'

[Irl-dean] Redevelopment of the NDA IT Accessibility Guidelines

brendan spillane brendan at ilikecake.net
Thu Jun 1 15:58:41 IST 2006


Hi all


Mark it's really good to read another's reply to this. I especially
liked your point on the WCAG 1.0 being a first stab, its something I
didn't even think about when I was reading through the guidelines.

Among all the points that have been raised I feel that the most
important is "Types of accessibility audit," but I would really like
to hear other people's points of view on this. Below are Marks and my
own opinions on this particular point. If anyone has an opinion on
this I would be very interested in reading/discussing it.

Mark
>>** In section 8 Types of accessibility audit, it says "An
>>accessibility audit can ... be entirely manual, or use automated
>>tools, or mix the two." Whist it is true that you could do an audit
>>entirely manually or entirely automatically, the former would be
>>inefficient and the latter would be inadequate. Although these issues
>>are explained later on in the section, I think it's possible that a
>>reader might interpret this sentence as "A SENSIBLE AND ADEQUATE
>>accessibility audit can ... be entirely manual, or use automated
>>tools, or mix the two.". This would not be true, so perhaps the
>>sentence should be changed to something like:

>>"An accessibility audit can ... be done entirely manually, or make
>>some use of automated tools."

>>I would also state under Automated:

>>"Automated
>>This type of audit is inadequate. Most accessibility checkpoints
>>cannot ..."


Brendan
>>"It can be entirely manual, or use automated tools, or mix the two."
>>An accessibility audit can not really be carried out by simply using
automated >>tools such as Bobby, there has to be some manual auditing
to ensure >>conformance. By leaving this in I believe that it will
just allow some companies >>to say they have conducted an audit by
copying a URL and pressing "Go". >>Trained Monkeys and chancers come
to mind

>>I believe instead that is should state something like…

>>"It can be entirely manual, or using automated tools in conjunction
with manual >>testing to deliver a full report. An automatic audit is
not a full audit and passing >>such does not mean a website is
accessible"

>>I know that stronger language is used further down the page but I
really feel that >>leaving this in this format will allow companies to
selectively quote that passage >>in their defence. My opinion


With regards
Brendan Spillane
www.ilikecake.net




More information about the CEUD-ICT mailing list