RE: AccVerify

All,

In the process of my evaluation I sent the draft reports to the owner of
each product because I thought that was a respectful and helpful thing to
do. Mr. Yonaitis claimed I ignored his response. Their 40 pages of comments
(on a 10 page report) were far from ignored. I spent a day studying them
carefully, and making changes in my report. Then I asked the technical
writer that works with me (with years of experience in the accessibility
arena) to also take a day and review the comments and rework the document.
As a result, I think the AccVerify report is better written and more
accurate than any of the other reports. Though not overall rated the
highest, AccVerify was a only half-point from the highest.

I would be the last to claim perfection. Mr. Yonaitis is right; in some
places I erred and wrote ACCVerify instead of AccVerify(r), but not in the
body of the report and certainly not with malicious intent. So there were
maybe 30 occurrences of AccVerify and AccRepair and a couple occurrences of
the misspelled versions with ACC (just like their logo). That may indeed be
indicative of the report, of the kind of errors I made. Most of these were
caught when the product owners reviewed their individual reports.

The fact that I compete with HiSoftware for accessibility training and
consulting applies also to the other vendors and that didn't stop them from
complementing me on the report. It also doesn't stop me from writing an
independent review. Competition on the book is a laugh. I hope HiSoftware is
making lots of money on their book. The eight authors on "Constructing
Accessible Web Sites" aren't.

Jim
Accessibility Consulting
http://jimthatcher.com
512-306-0931
Evaluation of web evaluation tools at http://jimthatcher.com/erx.htm


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Robert B. Yonaitis
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 12:33 PM
To: 'Phill Jenkins'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: AccVerify



Phil,

I had to chime in. Jim Thatcher has done and I am sure will continue to
do good and important work, but this review SHOULD NOT be counted in
that category and leadership at all companies should demand higher
levels of accuracy in reviews. Jim Thatcher's Review of our Products is
inaccurate and we brought it to he attention long before it was
published, we sent corrections and he ignored them.

>From a scientific aspect, There appears to be no published supporting
data and no Detailed Process Followed to back up his review or
statements.


* He says that he reviewed both releases three and four of our software.
The differences between these products are huge! So from this
perspective it is immediately invalidates the review.

Additionally the review got our Registered trademark and product name
Wrong AccVerify(r) Not ACCVerify. http://jimthatcher.com/erx.htm, this
Speaks to the quality of review and attention to detail.

Jim Reported Errors that were simply configuration options for
individual checks not software errors.

Jim makes broad statements of HiSoftware.Com and its Accessibility of
forms, We have 1700+ Pages 100+ Forms, a Clear Accessibility Statement
and He has no Supporting data in his review.

Post the Data used for the Review versus saying that we are not
accessible. I am sure the statement is now and was at the time of this
review inaccurate.

Now is Jim Independent with no vested interest??? This is important. Not
to imply that it has Impact on the review, but it is a reality and there
should be full disclosure.

Answer: NO

- HiSoftware Publishing with its Understanding Accessibility Book
(500,000+ Distribution) Competes with Jim's Book that he authored
- HiSoftware's Consulting / Professional Services Competes with Jim's
Assessment Services
- HiSoftware's Training Competes with Jim's Training Services

>From Jim Thatcher.com:

As Jim says. Accessibility Is A Serious Issue

I wish Jim Thatcher could have had the professionalism to complete a
valid, Scientific,  and correct review. In the long run it is the users
of these products that will make the final decision. But with limited
funding and maybe only one shot at purchasing the correct tool it is a
shame to see such an incomplete, invalid, unscientific review produced.
Why, Because, Accessibility Is A Serious Issue. And for those of us
trying to educate and provide solutions it is essential that we be clear
and not deliver unscientific or biased reviews.

I imagine Phil that you can see why there are major problems with this
review, and why it needed serious edits and corrections, and above all,
why the writer of a review should care that everything be accurate and
have supporting data.

So I strongly urge all people performing evaluations to test these
products for themselves, we all offer trial Software.

Very Respectfully,

Robert B. Yonaitis
HiSoftware
http://www.HiSoftware.com

HiSoftware wins the 2002 da Vinci AwardT...
Category: "Electronics & Information Technology."
http://www.hisoftware.com/press/davinci.html

Received on Thursday, 12 September 2002 15:46:21 UTC