(unknown charset) RE: Seeking Automated WCAG Testing Tool with Quick Client Report Sharing

Speaking personally, and respecting why they exist..after a fashion, I 
want to support Steve's point but for a different reason.
In many ways these automated tools teach  those outside of the experience 
that living with a disability is uniform, that all those sharing a label 
are  interchangeable, and that if the test says its fine, then the problem 
may  be with the person living with that disability experience.
as in, if you were just disabled the way our test defined things, use those 
tools,  etc., your lack of access would go away.
Fully owning that my  reading is not likely as broad as many here, far too 
often some disability populations get left out..because they do not use a 
screen reader.
If the automated testing tool focuses on this, and not say navigating via 
voice, what are you teaching the company who chooses to rely entirely on 
automated tools?
Hey, if I use this, I never have to actually  stand in a room with a 
disabled  person!  A computer can mimic their lies and individuality just 
fine, no human understanding necessary.
I wish I were kidding, but I speak here from some experience.
again speaking personally,I find the idea of simulated testing quite 
repulsive, unless absolutely paired with manual work done by humans..along 
with a healthy dose of, not everyone will fit in these boxes.  use 
progressive enhancement design instead of pretending to have a disability.
Just my take,
Karen



On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, Steve Green wrote:

> The desktop version of SortSite can export an HTML version of its report, and it would be easy to add a logo to that. Although the HTML version looks the same as the report in the tool, it lacks the ability to drill down into the source code. This may not matter for your client.
>
> However, I would advise against sending the raw results from any automated testing tool. Our experience is that many of the results cannot be taken at face value. Issues include:
>
>
>  *   Tools report false positives due to bugs in the tool.
>  *   Tools report false positives due to the use of heuristics that don’t always give the correct result.
>  *   Some false positives can cause multiple knock-on errors.
>  *   Tools identify real faults, but diagnose and report them incorrectly.
>  *   Tools identify real faults and diagnose and report them correctly, but recommend the wrong remedial action.
>  *   Tools identify real faults that have no effect on the user experience and can be ignored.
>
> These raw reports are of little value to clients. The value you provide to your client is in the analysis of the raw reports and provision of corrected results and recommendations.
>
> We make an exception for our US clients because our advice to them is different from non-US clients. Due to the high prevalence of so-called drive-by law suits from ambulance chasing lawyers who use automated testing tools to identify potential targets, we recommend fixing all issues including false positives so automated tools don’t find any issues at all. In such cases, there is value in sending the raw report to the client.
>
> Steve Green
> Managing Director
> Test Partners Ltd
>
>
> From: Kiran <kiranph@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 3:40 PM
> To: w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Seeking Automated WCAG Testing Tool with Quick Client Report Sharing
>
> Hey all,
>
> I understand the importance of manual testing for thorough accessibility assessment. However, I am seeking an automated WCAG testing tool that facilitates quick sharing of reports with clients for swift review, featuring our company logo for branding consistency.
>
> Are you aware of any such tool/platform I can use at a reasonable price?
>
> Thanks!
> ~ Kiran
>