- From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
- Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 06:40:49 -0400
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, "Salinee Kuakiatwong" <salinee20@gmail.com>
I'd like to ad that good automation tools also have provisions for evening up the playing field and may be set with different results from tool to tool. On Oct 4, 2010, at 6:12 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 10:14:36 +0200, Salinee Kuakiatwong <salinee20@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > I'm writing a research paper to investigate the inter-reliability of > automated evaluation tools. I used two automated web evaluation tools to > scan the same web pages. The findings indicates there are highly > discrepancies in the results between both tools although they're based on > the same standard (WCAG 2.0). > > I'm new to the field. Any explanation for such a case? Yes. Automated evaluation is pretty limited - each tool will use its own set of algortihms and heuristics and therefore probably not even test exactly the same things, let alone get the same results. You should do a manual evaluation yourself as part of the research paper, which will give you more insight into the particular issues that have arisen with the two automatic evaluations. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com -- Jonnie Appleseed with his Hands-On Technolog(eye)s reducing technology's disabilities one byte at a time
Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 10:41:21 UTC