W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: RE: Testing Setup for Accessible Web Sites/Applications

Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 13:16:36 -0500
Message-Id: <s8734447.057@EEOC.GOV>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
I have put together a pretty decent testing environment for the EEOC web site. Based on extensive testing, I have a good idea of what are likely to be problematic areas, and what's generally safe. Safe items I test on one or two browsers before posting live, potentially problematic items get everything thrown at them. Anything I haven't done before gets the full treatment.

My development and testing environment includes four computers and a variety of operating systems, browsers, adaptive equipment, etc., as follows:

Computer 1 - 
  Windows 98
  IE 4.0
  Netscape 2, 3, 4, 4.5, Mozilla
  JAWS for Windows
  ZoomText (screen magnifier)
  AOL 5.0
  WebTV Viewer

Computer 2 - 
  Linux (Red Hat 6.1)
  Netscape 4.0, 4.6, Mozilla
  W3C's line mode browser
  miscellaneous other browsers
  Running under VMWare, the following:
    Windows NT with IE5, Netscape 4.0 and up
    Windows 95 with IE 3.0, AOL 4.0, and Netscape 2 and up

Computer 3 -
  Netscape 2, 3, 4, 4.5
  IE 4.0

Computer 4 - 
  Windows 3.1 (on an old 386 - no Y2K problems, amazingly)
  Netscape 3
  IE 3

I test at different monitor resolutions, different color depths (including grayscale), with the monitor off when using JAWS or pwWebSpeak, on an old modem as well as my T1 connection, etc.

Does that sound like a lot? Sure, but after the initial round of testing, fixing, and retesting was completed, most of what gets posted and added to the site is pretty simple straightforward stuff that doesn't need or get the full treatment. Daily testing is pretty minimal. Right now, everything's in heavy use since I'm planning a (hopefully) complex multimedia addition to the site, but that's not the norm around here.

In terms of cost, it's not that bad. Starting from scratch, I could put this all together for around $5,000. It could also be done with two computers for a couple of thousand less.

Adam Guasch-Melendez

>>> "David M Clark" <david@davidsaccess.com> 01/05 12:24 PM >>>

I am in total agreement that there is nothing better than actual users to
get feedback on the accessibility of a site, but there should be some
baseline that developers can use as a starting point.  It is not just a
matter of passing Bobby, that does not give any sense of whether a sites is
"functionally accessible".

Of course, this "baseline" is a moving target. But, right now, should it be
Lynx, Opera, IE 5 with JFW 3.1, or something else?

That definition would be helpful.

Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2000 13:20:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:07 UTC