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