 dr.dk  bbc.co.uk  cnn.com ___ Two sites are sites of national broadcasting corporations We assume that they put some effort into the site’s accessibility and usability

Task To find the news story about the bombing in Pakistans (at the Marriott Hotel) (which took place some days ago) Accessibility Report from CynthiaSays Usability Doing the task (having heuristics in mind)

 A lot of errors on alt attributes  dr.dk did not pass the ‘provide link to a plug- in or applet’-test  cnn.com did pass this test  dr.dk fails: same link text to different ressources  dr.dk has no meta-elements (description, keywords and language in )

To some degree Public service media’s sites ought to supply: very accessable sites i.e.alt attributes Alternative access/Links to plug ins if not already installed This tool points out these things To the degree that the HTML can express accessibility

Flaws & Limitations  It is mostly Code errors which are not easy to understand  How severe is it that the alt attributes are missing? It is a very mechanical tool That the code is good does not nessecarily means that the site is accessable i.e. Does not say anything about enlarge/decrease font tool (it is not expressed in the mark up rules)

Alt attribute: ”Finland”

 same color for the headers, the titles and the tabs -> different to tell some information apart (w3.orgs style sheet validator)  Broken links  A lot of arbitrary changes in design/colours ◦ Lack of consistency and status

The accessability report can point out some usability problems ◦ Alt attributes + alternative access flaws Other accessability reports can point out ◦ broken links ◦ Flaws in design (i.e. using same colors for links and text) All very useful on large sites

Accessibility report cannot replace heuristic usaility report ◦ i.e. user control and freedom ◦ Match between system and the real world ◦ Visibility of system status You would have to look at the site to check up on these issues