SiteMorse rails at the DRC
| rconyard wrote: |
| Sitemorse they have genuinely pushed awareness of accessibility into places that otherwise may not have got the message. |
Sitemorse have pushed the false idea that automated testing makes your website accessible. Nothing more than that.
Why else would they target the DRC in this way? The DRC promote testing of websites by users with disabilities. This damages Site Morse's business model of assuring the customer that only automated testing is necessary.
How to combat this? Well you could attempt to discredit the DRC. After all, no one is perfect, just like you say, it's just a matter of timing.
Share: 
I thought I'd spend a bit of time assessing what could and couldn't be tested via automated testing.
I wanted to find out what sitemorse think they are offering. Looking at sitemorses client list I realised that councils are required to ensure that sites meet WCAG AA and procedures must be put in place procedures to "...monitor compliance on an ongoing basis."
Sitemorse's percieved services must be incredibly appealing, but what does your average government organisation actually get?
Well here's what they don't get:
List of violations that can't accurately be measured using automated software:
Priority 1
Checkpoint 1.1
Cannot validate if an alt text is correct for an image
Cannot validate whether a long description is required for an image
Checkpoint 1.4
Cannot check whether a multimedia presentation requires an audio track
Checkpoint 14.1
Cannot check whether the language is simple, plain English, or even correctly spelt.
Checkpoint 2.1
Cannot check accurately whether the content is readable without colour
Checkpoint 4.1
Cannot check whether language changes have been marked up.
Checkpoint 6.1
Cannot check whether the page is readable without style sheets
Checkpoint 6.2
Cannot check whether dynamic content is accessible
Checkpoint 6.3
Cannot check whether a programmatic object is directly accessible
Checkpoint 7.1
Cannot reliably check whether there is flicker capable of inducing an epileptic seizure
Priority 2
Checkpoint 11.1
Cannot check whether W3C elements are being used appropriately, or whether the latest versions are being used
Checkpoint 12.2
Cannot validate whether frame relationships are clearly identified
Checkpoint 13.3
Cannot detect whether the page offers site layout information
Checkpoint 13.4
Cannot detect whether there is a consistent style of presentation across the pages of a site
Checkpoint 2.2
Cannot reliably detect whether images have sufficient colour contrast
Checkpoint 3.1
Cannot detect whether an object could be replaced by markup
Checkpoint 3.3
Cannot detect whether images of stylized text are being used instead of formatting technique
Checkpoint 5.3
Unable to evaluate whether layout tables make sense when linearised
Checkpoint 6.5
Cannot evaluate whether a page is usable without scripts
Checkpoint 7.2
Cannot detect whether a flash movie contains movement
Checkpoint 8.1
Cannot detect whether an object (Java applet/ flash movie or other) is directly accessible
Checkpoint 9.2
Cannot detect whether an object (Java applet/ flash movie or other) is device independent
Of course there are many more priority 3 elements, but these are outside the scope of government guidelines.
Share:
Thanks for that list Grant, good reading which should be very useful.
Would you mind if I republished it (with credit to you) in some marketing materials I'm developing?
Share:
Go ahead Vigo.
I will just say that I'm actually an advocate of automated testing tools, I use them daily.
InFocus by ssbtechnologies is an extremely useful tool.
But as for all tools, they need to be operated by someone who knows how to use them. It's like hammers and saws, they don't work on their own.
Share:
| Grant Broome wrote: |
|
InFocus by ssbtechnologies is an extremely useful tool. |
If that is the one I just found, then at 1000UKP it won't be fitting into my budget for this year
Share:
| elfin wrote: |
| If that is the one I just found, then at 1000UKP it won't be fitting into my budget for this year |
Ditto, unfortunately. I do pretty good without many tools like this, but still... would be nice.
Maybe if things pick up next year.Jon Gibbins, dotjay.co.uk, accessibility.co.uk wiki.
Share:
On a website I am involved in tidy is runnign a check every day to see if it can find any errors. It is picking up quite a few things that would normally be missed by validators. It runs on python, and is currently very fast. It also produces a nice page with all these errors on
When working on large sites these things all come in handy. Is there an automated accessibility checker than can actually spider a site?
Share:
| elfin wrote: |
| When working on large sites these things all come in handy. Is there an automated accessibility checker than can actually spider a site? |
That's what Infocus does!
Share:
you see I knew someone would know!
hmm InFocus does look like it may have an upper hand then. How quick would it be for a 3000 page site I wonder...
Share:
I think this will be on topic for this thread:
http://www.ispaawards.org.uk/categories/portal.htm
If anyone gets the announce of the winners can they let me know please.
Sitemorse are doing the testing , apparently, blueyonder is a 'finalist' their site is somewhat carp for coding, and I would dearly like to know where they finish
Share:
SiteMorse have attempted a rebuff of the criticism detailed in this thread. It looks like they are on shaky ground. They are criticising the DRC for promoting the usability of websites alongside accessibility, and claim that the DRC has no jurisdiction there.
I thought I would have a look back at the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and see what is actually being requested. Part III, Section 19(3) seems to be the key clauses. The Act requires "access to" and "use of" communication services and information services (clauses b and c which I understand to directly relate to websites).
I've analysed the arguments and positions in my blog entry SiteMorse criticises DRC's usability stance.
I get the feeling that SiteMorse are really asking that the DRC prosecute someone for an inaccessible website - not just to clarify the law, but to instigate a mass panic amongst website owners who will immediately go shopping for a "quick fix". I guess I'm just paranoid
Share:
I know this is very cynical, but I'd love someone (the DRC or anyone else) to prosecute: against a website claiming Bobby compliance (or some other automated 'proof' of accessibility) when it was actually inaccessible. Now that really would achieve something 
I don't know off hand of a website claiming compliance that'd be so appallingly bad for legal action to work, but they exist.
| Quote: |
| I get the feeling that SiteMorse are really asking that the DRC prosecute someone for an inaccessible website - not just to clarify the law, but to instigate a mass panic amongst website owners who will immediately go shopping for a "quick fix". I guess I'm just paranoid |
...or something.
Share:
wouldn't it be poetic justice if the DRC targetted sitemorse? (n.b. i haven't actually analysed the sitemorse site, so there may be no way that this would fly...just thinking out loud though)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:
I have a thought on this.
Sitemorse are railing the DRC for not providing 'leadership' as to website accessibility, IMHO I feel they are blowing this out of all proportion.
Accessibility is not just websites, it is access to buildings, equal opportunities for employment, fair unbiased services, not being discriminated against. Yes, there are 10 million disabled in the UK, of those a proportion will be web users, an even smaller proportion of those will need assitive technology, a much larger number need physical access and fair treatment.
The DRC are providing the right leadership in providing the disabled with access to EVERYTHING. If one part is not as good as it could be then give them time to initiate the guidance required. Bearing in mind thet the DDA does not actually refer to websites but goods and services I am content to let them continue in the present manner.
Mike Abbott
Accessible to everyone
Share:
SiteMorse have essentially pushed themselves into a dead end. The basis for their criticism of the DRC lies in their belief that the DDA covers only accessibility, and not usability. They criticise the DRC for their usability stance.
Reading the DDA, it is clear that what is being requested is access to and use of - accessibility and usability.
That's the main point that needs to be made. DDA requires both accessibility and usability of websites for disabled people.
Share: