Transcript MS PowerPoint format

Talk 2
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/ili-2006/masterclass/
Web Accessibility 2.0:
A Holistic Approach
Tools And Processes That Can Help
Brian Kelly
UKOLN
University of Bath
Bath
Email:
[email protected]
This talk describe some
of the tools which can
help us to identify
problems with our Web
sites and processes for
deploying the tools
ili-2006-masterclass-kelly tag used in del.icio.us
UKOLN is supported by:
A centre of expertise in digital information management
This work is licensed under a AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence
(but note caveat) www.ukoln.ac.uk
E
Exercise 1:
In small groups discuss the following:
What do you mean by accessibility?
How do you detect accessibility problems?
What are the main problems you face in
providing accessible Web sites?
A centre of expertise in digital information management
2
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Tools
Background
Problems
You've identified some problem areas for users of Web
sites:
• Functionality – it doesn't work
• Usability – it's difficult for people to use
• Accessibility – it's difficult for people with disabilities
to use
Solutions
Now let's look at some solutions to these problems
• Tools that can help
• Processes that can help
• A Quality Assurance (QA) framework
A centre of expertise in digital information management
3
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Tools
Tools: Functionality (1)
HTML, CSS, … Validation:
• Web page doesn't look right in my browser
• First thing: validate page!
Useful tools:
• W3C's HTML validator:
can spot functionality &
accessibility problems
• W3C's CSS validator
• RSS validator (if you have
an RSS newsfeed)
•…
A centre of expertise in digital information management
4
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Tools
Tools: Functionality (2)
Link Checking:
• Clear need to ensure links work
• Many tools available
Validated part of my Web area
Findings:
• 12,514 Web pages!
• Only checked internal links
• Large no. of errors – but
vast majority false errors
• Some errors found in areas
provided by others
• Others my fault – and
mostly fixed
Issues:
• We can't always rely on tools
• Why weren't errors spotted
previously?
centre
expertise
in digital
information
• WhatAto
do ofwith
large
no. of
errors?management
5
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Tools
Tools: Missing Functionality
A Web site may not be usable because:
• The features it provides can't easily be
used
• It omits features which are needed in
order to be used
Example:
• A search facility
Issues
• Does your Web site have a search facility
• How well does it work?
Note that free third party search facilities may be
useful if you have limited resources
A centre of expertise in digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
6
Tools
Tools: Accessibility
Many accessibility testing tools are available
http://webxact.watchfire.com/
7
WebXact (formally known as
Bobby) is probably the best
http://www.wave.webaim.org/
known
The WAVE is one other
alternative
NOTES
• Automated tools can't detect
all (many?) accessibility
problems
• Findings from tools can be
inconsistent
• Underlying WAI guidelines
A centre of expertise in digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
are open to interpretation
Tools
Tools: Usability Of The Tools (1)
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/qa-focus/
documents/briefings/,rvalidate
There can be usability barriers
to regular use of such testing
tools:
• They require going to Web
page, copying and pasting
URL, etc
• Sometimes only single
pages can be tested
Simple solution:
• On UKOLN Web site can
append ,tools to any
URL to run various tools on
Tools:
page
,validate
,rvalidate
,checklink
,rchecklink
• Simple to implement – see
QA Focus briefing
no. 59
,cssvalidate
A centre of expertise in…
digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
8
Tools
Tools: Usability Of The Tools (2)
'Bookmarklets' and Firefox extensions can make use of
tools much easier and provide additional features
Web Developer allows:
• Features disabled
• Additional information
to be provided
• Tools to be used
Checky allows:
• Validation
• Link checking
• Access to misc tools
These tools are very
useful and their use by all
is strongly encouraged
A centre of expertise in digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
9
Manual Checking
Tools Aren’t Enough!
Warning:
• Tools may lead you to think you have an
accessible Web site when this isn't the case!
<img src="foo" ..> - no ALT tag: detectable by tools
<img src="foo" alt="add alt text here" …> an inappropriate ALT tag. Needs testing by humans.
What do we need:
• An awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of
automated testing
• An awareness of approaches to use of manual
testing
• A usable framework for a testing regime
A centre of expertise in digital information management
10
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Manual Checking
11
Role of Automated Tools
Automated Checking Tools:
• Spotting problems which can be found by software
• Detecting (then fixing) such errors to allow (scarce)
human effort to focus on problems with tools can't
detect:
• Don't tell your testers to check that links work; link
checkers are better for this*
Dangers of Automated Checking Tools:
• I use such tools; I don't bother with manual
checking because:
• I'm a techie and we like software solutions to problems
• Checkers are difficult to find; may be expensive; …
• It's time-consuming
* Is this www.ukoln.ac.uk
always true?
A centre of expertise
• .. in digital information management
Manual Checking
Approaches To Manual Checking 1
Hire a profession body:
• Firms such as RNIB, DMAG; (and many others)
can be hired for usability & accessibility checking:
 Have a knowledge of the disable community; their
needs; the tools they use; etc.
 May use people with disabilities to provide realistic
feedback and comments
 Report can inform organisation and recommendations
applied elsewhere
 May be expensive
 Not always applicable
The Logo Issue
Should you add an accessibility logo to your Web
site?
What
are the
pros
and cons?
A centre
of expertise
in digital
information
management
12
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Manual Checking
Approaches To Manual Checking 2
In-house checking:
• Always needed, so let's get in right!
Simple approach:
• Email colleagues for comments. What happens?
What re the limitations of this approach?
Better approach:
• What do you hope to gain? Document this!
• Provide structured tasks
• Seek a variety of testers, representative of user
community
• Testing by people with disabilities is desirable but
may be difficult
• If not possible, provide similar environment for
testers (or yourself) e.g. images off, CSS off; …
A centre of expertise in digital information management
13
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance
The tools aren't sufficient by themselves. Also need:
• Documented policies: so we know what we're
expected to check for
• Systematic procedures: for checking that we are
implementing our policies
• Enhancements made to workflow processes,
and not just fixing individual problems
In addition it can be useful to have:
• Audit trails: to spot trends and identify possible
problems in workflow processes (e.g. new tools
deployed, new staff involved, …)
• Sharing experiences, so that we and others can
learn
A centre of expertise in digital information management
14
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Quality Assurance
QA Examples (1)
Example of QA policies & procedures for file formats
Policy for QA Focus Web site
Policy:
The Web site will use XHTML 1.0 and CSS 2.0
standards
Architecture:
The Web site will be based on XHTML templates and
use of SSIs
Monitoring:
New and updated pages validated using ,validate
and ,cssvalidate. Every month ,rvalidate will be
used & record kept
Exceptions:
HTML derived automatically (e.g. Save As HTML in
PowerPoint) need not comply with standards. The files
will be stored in a standard directory to enable such files
to be excluded from checks.
A centre of expertise in digital information management
15
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Quality Assurance
QA Examples (2)
Example of QA policies & procedures for links
Policy for QA Focus Web site
Policy: QA Focus will seek to ensure that links are functional.
Monitoring:
New and updated pages checked using ,checklink
and ,rchecklink. Every month ,rchecklink will be
used & record kept and quarterly Xenu will be used.
Exceptions:
Links in "publications" (e.g. papers which are formally
published) which become broken may not be fixed.
If there are large numbers of broken links which would be
time-consuming to fix we may not fix them.
We make no commitment to fix broken links once the QA
Focus funding finishes.
A centre of expertise in digital information management
16
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Conclusions
To conclude:
• Tools can help in identifying problems
areas
• However tools may be flawed,
inconsistent and difficult to use
• Tools aren’t enough in themselves –
manual checking is also need
• Systematic application of automated and
human checking as part of a QA
framework is desirable
A centre of expertise in digital information management
17
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Questions
Any questions or comments?
A centre of expertise in digital information management
18
www.ukoln.ac.uk