Web Accessibility Diagnostic and Repair Tools

1
Web Accessibility Diagnostic and Repair Tools

• Section 508 Coordinators Meeting
• Gettysburg, PA
• November 2003

2
National Institute on Disability
and Rehabilitation Research H133A000405
3
Web Accessibility Tools

• AccVerify DS2 with AccRepair
• HiSoftware
• A-Prompt 1.0.6
• University of Torontos Adaptive Technology
  Resource Centre and the TRACE Center at
  University of Wisconsin Madison
• Bobbytm 5.0/WebXACT
• WatchFire
• InFocus 4.2.2 and AskAlice
• SSB Technologies

4
Web Accessibility Tools (cont.)

• LIFT Online
• UsableNet
• PageScreamer 5.0
• Crunchy Technologies
• UsableNet 508 Plugin 1.2.1 and
• WCAG Plugin 1.0.1 for DreamWeaver Version
  1.2.1
• UseableNet

5
Method Pages Tested

• Accessibility Forum Pathologic pages
• (http//www.accessibilityforum.org/docs/feb_mtg_0
  2/af-denver-cdrom_feb02/Worst_Case_Section_508_Rul
  es/index.htm) (Case sensitive link)

6
Method Standards

• Section 508 1194.22 Guidelines.
  (http//www.access-board.gov/508.htm)
• W3C WCAG 1.0
• (http//www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/)

7
Testing is still in progress

• On-going testing
• Results reported here are continuously being
  updated
• New versions
• Today is an overview

8
At A Glance Comparison Chart
9
AccVerifyDS2 Combined report
10
AccVerifyDS2 Reporting
11
AccRepairDS2 Table Element
12
A-Prompt 1.0.6 Reporting
13
A-Prompt Repair
14
Bobby Accessibility Tab
15
Ask Alice
16
InFocus Server Report
17
InFocus Server Report
18
Lift OnlineReport
19
Lift for Dreamweaver Repair
20
PageScreamer 5.0

• Desktop
• Server product Spider
• Only 508
• Organize evaluations into project
• Reports from Summary to Detail
• Repair Control file of image file names and ALT
  and LONGDESC (or prompts user)
• Table Wizard

21
UsableNet 508 Plugin for Dreamweaver
22
Server vs. Desktop

• Advantages
• Provides consistency of standards application on
  large sites with many developers
• Most provide automated testing at user defined
  intervals
• Good for pages with dynamic content (checks
  content after rendered in browser)
• Promotes collaboration/Others can see the reports
• Often has the project definition option
• Disadvantage repair features limited

23
Desktop vs. Server

• Cost usually less expensive
• Very good for less experienced developers
• more detail provided on what the standards are
  and how to fix the error
• Often has some autofix features
• Libraries of images, tables, etc that need
  titles, ALT tags, LONGDESC, etc

24
Looking for the silver bullet?

• All tools have features that are useful
• personal preference (screen design)
• potentially helpful in applying uniformity to
  large sites/groups of developers
• There will always be the need for manual checks
  and judgment
• The accessibility evaluation of the tools
  themselves is not complete (ex jsp)

25
Questions?
Mimi Kessler 404-894-0953 mimi.kessler_at_ITTATC.org
Deborah Buck 518-439-1263 Deborah.buck_at_ITTATC.org