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

RE: Best automated Accessibility evaluation tool

From: Patrick Lauke <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:48:50 -0000
Message-ID: <3A1D23A330416E4FADC5B6C08CC252B9015C308F@misnts16.mis.salford.ac.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Cc: <gez.lemon@gmail.com>

> Julian Scarlett

> http://juicystudio.com/article/invalid-content-accessibility-validators.php

> (Haven't yet tried it with Gez's tests in the 
> above link.)

Just gave TAW3 standalone version a whirl on that page.
It flagged up 2 priority 3 errors for

5.6 Provide abbreviations for header labels

relating to 

<th scope="col">Structural Markup</th>
<th scope="col">Accessible Tables</th>

because the headers are longer than 15 characters - fair enough, though a
bit arbitrary...I would have said they should have been marked as
requiring human testing.

Also, 2 priority 3 errors for 

10.4 Until user agents handlge empty controls correctly, include default,
place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas.

relating to the fact that the two selects

<select id="town" name="town">


<select id="sectown" name="sectown">

don't have at least one OPTION selected. Now that's a novel interpretation
of 10.4...particularly since the wording of the checkpoint itself only
mentions edit boxes and text areas, not selects...so this is a false negative
in my opinion.

Apart from that, lots of priority 1 and 2 issues marked for human review
(29 and 50, respectively).
Still, considering the tool is completely free, it's not too bad...with the usual
caveat that automated testing is not a panacea and that one needs to be able to
perform the manual checks as well as making damned sure that there are no false
positives or false negatives.

Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor / University of Salford
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
Received on Monday, 21 November 2005 11:50:11 UTC

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