W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2005

RE: [WebAIM] Best automated Accessibility evaluation tool

From: Jim Tobias <tobias@inclusive.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:53:18 -0500
To: "'Patrick Lauke'" <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>, "'WebAIM Discussion List'" <webaim-forum@list.webaim.org>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1Ed6gL-0007Ty-Dy@aji.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

Is there a "best tool overall", or rather a (small) set of tools, each of
which is best at one part of automated testing?  I'm assuming the latter.

I ask because many well-intentioned clients are looking for such a set.
Their other criteria are reliability and ease of use.  Their goal is to
split web accessibility into two parts: automated testing performed by
relatively untrained testing technicians, and complex testing performed by
highly trained usability/accessibility engineers.  I can't fault their goal;
can you?  

Given WAI's defensible "no recommendations" policy, there seems to be no
coordinated public source for good general guidance on automated tools.  At
the least, there *should* be an agreed-upon list of which guidelines can be
robo-tested, and which tools perform satisfactorily.  I can't find such a
resource; am I missing something?

Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+732.441.0831 v/tty

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Lauke
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 8:01 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [WebAIM] Best automated Accessibility evaluation tool
> Paul Collins
> Looking at Accessibility evaluation software, could anyone 
> recommend the best tool for all-round evaluation?
Received on Friday, 18 November 2005 13:53:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:26 UTC