Testing for Accessibility and Usability

1
Testing for Accessibility and Usability

• Is Your Site Accessible and Usable or Just
  Conformant?

2
Presenters

• Jason White Co-Chair, Web Content Accessibility
  Guidelines Working Group
• Naomi Heagney The Hiser Group
• Andrew Arch Vision Australia Foundation

3
W3C and Accessibility Success Criteria

• Jason White

4
WCAG 1.0

• Issues with conformance

5
WCAG 2.0

• Testable success criteria
• Abstraction and specificity
• Definition of testability
• Either machine testable or human testable
• Introduction of review requirements into success
  criteria
• E.g. text equivalent

6
WCAG 2.0 continued

• WCAG 2.0 is multi layered
• Design principles
• Guidelines and Checkpoints
• Techniques for technologies
• Test cases as part of techniques
• Machine testable
• Human testable
• Non-testable

7
A Usability Perspective

• Naomi Heagney

8
Usability Accessibility

• What is Usability?
• Similarities and differences
• Focus
• Resources
• Method
• Standards and legislation

9
What is Usability?

• Usability is the extent to which a product can be
  used by specified users to achieve specified
  goals with effectiveness, efficiency and
  satisfaction in a specified context of use.
• Definition from ISO 9241-11

10
What is Usability?

• User Centred Design (UCD) is an iterative and
  collaborative methodology
• Analysis
• Design
• Evaluation
• Usability is not just lab testing
• Reviews, walkthroughs, in-situ testing

11
Similarities

• The people
• Involvement in development processes
• Integrated
• The earlier the better
• Need knowledge of
• Target audience
• Personal characteristics

12
Differences

• Focus
• Conformance versus site improvement
• Qualitative quantitative data
• Measures for usability are project-specific
• Resources
• Different specialist knowledge required

13
Differences

• Evaluation methods
• Less emphasis on automated tools
• Variety of techniques, scalable to project
  constraints
• Standards legislation
• Focus on process rather than product
• WCAG checkpoints provide excellent basis for
  legislative support

14
Accessibility Testing

• Andrew Arch

15
Concept and Design Review

• Critical consideration of end-to-end process
• Identify
• Objective
• Options for implementation
• Assess strategies that could be used
• Consider requirements on the user

16
Manual Checking

• Requires knowledge and understanding
• Involves
• Reviewing content
• Reviewing code
• User testing

17
Site Testing by Assistive Technology Users

• Complements technical accessibility testing, but
  does not replace it.
• Purpose is to appreciate usability issues for
  users of assistive technology.
• User testing CANNOT determine if a site or online
  object works with all assistive technology.
• User testers need to be skilled, but not expert
  with their technology.

18
Technical Accessibility Checking

• Automated Tools
• All do a partial job
• All have flaws or weaknesses
• Interpretation needed (manual checking and
  rectification)
• Many pseudo tools are available by using the
  options included as standard within your computer

19
Evaluation Repair Tools

• Browser settings
• Built-in checking
• Colour checkers
• Link checkers
• The Wave

• A-Prompt
• Tidy
• Code validators
• Commercial Tools

• Full list http//www.w3.org/WAI/ER/existingtools.
  html

20
Pseudo Tools Browser Setting Options

• Change the font to a larger size
• View pages without images
• View pages with styles sheets and pages
  colours/fonts disabled
• View pages with an alternative, high contrast,
  colour scheme
• Use the keyboard not the mouse to navigate
• Disable scripts, applets and/or plugins
• Try different browsers versions

21
Built in Checking eg. Dreamweaver
See also WAI Authoring Tools guidelines
22
Colour Checkers

• Colour Contrast
• http//www.lighthouse.org/color_contrast.htm
• http//aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca/ColorVisibilityPr
  ogram.html (Beta version)
• Colour tester colour blind
• http//www.tesspub.com/colours.html
• http//www.vischeck.com/
• Legible text
• http//www.lighthouse.org/print_leg.htm

23
Link Checkers

• Link checkers non-existent URLs
• http//www.linkalarm.com/
• http//www.tetranetsoftware.com/solutions/linkbot
  /looking-for-linkbot.asp
• http//www.cyberspyder.com/cslnkts1.html
• http//validator.w3.org/checklink
• Cannot check for incorrect addresses

24
The Wave

• Pros
• Visual
• Shows reading order
• Shows logical structure
• Shows suspect ALT text
• Identifies scripts as a potential accessibility
  issue

• Cons
• No fixes
• No recommendations

http//www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/
25
A-Prompt

• Pros
• Offers repairs
• Alt text registry

• Cons
• Slow to use
• Repairs code
• Interactive

http//www.aprompt.ca/
26
Tidy

• Pros
• Offers to fix code
• Formats HTML
• Works with HTML/XHTML/
• Cleans up Word conversions
• Advice on accessibility internationalisation

• Pros cont
• GUI front-end available
• Interfaces with several authoring tools
• Cons
• Very technical

http//www.w3.org/people/Raggett/tidy/
27
Code Validators

• HTML Validator
• W3C http//validator.w3.org/
• NetMechanic, WebDesignGroup
• CSS Validator
• http//jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
• SMIL Validator
• http//www.cwi.nl/media/symm/validator/

28
Site Evaluation Repair Tools(Commercial, but
with free limited checks or trials)

• Bobby (Watchfire)
• http//bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.js
  p
• Lift Online (Usablenet)
• http//www.usablenet.com/
• Ask Alice (SSB Technology)
• http//askalice.ssbtechnologies.com8080/askalice
  /index.html
• Accverify (HiSoftware)
• http//www.hisoftware.com/access/sitetest.htm

29
Things to consider
30
Management Considerations

• How much will it cost?
• What can I do?
• Where do we need help?
• What is the developers role?
• What can I expect of off the shelf software?
• What about outsourced sites?

31
References

• Evaluating Websites for Accessibilityhttp//www.w
  3.org/WAI/eval/Overview.html
• The WAVEhttp//www.temple.edu/instituteondisabili
  ties/piat/wave/
• Tidyhttp//tidy.sourceforge.net/
• A-Prompthttp//www.aprompt.ca/