Web Accessibility 2.0: A Holistic Approach Tools And Processes That Can Help

1
Web Accessibility 2.0 A Holistic Approach
Tools And Processes That Can Help
http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conference
s/ili-2006/masterclass/
Talk 2

• Brian Kelly
• UKOLN
• University of Bath
• Bath
• Email B.Kelly_at_ukoln.ac.uk

This talk describe some of the tools which can
help us to identify problems with our Web sites
and processes for deploying the tools
ili-2006-masterclass-kelly tag used in
del.icio.us
UKOLN is supported by
This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonComme
rcial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat)
2
Exercise 1
E

• In small groups discuss the following
• What do you mean by accessibility?
• How do you detect accessibility problems?
• What are the main problems you face in providing
  accessible Web sites?

3
Background
Tools

• Problems
• You've identified some problem areas for users of
  Web sites
• Functionality it doesn't work
• Usability it's difficult for people to use
• Accessibility it's difficult for people with
  disabilities to use
• Solutions
• Now let's look at some solutions to these
  problems
• Tools that can help
• Processes that can help
• A Quality Assurance (QA) framework

4
Tools Functionality (1)
Tools

• HTML, CSS, Validation
• Web page doesn't look right in my browser
• First thing validate page!

5
Tools Functionality (2)
Tools

• Link Checking
• Clear need to ensure links work
• Many tools available

• Validated part of my Web area
• Findings
• 12,514 Web pages!
• Only checked internal links
• Large no. of errors but vast majority false
  errors
• Some errors found in areas provided by others
• Others my fault and mostly fixed

• Issues
• We can't always rely on tools
• Why weren't errors spotted previously?
• What to do with large no. of errors?

6
Tools Missing Functionality
Tools

• A Web site may not be usable because
• The features it provides can't easily be used
• It omits features which are needed in order to be
  used
• Example
• A search facility

• Issues
• Does your Web site have a search facility
• How well does it work?
• Note that free third party search facilities may
  be useful if you have limited resources

7
Tools Accessibility
Tools

• Many accessibility testing tools are available

WebXact (formally known as Bobby) is probably the
best known

• NOTES
• Automated tools can't detect all (many?)
  accessibility problems
• Findings from tools can be inconsistent
• Underlying WAI guidelines are open to
  interpretation

8
Tools Usability Of The Tools (1)
Tools
http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/qa-focus/documents/briefin
gs/,rvalidate

• There can be usability barriers to regular use of
  such testing tools
• They require going to Web page, copying and
  pasting URL, etc
• Sometimes only single pages can be tested
• Simple solution
• On UKOLN Web site can append ,tools to any URL to
  run various tools on page
• Simple to implement see QA Focus briefing no. 59

Tools ,validate ,rvalidate ,checklink ,rchecklink
,cssvalidate
9
Tools Usability Of The Tools (2)
Tools

• 'Bookmarklets' and Firefox extensions can make
  use of tools much easier and provide additional
  features

• Web Developer allows
• Features disabled
• Additional information to be provided
• Tools to be used

10
Tools Arent Enough!

• Warning
• Tools may lead you to think you have an
  accessible Web site when this isn't the case!

Manual Checking
ltimg src"foo" ..gt - no ALT tag detectable by
tools ltimg src"foo" alt"add alt text here" gt -
an inappropriate ALT tag. Needs testing by humans.

• What do we need
• An awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of
  automated testing
• An awareness of approaches to use of manual
  testing
• A usable framework for a testing regime

11
Role of Automated Tools

• Automated Checking Tools
• Spotting problems which can be found by software
• Detecting (then fixing) such errors to allow
  (scarce) human effort to focus on problems with
  tools can't detect
• Don't tell your testers to check that links work
  link checkers are better for this
• Dangers of Automated Checking Tools
• I use such tools I don't bother with manual
  checking because
• I'm a techie and we like software solutions to
  problems
• Checkers are difficult to find may be expensive
  
• It's time-consuming
• ..

Manual Checking
Is this always true?
12
Approaches To Manual Checking 1

• Hire a profession body
• Firms such as RNIB, DMAG (and many others) can
  be hired for usability accessibility checking
• Have a knowledge of the disable community their
  needs the tools they use etc.
• May use people with disabilities to provide
  realistic feedback and comments
• Report can inform organisation and
  recommendations applied elsewhere
• May be expensive
• Not always applicable

Manual Checking
The Logo Issue Should you add an accessibility
logo to your Web site? What are the pros and
cons?
13
Approaches To Manual Checking 2

• In-house checking
• Always needed, so let's get in right!
• Simple approach
• Email colleagues for comments. What happens?
  What re the limitations of this approach?
• Better approach
• What do you hope to gain? Document this!
• Provide structured tasks
• Seek a variety of testers, representative of user
  community
• Testing by people with disabilities is desirable
  but may be difficult
• If not possible, provide similar environment for
  testers (or yourself) e.g. images off, CSS off

Manual Checking
14
Quality Assurance

• The tools aren't sufficient by themselves. Also
  need
• Documented policies so we know what we're
  expected to check for
• Systematic procedures for checking that we are
  implementing our policies
• Enhancements made to workflow processes, and not
  just fixing individual problems
• In addition it can be useful to have
• Audit trails to spot trends and identify
  possible problems in workflow processes (e.g. new
  tools deployed, new staff involved, )
• Sharing experiences, so that we and others can
  learn

Quality Assurance
15
QA Examples (1)

• Example of QA policies procedures for file
  formats

Quality Assurance
Policy for QA Focus Web site
Policy The Web site will use XHTML 1.0 and CSS
2.0 standards ArchitectureThe Web site will be
based on XHTML templates and use of
SSIs Monitoring New and updated pages validated
using ,validate and ,cssvalidate. Every month
,rvalidate will be used record
kept Exceptions HTML derived automatically
(e.g. Save As HTML in PowerPoint) need not comply
with standards. The files will be stored in a
standard directory to enable such files to be
excluded from checks.
16
QA Examples (2)

• Example of QA policies procedures for links

Quality Assurance
Policy for QA Focus Web site
Policy QA Focus will seek to ensure that links
are functional. Monitoring New and updated
pages checked using ,checklink and ,rchecklink.
Every month ,rchecklink will be used record
kept and quarterly Xenu will be used. Exceptions
Links in "publications" (e.g. papers which are
formally published) which become broken may not
be fixed. If there are large numbers of broken
links which would be time-consuming to fix we may
not fix them. We make no commitment to fix
broken links once the QA Focus funding finishes.
17
Conclusions

• To conclude
• Tools can help in identifying problems areas
• However tools may be flawed, inconsistent and
  difficult to use
• Tools arent enough in themselves manual
  checking is also need
• Systematic application of automated and human
  checking as part of a QA framework is desirable

18
Questions

• Any questions or comments?