SiteMorse rails at the DRC
Respect to Red Ant for coming on here and taking note of our comments. 
If more did that we'd soon run out of things to moan about!
We all know that creating a highly accessible website isn't easy at first; even if you follow all the WAI guidelines to the letter (which is probably impossible, since so many of them are open to interpretation) there are still things that don't appear in any rulebook - like the conflict of accesskey with browsers and other user agents. That only comes with experience, and reading articles and discussions like these.
What annoys me, and I guess others here too, is when someone like SiteMorse comes out with a rant against other websites when their own is so far from perfect. To get away with that you really have to be perfect yourself (ie, in my opinion, inarguably AA standard).
To be fair, the DRC ought to fall into the same category - if they issue reports criticising others, they ought to be above criticism, and they're not. What's with all those invisible links?! Slightly confusing for keyboard users not using a screenreader!
If I can make one more comment which might be of interest to Red Ant: there are plenty of discussions on this forum about why AAA is extremely difficult - arguably impossible - to achieve. If I see any site (not just talking about Red Ant here) claiming to be AAA-compliant I'm immediately sceptical as to whether they really know what they're doing.
Richard
...or something.
Share: 
In fairness to the DRC they are not claiming perfection for themselves and they aren't demanding it from others. As someone who has dealings with their website people, I know they know it's not perfect (The XHTML doesn't validate, for instance) and they're working on trying to improve the thing all the time.
The important thing here from the DRC's point of view and which Isofarro also noted is that robot checking is not nearly enough and Sitemorse's attempts to stir up trouble help no-one - probably not even themselves.
Share:
Excellent rant Mike,
Nice to see someone telling it as it is.
What's interesting is the shameless and biased result rigging that excludes some of the most well known and respectable web organisations in the UK, and sitemorse then putting it's own supplier at the top of the table, with a few tips on how to optimise results I'm sure. Mostly to do with server performance I imagine - sitemorses idea of accessibility.
Share:
Thanks for your comments Saint / Dotjay.
I agree entirely with your comments about how hard (and near impossible), it is to achieve the AAA standard. From our own experiences you work towards it and just as you achieve think you're there something else crops up. And that's without going already having to deal with browser compliance, good look and feel and last minute changes!
However undeterred this is our challenge for the new site which we certainly shall ask for feedback in the site critiques area. Our current site (our first large scale site to attempt accessibility), seems to have been up forever so I am looking forward to the change of scenery and testing our accessible cms to this rigorous standard. Hopefully it will not lead to the frantic hair pulling between myself and in-house accessibility specialist that this current site did.
(The following are my own opinions and may not necessarily reflect the opinion of Red Ant Design)
I have no intention (especially since I sincerely believe it will help no one), of being drawn into a slating match over the Sitemorse test results. I do understand the frustration when companies claim to be accessible and sell off the back of accessibility when they clearly do not have a clue. I don't think the same criticism could be levelled at Red Ant. There are @ 100 pages in the site and accessibility errors are few and far between. On seeing Mike's post and some of the responses we did try to correct as many as we could (baring in mind that with the new site coming up longer changes would have a very short shelf life), and there are still some things on there that I am not altogether happy with.
Red Ant does seem to be being made out as some kind of "bad boy" on the back of this report, so looking through the postings I'd like to clear up a few things:
- Yes Red Ant did supply website templates to Sitemorse (bit hard to deny that one, our logo is at the bottom)
Red Ant did not pick the list of the websites that were vetted
Red Ant was told about the test at the same time as the other companies that were in the test
There were no "tips" from Sitemorse, we ran the Sitemorse testing report the same as any other company could and then worked hard to try to fix any issues that were discovered.
The access keys should be to UK Gov standards (I haven't the document to hand to double check, if they aren't they will be)
The audio on the radio page was a stupid one, now fixed the designer who made that page live has been told to engage brain before making changes
I have been assured by our designer that the pulsating flash in the portfolio is at a frequency not to cause a fit
We're not perfect, I don't think anyone is. We do try hard to get it right and now because in this test we come top of the list apparently we were "placed" at the top of the tests rather than earning the position. I would welcome a report that had the other web organisations mentioned in it. Would we come top of that report, probably not; however it might provoke a few red faces for those companies that do not genuinely try. Whether people like or dislike Sitemorse they have genuinely pushed awareness of accessibility into places that otherwise may not have got the message.
Last edited by Richard Conyard on 27 Jan 2005 09:21 am; edited 1 time in total
Share:
| rconyard wrote: |
| The access keys should be to UK Gov standards (I haven't the document to hand to double check, if they aren't they will be) |
A helpful hand:
| Quote: |
| 1 - Home page
2 - What's new 3 - Site map 4 - Search 5 - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 6 - Help 7 - Complaints procedure 8 - Terms and conditions 9 - Feedback form 0 - Access key details |
From approximately half way down the page on this wonderfully complex URL at the e-Government Unit.
Jon Gibbins, dotjay.co.uk, accessibility.co.uk wiki.
Share:
| rconyard wrote: |
Thanks Dot  |
That's the first time anyone's called me that.
Jon Gibbins, dotjay.co.uk, accessibility.co.uk wiki.
Share:
Folks should be aware that SiteMorse's testing has also taken a beating for it's (in)accuracy in measuring site performance.
Goto groups.google.co.uk -type sitemorse and look at the thread:
"SiteMorse - are these results accurate?"
That thread even shows that their company director shows up on the SEC (USA stock exchange) website, regards fraud injunctions in his previous company.
But the real shame, is the confusion it puts out there about what good and bad web sites should be like - and it undermines the usefulness of web testing -which is close to our heart here at SciVisum, as we're testing specialists 0 of various types.
Deri
Share:
| Isofarro wrote: |
| We are probably going to see more of this in the immediate future - checklist and automaton driven testing versus practical user testing. I'm frankly disguisted with the approach SiteMorse have taken in this press release:
|
I agree.
The other concern I have is when organisations are ranked highly by SiteMorse (which is good, as they do spot errors such as non-compliance HTMl pages) but then feel they have to do no more
I've noticed a number of press releases on this. Googling for 'council aaa' and 'council aaa sitemorse' gives some interesting results.
BTW an increasing number of Web development companies targeting public sector bodies such as Councils seem to be exploiting such surveys and claim that their product/company has a proven track record for promising AAA compliacne web sites e.g. see
http://www.thechannelshow.com/ChannelNews/CaseStudies1086.htm
Note that I'm not saying that the concuils issuing such press releases don't have accessible sites - just that they are fooling themselves (and possibly others) if they use the SiteMorse (and automated findings generally) in isolation.
Brian Kelly
UKOLN
University of Bath
BATH
UK
BA2 7AY
Share:
| Isofarro wrote: |
| We are probably going to see more of this in the immediate future - checklist and automaton driven testing versus practical user testing. I'm frankly disguisted with the approach SiteMorse have taken in this press release:
|
BTW there was a squabble between SiteMorse and the DRC in the letters page of the computer section of the Guardian a few months ago. An article mentioned the importance of Web accessibility. The following week SiteMorse published a letter saying they agreed, and their software could help identify problems (a fair letter, and a useful opportunity for some free publicity). The following week the DRC replied and had a go at SIteMorse, saying, I recollect, that automated tools were flawed/useless. I can't recall the details but I thought the response, and particularly the tone of the response, was unnecessary.
So there does seem to be a 'bit of previous' between them.
Brian
Brian Kelly
UKOLN
University of Bath
BATH
UK
BA2 7AY
Share:
| lisbk wrote: |
|
BTW there was a squabble between SiteMorse and the DRC in the letters page of the computer section of the Guardian a few months ago. An article mentioned the importance of Web accessibility. The following week SiteMorse published a letter saying they agreed, and their software could help identify problems (a fair letter, and a useful opportunity for some free publicity). The following week the DRC replied and had a go at SIteMorse, saying, I recollect, that automated tools were flawed/useless. I can't recall the details but I thought the response, and particularly the tone of the response, was unnecessary. So there does seem to be a 'bit of previous' between them. |
There certainly is - SM had been targeting the DRC quite aggressively as they wanted them to use the software or somehow endorse it. The DRC takes the view that such tools have their place but they aren't the be all and end all, and that user testing was paramount. (Some took that as a rejection of the WCAG guidelines, which it wasn't, but that's another story
).
Anyway, SM have been needling away at the DRC (and others) quite a bit so I'm not surprised people snap back sometimes. Personally, I'd've been a dealmore, uh, forthright with them.
I know Patrick Edwards, btw, and he said a week before the SiteMorse press release that it was going to be a stitch-up. He asked for a copy of the report that SM had done and were going to cite. Graham Jarvis promised it but never delivered.
I reckon if it was just the DRC one might put it down to clashes of personality, but I know for a fact that other organisations have been wound up by SM's way of doing business. Pity.
Share:
| lisbk wrote: |
| BTW there was a squabble between SiteMorse and the DRC in the letters page of the computer section of the Guardian a few months ago. An article mentioned the importance of Web accessibility. The following week SiteMorse published a letter saying they agreed, and their software could help identify problems (a fair letter, and a useful opportunity for some free publicity). |
I've tracked down the following:
* http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1220097,00.html
* http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1225060,00.html
Also spent some time going through the Usenet references supplied by Deri above. It doesn't paint SiteMorse in a good light at all. They seem very evasive to direct questions - and as much conceeded that their "speed test" was done from one single location - one London data centre.
Its a pity information is not publically forthcoming (a free demonstration does not cut it). SiteMorse, IMO, has a credibility problem, especially when the criticism is coming from a group of regulars on Usenet that are well-established and respected professionals.
Share:
Which reminds me, on Red Ant's accessibility standards page, there is the following list of "standards":
| Quote: |
| * W3C XHTML v1.1 validated
* W3C CSS v2.0 validated * W3C - WAI compliant to "AAA" standard * W3C - WCAG compliant to "A" standard * SiteMorse - level of compliance, "Pass" * Bobby - compliant to level "AAA" standard |
Apart from the last two bogus items, what is curious are the third and fourth bullet points. What exactly is meant by "W3C - WAI compliant to AAA standard", and how is that different to "W3C - WCAG compliant to A standard"?
The significant difference in documented accessibility compliance levels, is of course, a concern.
Share:
I think it is supposed to read; follows the WAI 'Triple-A' rating system and complies with Level-A WCAG Recommendations.
Very confusing though it is like with all these people who place: 'AAA' on a Bobby rated site but don't mean they think they have archived AAA just that they have tested against Bobby AAA.
};-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/
WVYFC chose the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as the main charity to fund raise for in 2006
Share:
| Robert Wellock wrote: |
| I think it is supposed to read; follows the WAI 'Triple-A' rating system and complies with Level-A WCAG Recommendations.
|
there's a lot to be said about "use clear and simple language"...
Patrick H. Lauke / webmaster / University of Salford
co-lead: WaSP Accesibility Task Force
take it to the streets ... WaSP Street Team
personal: splintered | photographia | redux
co-author: Web Accessibility - Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance
Share: