually
>>>> fixed.
>>>> If your developers have a way to validate their fixes, you may not need
>>> help
>>>> with retesting. However, if your developers lack the ability or you are
>>>> trying to solve particularly challenging accessibility problems
>>>> retesting
>>>> can be invaluable.
>>>>
>>>> I hope that helps.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Tim
>>>> Tim Harshbarger
>>>> Senior Accessibility Consultant
>>>> Deque Systems
>>>>
From: lucas cheadle
Date: Tue, Jun 16 2020 10:22PM
Subject: Re: value of re-testing after manual accessibility audit
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi- Accessibility student here with a training question.
What about Section 508 Trusted Tester Certification through the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security?
Worth it? I'm currently working through EDX's WCAG course, thanks Birkir Gunnarsson.
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of Birkir R. Gunnarsson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 1:55 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] value of re-testing after manual accessibility audit
If you can only invest in either training or audits, invest in training.
Here's how I would go about it.
1. Choose one of the free accessibility tools (axe, Wave or ARC, all 3
are great, I can't speak directly for other tools).
2. Run that tool on all your pages, especially key pages, the goal
should be 2 or less errors reported by the tool, per page, errors, not
warnings. Try to focus on common areas of the page (headers, footers,
anything generated from a single template or piece of code).
3. Get an expert to review any common components manually and make fix
recommendations, also get a review of the homepage, contact us page,
and key sign up pages or flows on the site, maybe go with pages with
the highest hit count or most common flows. Act on those
recommendations, see if the expert is willing to re-review those pages
for a discount (once someone is familiar with the pages confirming a
review should take 1/2 the original time or less).
4. Get your developers educated on accessibility, using resources like
W3C Tutorials (free), the EDX WCAG course (free to audit or $99 for
certification) or Deque University or another vendor source for online
self-paced learning (preferably a learning platform where you can
track progress), training is relativeley modestly priced.
Don't fall for accessibility overlay schemes or any of that, it'll
only waste money without improving the situation.
You can have a vendor do the audit or look for an accessibility expert
who is willing to do audits as an individual, it could save you some
dough.
Make sure the individual has a solid resume and understanding e.g. a
WAS (Web Accessibility Specialist) certification from the IAAP.
If you are a non-profit you may be able to benefit from the Open Air
mentoring effort from Knowbility (though that only takes place in the
fall, so you've 3 or 4 months from the next round).
Cheers
-B
On 6/10/20, Greg Jellin < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Barbara,
>
> I would add one thing to the great comments of others; Accessibility
> should be part of your ongoing process. It isn't something can be
> checked for once and you are all set. I recommend that you partner with
> a consultant for a long term relationship. So, they would do your
> initial eval, work with your developers to implement the suggestions,
> then validate the fixes. Then what? You will be adding new content, new
> features, new pages, etc. These will need to be evaluated as well.
>
> Greg
>
> On 6/10/2020 8:45 AM, Barbara wrote:
>> thank you all - your views are really helpful and informative.
>> Barbara
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:21 PM Colleen Gratzer
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree on all points, especially the need for anyone developing on the
>>> site or adding content to it to get some training in accessibility (even
>>> if it's just best practices), both for the website and for the documents
>>> they create.
>>>
>>>
>>> Colleen Gratzer
>>> Website Accessibility Course
>>> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Facademy.creative-boost.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdb2a9cb275bd4c6b1bcb08d80daa9ef6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637274373740532124&sdata=oMbG2WjIETBD53KNbjosThrmumf6eQp9QOsV%2BqY91V8%3D&reserved=0
>>> Design Mentor and Host of the Design Domination podcast
>>> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcreative-boost.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdb2a9cb275bd4c6b1bcb08d80daa9ef6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637274373740532124&sdata=vVjPvGRuEMkj%2BVwA1GeCwZgdPgEMJsxum%2BIzbnfvHkA%3D&reserved=0
>>> Certified Branding Expert + Accessibility Specialist, Gratzer Graphics
>>> LLC
>>> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgratzergraphics.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdb2a9cb275bd4c6b1bcb08d80daa9ef6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637274373740532124&sdata=LHIG%2BcLskQ%2F4km%2FWppGgDbLqpyFPxUmmGr6XUq8YBNA%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/10/20 10:57 AM, England, Kristina wrote:
>>>> Agreed with Tim. Honestly, if there's any way to get your developers
>>> trained on both accessible code and manual testing as part of the
>>> initial
>>> audit, that would be extremely beneficial over time. Otherwise you won't
>>> have that knowledge going forward and any changes to your sites will
>>> need
>>> to be outsourced for review, which will be both expensive and
>>> inefficient.
>>>> Kristina England
>>>> Senior Digital Experience and Accessibility Specialist
>>>> University Information Technology Services
>>>> UMass Office of the President
>>>> 333 South Street, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
>>>> 774-455-7874
>>>>
>>>> [UMass Logo]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> UITS Most Valued Behaviors: Communicate Thoughtfully + Foster a Growth
>>> Mindset + Take a Holistic View + Embrace a Culture of Inquiry + Practice
>>> and Protect Courage
>>>>
>>>> >>>> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of
>>> Tim Harshbarger < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 10:39 AM
>>>> To: 'WebAIM Discussion List' < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] value of re-testing after manual accessibility
>>> audit
>>>> [External Sender]
>>>>
>>>> Barbara,
>>>>
>>>> Before I share my opinions I just want to disclose that I do work for
>>> Deque
>>>> Systems which is a company that does accessibility assessments.
>>>>
>>>> In my personal opinion any good accessibility test should include both
>>>> automated and manual testing. The automated testing helps reduce the
>>>> work
>>>> needed for manual testing. Manual testing catches those things
>>>> automated
>>>> testing can't. Automated testing shouldn't be a safety net for manual
>>>> testing. Instead it should complement manual testing.
>>>>
>>>> Once your developers address the issues in the accessibility reports
>>>> they
>>>> receive, you likely will want to ensure the problems were actually
>>>> fixed.
>>>> If your developers have a way to validate their fixes, you may not need
>>> help
>>>> with retesting. However, if your developers lack the ability or you are
>>>> trying to solve particularly challenging accessibility problems
>>>> retesting
>>>> can be invaluable.
>>>>
>>>> I hope that helps.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Tim
>>>> Tim Harshbarger
>>>> Senior Accessibility Consultant
>>>> Deque Systems
>>>>
From: glen walker
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2020 12:05AM
Subject: Re: value of re-testing after manual accessibility audit
← Previous message | No next message
Most accessibility training is worth it. The more exposure you get to
different testing methodologies, the better you can evaluate what works
best for you.
Since TT is free, you're not losing money if you don't think it's worth it.
Keep in mind that TT is based on Section 508 which is still WCAG 2.0.
You'd still need training on the additional success criteria in WCAG 2.1.
And TT (v5) only uses the ANDI and CCA tools (
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/07/13/trusted-tester-v5-testing-tools).
There are lots of other really good tools out there to augment your testing.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:23 PM lucas cheadle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi- Accessibility student here with a training question.
> What about Section 508 Trusted Tester Certification through the U.S. Dept
> of Homeland Security?
> Worth it? I'm currently working through EDX's WCAG course, thanks Birkir
> Gunnarsson.
>
>