[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       web4lib
Subject:    Re: [WEB4LIB] Accessibility Tools/Services
From:       Matthew Mikitka <mmikitka () WLU ! CA>
Date:       2016-12-22 13:51:53
Message-ID: 1482414713367.17820 () wlu ! ca
[Download RAW message or body]

Before choosing any tool, it is best to clarify your testing goals so that the \
tool(s) align with your goals. Assuming that your primary goal is conformance, you'll \
need to clarify a working definition of conformance. As for WCAG, conformance is \
defined at https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html

It is important to realize that automated testing tools will detect a minority of \
conformance failures or proper implementations of WCAG Success Criteria. Manual \
testing is necessary, and the ideal tool is capable of understanding the limitations \
of automated and manual testing approaches, and integrating them across Success \
Criteria. Be aware of automation bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation_bias

Also, there is high variability of test results across automated tools. I performed a \
side-by-side review of popular automated testing tools against a manually \
tested-baseline, and the results were quite surprising: the automated tools found \
relatively few issues (15-20% perhaps), and there was little overlap between the \
tools.

Out of all the automated tools, I've been most impressed by Deque's aXe library. It \
is a well designed library, focused on eliminating false positives, and integrates \
well with content authoring tools (e.g., CKEditor) and scripting site crawling. Deque \
is also heavily involved in WCAG and WAI.

matt
________________________________________
From: Web4Lib List <Web4Lib@listserv.uc.edu> on behalf of Randy Oldham \
                <roldham@UOGUELPH.CA>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 15:25
To: WEB4LIB@LISTSERV.UC.EDU
Subject: Re: [WEB4LIB] Accessibility Tools/Services

We have an institutional subscription to SITE IMPROVE

https://siteimprove.com/

which is pretty good for automated site-wide testing (which is great when you have \
distributed content creation)

when I'm creating templates, or making substantive changes to the site, I tend to \
use:

1) http://achecker.ca/checker/index.php
2) http://squizlabs.github.io/HTML_CodeSniffer/
3) http://wave.webaim.org/
4) http://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/

Automated testing can't check things like javascript and other programming languages, \
as well as colour contrast for some elements, and images... so a bit of manual \
                testing is always required, even with a product like site improve.
-----------------------------------
Randy Oldham
Manager, Library Web Team
Acting Manager, Library ITS
Web Development Librarian
McLaughlin Library
University Of Guelph
Guelph, On, N1G 2W1
519-824-4120 ext 53604
roldham@uoguelph.ca
-----------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Web4Lib List [mailto:Web4Lib@listserv.uc.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher P Gray
Sent: December-21-16 2:49 PM
To: WEB4LIB@LISTSERV.UC.EDU
Subject: Re: [WEB4LIB] Accessibility Tools/Services

I've used the open source AChecker extensively:
http://www.atutor.ca/achecker/.  It has some helpful tools, especially an API for \
automated testing.  You can set up your own instance of AChecker and so have \
unlimited free access to the API.  It can record (and change later) decisions made \
about possible issues that can't be decided by the software itself.  It is a PHP \
application that typically runs with Apache and MySQL.

Public AChecker instance:  http://achecker.ca/checker/index.php
About AChecker:  http://www.atutor.ca/achecker/ API documentation:  \
http://achecker.ca/documentation/web_service_api.php

Chris Gray
Systems Analyst
University of Waterloo
=


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]