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/ ColorVisibilityProgram.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.jsp Lift Online (Usablenet) http://www.usablenet.com/ Ask Alice (SSB Technology) http://askalice.ssbtechnologies.com:8080/ 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 Accessibility http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/Overview.html http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/Overview.html The WAVE http://www.temple.edu/instituteondisabilities/piat/wave/ http://www.temple.edu/instituteondisabilities/piat/wave/ Tidy http://tidy.sourceforge.net/ http://tidy.sourceforge.net/ A-Prompt http://www.aprompt.ca/ http://www.aprompt.ca/