Declaring conformance on web accessibility - ANEC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6. Methodology for automatic and manual testing of website <strong>conformance</strong> Testing of the selected 100 websites was carried out by Shaw Trust who selected SortSite Professional to run automated testing of <strong>conformance</strong> to WCAG 2.0. The manual inspection was carried out by a Shaw Trust web accessibility expert who conducted a manual test programme supported by a number of additional test tools. Automatic testing Sortsite Professional version was selected in order to run automatic testing of the selected websites. This tool was selected for its ability to run and report on tests to both WCAG 1.0, 2.0 as well as Section 508, and to provide a detailed report. The Professional version allows the tester to adjust parameters and to download a full report. In carrying this study of 100 websites the registry entry was changed to meet the requirement to check the first 25 pages to be reached from the homepage. The automatic tool used 95 checkpoints at level A, 7 at AA and 11 at AAA derived from the WCAG 2.0 success criteria and the related documentation in Techniques and Failures for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS). The automatic test results from each website were combined to produce a summary result sheet. These results include the number of SortSite checkpoints failed and may include some instances of false negatives and positives, which is common for automated checking tools. These results were subject to minor review to remove duplicated results. Manual inspection The results from the initial automatic testing by SortSite Professional were used to select websites which passed all automatic tests to priority level A or AA. The criteria for progression to manual testing were adjusted to include those websites having ten or less reported failures at priority level A. This allowed for the possibility of investigating false negatives and those websites that made their declaration to WCAG 1.0 and had not addressed a WCAG 2.0 requirement. Where the automatic test results showed that problems appeared on specific page location URLs on more than one occasion, those URLS were listed and the top five URL’s with the most issues were chosen for manual inspection. Pages were tested in their own language and no English versions were used. As shown in the report sample [Table 16] the report identified both the WCAG 2.0 success criteria and common failures described in the Techniques and Failures document. In the sample below, the first failure identified relates to “F52: Failure of Success Criterion 3.2.1 and 3.2.5 due to opening a new window as soon as a new page is loaded.” Only the success criteria 3.2.1 is a level A criteria. The comment indicates why the web page failed the criteria. Opening new windows without any warning in effect ‘breaks’ the simple navigational strategy of pressing the ‘back’ button. The second failure is an instance of failing success criteria 3.3.2, F82: Visually formatting a set of phone number fields but not including a text label. The results were analysed in relation to the number of different WCAG 2.0 success criteria failed. Some success criteria, in particular success criteria 1.1.1 is subject to a number of different tests and has multiple common failures. The results for this criteria were further reviewed in relation to the specific test applied and potential effect of the failure. ANEC Print version 21 May 2011 Page 43 Declaration of <strong>conformance</strong>
Table 16 Example of report from SortSite Professional WCAG2 techniques and failures WCAG 2.0 Success criteria Priority Description Pass/fail URL Comment F52 3.2.1 A Receiving focus does not change context Fail http://www.url When tabbing through [pagename] a new window opens with each tab F82 3.3.2 A Labels or instructions for user input Browsers Cross browser testing was performed on: • Internet Explorer v8 • Mozilla Firefox v3.6 Fail http://www.url Missing fieldset Tools The following tools were used to identify issues: • SortSite Professional http://www.powermapper.com/products/sortsite/checks/accessibilitychecks.htm • WAT 2.0 toolbar for IE http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html • The Wave toolbar for Firefox http://wave.webaim.org/toolbar • Firefox’s own accessibility evaluator https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/accessibility-evaluation-toolb • Total Validator add on for Firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/total-validator/ ANEC Print version 21 May 2011 Page 44 Declaration of <strong>conformance</strong>
Page 1 and 2: Design for All Research Group Middl
Page 3 and 4: Contents Management summary and rec
Page 5 and 6: issues affecting perception, such a
Page 7 and 8: 1. Introduction The power of the We
Page 9 and 10: 2. Web content accessibility guidel
Page 11 and 12: Regulations, and the Ministerial De
Page 13 and 14: Table 3 National certification sche
Page 15 and 16: UK See it Right/Surf it Right (RNIB
Page 17 and 18: AA, AAA and WCAG 2.0 level A, AA an
Page 19 and 20: 5. Results of the selection activit
Page 21 and 22: • How many self declared websites
Page 23 and 24: Spanish websites met the criteria f
Page 25 and 26: 7. Results of manual testing Five p
Page 27 and 28: The other three most common failure
Page 29 and 30: 8. Discussion Some websites showed
Page 31 and 32: Table 15 Detailed analysis of indiv
Page 33 and 34: 10. References [1] Caldwell B., Coo
Page 35 and 36: 1. WCAG 2.0 criteria level A Certif
Page 37 and 38: http://www.twee dekamer.nl/ http://
Page 39 and 40: 3 List of commercial websites teste
Page 41 and 42: Country Certification scheme URL of
Page 43: 5 Automatic Accessibility tool Tool

Declaring conformance on web accessibility - ANEC

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?