Latest AbilityNet report & Radio 4's In Touch
I expect a lot of us here have already read about AbilityNet's latest State of the e-Nation report.
Did people also catch this week's In Touch on Radio 4? (For those outside the UK, you can still listen to the latest broadcast over the Web.) This week, they were discussing how visually impaired people shop, both online and at the supermarket.
They had Nomensa's Léonie Watson (also from the BWDMA's Usability and Accessibility Working Group) and another guest, Tim Gebbles, discussing their shopping experiences. In the AbilityNet report, Tesco's separate accessible online service received praise for its efforts to make its online shopping service more accessible, gaining "four out of five". Other sites didn't fair so well. Léonie said on the programme that she uses Sainsbury's for online shopping and is able to use their site quite well, despite the "one out of five" score the Sainsbury's site received. Obviously, Léonie was also keen not to support Tesco's approach of using a separate access site.
So, does this mean that automated tests are really masking the true state of the accessibility on the Web? While this recent AbilityNet report makes some good points, are all these reports we hear of being as good for accessibility as they should be?
Jon Gibbins, dotjay.co.uk, accessibility.co.uk wiki.
Share: 
| dotjay wrote: |
|
So, does this mean that automated tests are really masking the true state of the accessibility on the Web? |
not all of them, probably, but a certain number, for sure.
| Quote: |
| While this recent AbilityNet report makes some good points, are all these reports we hear of being as good for accessibility as they should be? |
once most of the technical accessibility issues of a site have been overcome, the rest can often come down to subjective preference of the users. that's why it's so difficult (or should i say dangerous) to pin down exact, cast in stone type guidelines. ask 10 users with disabilities and you'll often get 11 different contradictory suggestions.
as with any other type of reports, it may be worth not to take them all just at face value, but to use them to inform your own accessibility decisions. imho, anyway.
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:
| dotjay wrote: |
| So, does this mean that automated tests are really masking the true state of the accessibility on the Web? |
I heard the broadcast - very interesting. It reminds of the recent DRC survey. A site may be found to not meet the guidelines through automated or manual testing yet it can still be accessible to real users. I guess that's why the WAI have 'guidelines' and not 'rules'?
Cheers
Kevin
Share: