RE: Exploding the myth of automated accessibility checking

I don't follow.  Of course, we seek usability and accessibility.  The
tests are not ends in themselves but means to this end.  

By comparison, the U.S. Access Board defines standards for various
architectural and technological environments.  These standards are
usually measurable and specific, and this aids understanding and
compliance by industry.  Web pages have the advantage of more automated
testing by their nature rather than requiring, say, a measuring tape to
verify that a doorway is wide enough to accomodate a wheelchair.


Jamal


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Gristock [mailto:mark.gristock@jkd.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 9:03 AM
To: Jamal Mazrui; David Poehlman
Cc: Wendy Chisholm; Joe Clark; WAI-IG; WAI-GL
Subject: RE: Exploding the myth of automated accessibility checking


But surely the only accessibility test that actually matters in the end
is the user one?

Tools are useful in validating work. Each tool has individual strengths
and weaknesses - but they aren't what accessibility is about. Nobody got
involved in the WAI because they wanted to build sites that passed
tests. They want people to be able to use them. 

The search for a holy grail tool that ticks all the boxes is impossible
because the very service is people based. 

That's why it's accessibility, not validation.


_____________________________________________________________________
VirusChecked for Huntsworth plc
_____________________________________________________________________

Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 13:14:40 UTC