SiteMorse Dropped from Public Sector Forums
I thought it was an ODPM initiative? Maybe Dan can clarify?
Share: 
| elfin wrote: |
| ...If that was the case no-one would be arguing with them. All it promoted was getting a pass with the Sitemorse test, had nothing to do with accessibility whatsoever. As has already been pointed out passing the Sitemorse test doesn't exactly mean you have a good site. |
True, but at least it shows up who has bad code. You might be able to produce a 'bad' site with 'good' code but you sure as sugar can't produce a 'good' site with 'bad' code!
PSF (or at least its LA contributors) have had a vendetta against SiteMorse from the very start. Seems like they don't like independent critical analysis of what they're doing.
Share:
| Mikea wrote: |
So is there a way of offering a viable alternative. Can the Office of the E-Envoy help with this, I thought it was their job to promote accessibility and inclusion for government websites. Or am I out of date  |
| Richard Conyard wrote: |
| I thought it was an ODPM initiative? |
I think the Office of the e-Envoy was part of the ODPM. However OeE was disbanded a good long while ago, I'm afraid Mike!
It's now the responsibility of the e-Government Unit, which is part of the Cabinet Office. See http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-government/responsibilities/.
Share:
I might of missed it, but nothing mentioning enablement through correct use of IT there 
Share:
...but will the Cabinet Office do test on the private sector as well as the public sector? And do we really trust government to test itself?
Like them or not, the one thing you can't argue with is that SiteMorse is independent.
Share:
| nhodgetts wrote: |
| ...but will the Cabinet Office do test on the private sector as well as the public sector? And do we really trust government to test itself?
Like them or not, the one thing you can't argue with is that SiteMorse is independent. |
But it is a private company and as such will skew results to it's favour for marketing
so we cannot trust them to test themselves
has it done a fully independant review of its testing
and how has it done against a peer review
till there are definate answers with no spin then we can we fully evaluate their results
Share:
I don't know if you're reading this Deri, but is there any plan for SciVisum to look at producing league tables? I don't know whether comparison here might be a benefit or a detractor?
Share:
Well we certainly can't trust SiteMorse, they have proven they will ruin reputations over their interpretation of a guidelin.
SiteMorse is out to make a profit, they are more then willing to tweak press releases to make their tool look invaluable and the tool for accessibility when it can test at best 40% ov checkpoints, a fact they do not advertise.
So clearly a organisation is needed free from prejudice for lack of a better word at the moment. We have to be able to trust them not to suck up or trash the tested sites and also not have their own interests before their eyes, so it has to be non-profit.
--
[size=9]Kyle J. Lamson
Analyst/Programmer III, State of Alaska
Share:
LSW
Are there any free for distribution / open source tools you're aware of? There are enough GAWDS members here as well as the WaSP team members that should we all get behind a tool and promote awareness and easy of checks with it there would be quite a splash.
Commercial tools like SiteMorse, Bobby etc. will always have a place since they we probably be able to test more, have dedicated support etc. But as a starting point what are your thoughts?
Share:
| monkeygod wrote: |
| But it is a private company and as such will skew results to it's favour for marketing so we cannot trust them to test themselves... |
Let me get this straight, SiteMorse make money out of their work = they bad?
so...
You, as a commercial web developer, make money out of your clients therefore you = bad!
This whole argument that because SiteMorse charge they are bad is just tosh IMHO. It also misses the more important point which is that they are the only people who do the same test on all websites.
If their testing is flawed then the flawed results are the same for everyone. Its an objective test. This is very different to all of the other assessments or comparisons that I'm aware of (such as the annual "Better Connected" review) which are, by their nature, highly subjective.
Neither SiteMorse nor any other automated test will ever be able to 'validate' sites for 'compliance' with WCAG. What it can do is provide a baseline, using the same criteria for everyone, that can act as a guide to how much attention site owners, big or small, are paying to web standards and accessibility.
Personally, I think thats a better position than having no comparison at all and rely on 'word of mouth' and hearsay. At least SiteMorse are trying to achieve something - nobody else is. And if they make some money along the way, good luck to them.
Share:
| nhodgetts wrote: |
| This whole argument that because SiteMorse charge they are bad is just tosh IMHO. It also misses the more important point which is that they are the only people who do the same test on all websites. |
That is complete rubbish. There are a number of organisations that have done the same, and still offer the same service.
| Quote: |
| Its an objective test |
Useless when it doesn't test accessibility properly.
Share:
| nhodgetts wrote: | ||
Let me get this straight, SiteMorse make money out of their work = they bad? so... You, as a commercial web developer, make money out of your clients therefore you = bad! This whole argument that because SiteMorse charge they are bad is just tosh IMHO. It also misses the more important point which is that they are the only people who do the same test on all websites. If their testing is flawed then the flawed results are the same for everyone. Its an objective test. This is very different to all of the other assessments or comparisons that I'm aware of (such as the annual "Better Connected" review) which are, by their nature, highly subjective. Neither SiteMorse nor any other automated test will ever be able to 'validate' sites for 'compliance' with WCAG. What it can do is provide a baseline, using the same criteria for everyone, that can act as a guide to how much attention site owners, big or small, are paying to web standards and accessibility. Personally, I think thats a better position than having no comparison at all and rely on 'word of mouth' and hearsay. At least SiteMorse are trying to achieve something - nobody else is. And if they make some money along the way, good luck to them. |
thank you for the wonderful misquotes
what was said there is not about money, but about marketing which should never be believed as it is as it will never point out failings within what is being marketed
there is nothing wrong with making a living, it is how you do it
charging for a service is ok but be honest
| Quote: |
| Neither SiteMorse nor any other automated test will ever be able to 'validate' sites for 'compliance' with WCAG. What it can do is provide a baseline, |
you should clearly state the baseline and the reliability of such tests
Share:
This is a difficult one to come in on since to be honest I don't really agree with either of you 
| Isofarro wrote: |
|
That is complete rubbish. There are a number of organisations that have done the same, and still offer the same service. |
I think he was talking about the league table bit, which AFAIK only SiteMorse are doing at present.
| Isofarro wrote: | ||
Useless when it doesn't test accessibility properly. |
I don't think I would go as far as useless. Just the same as you can't rely completely on automated testing I don't think it is practical to throw automated testing away because it doesn't solve everything.
Also looking at SiteMorse specifically they are checking more than just accessibility. The marketing which is the league table comprises of other checks like eGMS, code validity and speed/size.
Share:
| Isofarro wrote: |
| That is complete rubbish. There are a number of organisations that have done the same, and still offer the same service. |
Name One!
Share:
| Richard Conyard wrote: |
| Also looking at SiteMorse specifically they are checking more than just accessibility. The marketing which is the league table comprises of other checks like eGMS, code validity and speed/size. |
Interesting that SiteMorse use the very same tool for the basis of criticising accessibility experts under the guise of "accessibility". eGMS and the highly flawed speed and response tests have nothing to do with accessibility.
You'd think SiteMorse knew their tools well enough to make that distinction - especially in a press release. Whatever next - will they test the number of coffees drunk in a day by the janitor as another "accessibility test"?
Share: