Comments on: Accessibility Evaluators Aren’t Worthless

by: Simosito

Mon, 12 May 2008 13:26:07 +0000

I use F.A.E () and it is different from the others.
Maybe it is the future of validators.

by: Tim Harshbarger

Sat, 10 May 2008 17:36:20 +0000

I know that there is a concern about developers misusing evaluation tools to certify the accesibility of a site. However, I think there is an assumption that accessibility claims were or are important to people using a site. I don’t think users have ever paid that much attention to accessibility claims. I expect most of them have little or no familiarity with accessibility guidelines and standards. I expect most people judge a site’s commitment to accessibility through personal experience.
The tools can add value in ensuring that people do have a positive accessible experience with a site, but I am uncertain misuse of the tools to make outrageous claims of accessibility negatively impact users that much.

by: David Zemens - 1955 Design

Wed, 07 May 2008 13:41:39 +0000

I certainly understand the need to manually investigate each checklist warning to assure full compliance. No question about it.

As a fledgling web developer who is striving to do things the right way, a tool such as Cynthia gives me confidence that I am on the right track. I confess to not manually checking each warning. For the moment, I am just happy that I can generally achieve compliance with the automated validation. I suppose this is the first step to reaching a higher level, but I still have a long way to go.

Great article and great comments!

by: Dave Woods - HTML, CSS, Web Design » Useful Web Development Links (7th May 2008)

Wed, 07 May 2008 08:02:56 +0000

[…] Accessibility Evaluators Aren’t Worthless […]

by: Dave Woods

Wed, 07 May 2008 07:45:12 +0000

Hi Mike, I completely agree and I follow exactly the same approach as you in that Cynthia is great as a first step to check that there are no glaringly obvious problems with a site. It’s also obviously important that web developers understand that if they want their site to be accessible then they should have an in-depth understanding of the WAI Guidelines and not simply rely on tools like Cynthia as a be all and end all solution.

It’s also probably worth mentioning that another useful “tool” towards accessibility validation is disabling images, CSS JavaScript independently of each other as well as any combination of the three. It’s not a tool so to speak but is another free and easy way to help spot any accessibility issues.

by: Mike Cherim

Wed, 07 May 2008 03:20:05 +0000

@John: Gez’s analyzer’s on our list, at least the site version. I have the add-on for Firefox too. It’s awesome. As far as the other, I’ve heard of neither, and both are cool. The IBM tool aDesigner looks like some very helpful software what with its simulations (no blind empathy there), and Total Validator… the name says it all, even spelling. I like it. Thank you very much for sharing them. They have been added to our ever-growing list.

by: John Faulds

Tue, 06 May 2008 22:45:33 +0000

It seems one of the tools I use most often is missing from your list Mike: Total Validator. I don’t use Cynthia but I’m guessing that Total Validator picks up the same sorts of mistakes that Cynthia does. I also find Gez Lemon’s Colour Contrast Analyser extension for Firefox quite useful for pointing out when I haven’t specified background-colors when using background-images. Another I use quite often is IBM’s aDesigner which also seems to be missing from your list of resources.

by: Mike Cherim

Tue, 06 May 2008 20:01:55 +0000

I’ve ignored them before too, knowing something wasn’t an issue even though the validator did. Usually though I can find the cause which is sometimes valuable as well.

by: Mel Pedley

Tue, 06 May 2008 19:41:05 +0000

It is possible that unscrupulous developers can use these tools to put a stamp of authority on a shoddy website. However, it will still be promoting accessibility as “a good thing” and that developer will be encouraged to update their skills.

I’m not so sure. A stamp of authority only has real value when it can be trusted. If people persist in using these badges on sites that patently don’t achieve the levels of compliance stated, it is the badge/level that becomes ultimately devalued. Developers have to be wary of just ticking boxes and satisfying dumb accessibility parsing tools.

Don’t get me wrong. like yourself and Mike, I find these tools are really helpful in highlighting potential issues or errors but I reserve the right to disagree with them, or even ignore them completely in some circumstances. The final arbiters have to be the appropriate guidelines and the users themselves.

The tools are simply a means to an end. Not The End.

by: Craig

Tue, 06 May 2008 14:34:13 +0000

I use accessibility tools such as Cythia, but only to double-check that I’ve not made fundamental coding errors. After all, it’s possible to make a site that passes evaluation, but couldn’t really be considered accessible.

It is possible that unscrupulous developers can use these tools to put a stamp of authority on a shoddy website. However, it will still be promoting accessibility as “a good thing” and that developer will be encouraged to update their skills.