Comments on: How useful are accessibility evaluation tools?

By: Richard Morton

Richard Morton — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:42:03 +0000

I have used TAW on a number of occasions, but really only to give an indication of the scale of problems that a web page/site may have. I generate free summary reports on request using this tool, but add in a technical tip and give caveats and recommendations to use manual testing. I certainly wouldn’t recommend paying for a tool at the moment. No doubt tools can become more intelligent and be able to make better judgments about things like whether the alt text for an image is appropriate or not, but I still wouldn’t trust them for the next 100 years, by which time it will hopefully not be possible to create an inaccesible website!

http://www.accessibleweb.eu/

By: Gonzalo

Gonzalo — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:38:27 +0000

I think that the automatic accessibility evaluation tools are very useful. If you know the WCAG, they can detect some errors that you forgot in a manual revision. And if you don't know de WCAG, is a great for learn. But, I believe that the best evaluation tools are those that are a mix of manual and automatic revision, for example HERA. Try it!

By: David Joseph

David Joseph — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 11:43:11 +0000

You’re right about Taw it is an excellent tool, and due to be updated soon according to the developers although when I have contacted them previously the deadlines for an update are always ‘shortly’ so it may not… I guess we can’t compain too much since it is free and far more useful than any other paid for or free tool I have found.

By: George

George — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:12:17 +0000

Good article. For me standards can only take you so far. It is good quality control to go through validators and follow WCAG guidelines even thought they may be flawed. WCAG 2.0 is more subjective than WCAG 1.0 so there is no substitute for watching real users use the site. That includes able bodied as well as disabled users. Standards have got responsible developers to a good position but we mustn’t become obsessed with minutiae. Testing sites with real people (both able bodied and disabled) is in my opinion the answer to how usable and accessible a site is.

By: Mike Cherim

Mike Cherim — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:05:59 +0000

@Wojciech Bednarski: Any mark-up errors of that sort would be my fault so you can blame me, but in my defense I will add that as a practice I commonly mark-up and expand the abbreviation of the first instance of said of the abbreviation per page, section or article only. This is also common to the print world. My reasonsing is that to do otherwise is unnecessarily verbose and really not needed. While it’s true that web content can be taken out of context so care must be taken, typically an artcile such as this would be delivered to all users in its full form.

–Mike

By: pauldwaite

pauldwaite — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:10:04 +0000

Thanks for recommending TAW. It looks interesting, and the price is difficult to argue with.

I think there’s a gap in the market for a really good tool that makes accessibility testing easier, quicker and less error-prone. As you state, most accessibility guidelines can’t be verified by machines, so “validation” isn’t possible (hence I think the option in the web developer toolbar needs renaming). But a tool that made it easier and quicker to test accessibility and help reduce human errors in the process, would reduce cost and improve quality.

I think there’s a lot of scope for such a tool, and I think it would be a shame is people saw accessibility testing tools as a lost cause. Simply because humans have to evaluate a guideline doesn’t mean a tool couldn’t make evaluation easier, quicker and more reliable.

By: Wojciech Bednarski

Wojciech Bednarski — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 22:10:37 +0000

Except Web Developer Toolbar for Firefox also alvaible is Web Accessibility Toolbar for Opera. At an early date for Firefox too. BTW. You have to specify the expansion of two abbrevation W3C in this article.

By: 456 Berea Street

456 Berea Street — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 19:34:54 +0000

Are accessibility evaluation tools useless?

A look at what can be trusted in reports generated by automated accessibility evaluation tools.

By: Rob Kirton

Rob Kirton — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:15:16 +0000

God article. I am also a big fan of using TAW3 as a first port of call.

Andrew: Re your comments about text size. You are right about people making text difficult to read. There is a recognised technique of first levelling absolute font sizes across browsers by setting BODY font size to 76%. That however should be followed up by then declaring the font sizes of each required element to be relative in terms of ems i.e. 1.2em, 1.5em etc.. rendering them reasonable if appropriatevalues are set.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:30:44 +0000

Thanks for the article – will add it to my ‘problems with tools’ list. The one that gripes me lately is people who pass Use relative rather than absolute units but set their size to 70% or even 60%, which is totally unreadable for many, and hard for most of us to read!