RE: Who can say that a web page is accessible according to wcag? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Ditto what others said, especially that URL Andrew provided, but I want
to quote a bit from the Understanding document.  (Echoes of this are in
the WCAG 2.0 Abstract and Introduction sections as well.)  It is quite
incorrect to assume "testable" means "machine testable".
From:
http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/intro.html#introduction-layers
-head

All WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are written as testable criteria for
objectively determining if content satisfies the Success Criteria.
While some of the testing can be automated using software evaluation
programs, others require human testers for part or all of the test...
Professional reviews utilizing recognized qualitative heuristics are
important in achieving accessibility for some audiences... The content
should be tested by those [Humans!] who understand how people with
different types of disabilities use the Web.


-----Original Message-----
From: Arch, Andrew [mailto:Andrew.Arch@finance.gov.au] 
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:54 PM
To: mpiazza@ig.com.br; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Who can say that a web page is accessible according to
wcag? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi Marcello,

Richard is right - while tools are a good starting point, you can't rely
on them to tell you if a website is accessible. A good place to start
learning about accessibility evaluation is "Evaluating Websites for
Accessibility: Overview" and the other documents at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/Overview.html

Good luck with the Masters.

Andrew


-----Original Message-----
From: Userite [mailto:richard@userite.com] 
Sent: Monday, 12 December 2011 8:32 PM
To: mpiazza@ig.com.br; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Who can say that a web page is accessible according to
wcag?

Hi Marcello,

No tool can tell you if a website is fully accessible. For example a
non-human "tool" cannot say if link text, alternative text or heading
text is meaningful or just gibberish. A human being needs to check these
in person. A tool such as Wave and CynthiaSays ( or Bobby - if you can
find a
copy) is a good starting point and will save you time, but you need a
human to obtain a complete picture of compliance.
There are commercial firms (such as ours) who will do it for you, but if
you are doing a master thesis it might be a good idea if you learnt to
do it yourself. It is a fascinating exercise.
Best wishes
Richard
richard.warren@userite.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Marcelo Piazza
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 7:07 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Who can say that a web page is accessible according to wcag?

Hello all!

I'm writing a master thesis about e-commerce and accessibility.

At this moment I need to evaluate a set of pages and assure that they
are accessible according to WCAG 2.0 level A with sufficient techniques
only (http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/).

I found some tools show me accessibility errors (Wave, Total Validator,
Juicy, FAE, AChecker), but none of them says that a page conforms to
certain accessibility level.

So I have two questions:

- How can I say that a site (or a web page) does really conforms to WCAG
2.0?

- Does exist a tool or an institution that evaluates a site and assures
some kind of conformance to accessibility requirements (like wcag)?

Thank you!
Marcelo Alberto Piazza 





________________________________

Finance Australian Business Number (ABN):   61 970 632 495	 
Finance Web Site:   www.finance.gov.au	 

IMPORTANT:

This transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee and may
contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not
the intended recipient, you are notified that any use or dissemination
of this communication is strictly prohibited. 
If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us
immediately by telephone on 61-2-6215-2222 and delete all copies of this
transmission together with any attachments. 
If responding to this email, please send to the appropriate person using
the suffix .gov.au. 

________________________________

Received on Friday, 16 December 2011 14:08:16 UTC