- From: ADAM GUASCH-MELENDEZ <ADAM.GUASCH@EEOC.GOV>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 13:16:36 -0500
- 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 Opera pwWebSpeak JAWS for Windows ZoomText (screen magnifier) Lynx AOL 5.0 WebTV Viewer Computer 2 - Linux (Red Hat 6.1) Netscape 4.0, 4.6, Mozilla Lynx 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 - MacOS 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 EEOC >>> "David M Clark" <david@davidsaccess.com> 01/05 12:24 PM >>> AL, 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. dc
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2000 13:20:20 UTC