W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: Enterprise Web Accessibility Tools

From: Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:55:18 -0400
Message-ID: <4C767246.8090507@msu.edu>
To: kmancuso@gmail.com
CC: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, webaim-forum@list.webaim.org, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi Katherine--

We typically choose a subset of pages that represent an overall site, 
since so much development is done with templates or snippets of code. We 
then review each of those pages 1) with the keyboard to check for 
functionality, 2) with JAWS or SAToGo for comprehension, navigation and 
functionality, 3) with a browser tool that facilitates checking 
headings, etc. and 4) with an automatic evaluator like Accessibility 
Checker to flag code-related issues. It's a bit time-consuming, but gets 
at both accessibility and usability.

The process has been implemented institution-wide here, where we have 
thousands of web pages, through the use of a protocol (currently based 
on WCAG 1.0 but to be updated by next Spring): 
http://webaccess.msu.edu/review-process/evaluation-procedure.html

Evaluation has been delegated to specific colleges and departments, who 
then report to our department concerned with ADA compliance. The model 
seems to be working well for us, however, it may not fit your 
organization as well.

Hope that helps.

Mike

Katherine Mancuso wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who's given feedback so far (especially the many of 
> you who have given it off the list).
>
> So I've considered whether we should just use single page checkers, 
> but I sort of wonder whether our volume (we're in the hundred 
> thousands of pages, I think, although people seem unclear) would make 
> that too slow to work well.  Then again, it has the advantage of not 
> presenting tons of information all at once.  
>
> I would imagine that what one would do to check at large volume would 
> be to spend some time analyzing the structure of a certain set of 
> pages (e.g. do they all have the same menu system, other common 
> elements) and then figure out a system that combines manual testing & 
> automated checkers.  Although, I think this would be true whether you 
> were using an automated checker that checked many pages or a single 
> page one.
>
> There seem to be pros and cons to both approaches.
>
> I've gotten some feedback on general methodology around tool use, but 
> if you haven't replied,  I'd love to hear from you about how you do this.
>
> I'm particularly interested in how others integrate this into a 
> general QA regression test suite & bug tracking system like Jira; the 
> one button filing of jiras and the ability to run tests from the 
> command line of our suite are what appealed to us about the larger 
> systems.
>
> Thoughts?  What's working for you?
>
> Katherine
>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu 
> <mailto:elledge@msu.edu>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Katherine--
>
>     Also be sure to look into the Web Accessibility Checker from the
>     University of Toronto ATRC: http://achecker.ca/checker/index.php
>
>     I don't know if you can set it up to automatically screen all the
>     pages in a site (I wouldn't recommend that anyway), but it has the
>     depth of detail of the other tools you mention and you can set the
>     set the screening criteria (A, AA, 508, etc.).
>
>     Mike Elledge
>     Usability/Accessibility Research and Consulting
>     Michigan State University
>
>
>     Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
>         On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 01:30:09 +0200, Katherine Mancuso
>         <kmancuso@gmail.com <mailto:kmancuso@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             Hi everyone,
>
>             I seek recommendations and evaluations of enterprise
>             accessibility checking tools from other people who work at
>             large companies.  Besides
>             specific tool recommendations (or suggestions to avoid a
>             tool at all
>             costs!), I'm interested in general impressions of what
>             these tools do,
>             what they don't do, etc, because I'm trying to figure out
>             whether our
>             requirements are reasonable.  I am particularly interested
>             at this
>             juncture in having conversations with people who have used
>             or evaluated
>             Rational.  Also if anyone has any resources on the issue
>             of evaluating
>             these tools in general that would be welcome.
>
>         ....
>
>             General thoughts about tools can be sent to the list;
>             please keep in mind
>             when referring to specific tools that the tool's developer
>             may be here on
>             the list, so it might be best to speak about specifics
>             off-list.
>
>
>         Actually, it would be helpful to me, and probably others, to
>         have both general and specific stuff here to see...
>
>         cheers
>
>         Chaals
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Katherine Mancuso: crusader of community art, social technology, & 
> disability
>
> Current work:
> Walt Disney Imagineering & Parks and Resorts Online, Intern (work: 
> accessibility evangelism & interactive projects)
>
> Research:
> Center for Assistive Technology & Environmental Access 
> (http://www.catea.org)
> Georgia Tech, Digital Media (http://dm.gatech.edu)
>
> Community:
> The Vesuvius Group: metaverse community builders 
> (http://www.thevesuviusgroup.com)
> Gimp Girl Community Liaison/Research Fellow (http://www.gimpgirl.com)
> Alternate ROOTS: arts*community*activism (http://www.alternateroots.org)
>
> Contact in the web, the metaverse, the world:
> http://twitter.com/musingvirtual
> http://muse.dreamwidth.org
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/kathymancuso
> SL: Muse Carmona
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 13:55:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:34 GMT