Talk 2 http www ukoln ac ukwebfocuseventsconferencesili2006masterclass Web

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 Email: B. Kelly@ukoln. ac. uk 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 Attribution. Non. Commercial-Share. Alike 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: Functionality (1) HTML, CSS, … Validation: • Web page doesn't look right in my browser • First thing: validate page! Useful tools: • W 3 C's HTML validator: can spot functionality & accessibility problems • W 3 C'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: 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 • What. Ato do of with large no. of errors? management 5 www. ukoln. ac. uk

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: Accessibility Many accessibility testing tools are available http: //webxact. watchfire. com/ 7 Web. Xact (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 are A centre of expertise in digital information management www. ukoln. ac. uk open to interpretation

Tools 8 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

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 always true? A centre of expertise in digital information management www. ukoln. ac. uk • . .

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: J Have a knowledge of the disable community; their needs; the tools they use; etc. J May use people with disabilities to provide realistic feedback and comments J Report can inform organisation and recommendations applied elsewhere L May be expensive L 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 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 Power. Point) 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