-1

Any suggestions for free tools to test website accessibility (508+). We used to use http://wsspg.dequecloud.com/worldspace/wsservice/eval/checkCompliance.jsp for this purpose and this site is no longer available.

user2566175
  • 7
  • 2
  • 1
    Are you citing Section 508 because it's a legal requirement for you? It's outdated and W3C/WAI WCAG 2.0 is a way better resource for improving accessibility nowadays (but of course if you must be compliant with 508, then also test for 508) – FelipeAls Jul 10 '13 at 05:57

3 Answers3

3

Try Google Accessibility Developer Tools Extension for Chrome. It runs an accessibility audit on individual pages, making assertions based on WCAG 2.0.

If you have a Rails project, you can run the assertions from the Google Extension as part of an Rspec integration test suite using capybara-accessible, a rubygem that defines a Selenium based webdriver for Capybara and makes accessibility assertions on page loads. That way you can automate testing across your site and also get failures in CI.

ckundo
  • 1,551
  • 10
  • 12
  • I wouldn't recommend that extension. While Google has a handful of good people, Google's accessibility track record and how they implement it is quite poor. – Ryan B Jul 10 '13 at 13:52
  • @RyanB have you used the extension? Do you have any specific objections? – ckundo Jul 10 '13 at 18:09
  • Google's view is usually, if it doesn't work, we'll keep cramming this square peg into the round hole. Ex: instead of making their products accessible, they designed technology that fits that peg. Oh you want to use our products? use Chrome + ChromeVox. You arent able to install chromevox, or changing browsers to use one site is a pain? Sucks for you. So an accessibility extension by Google does not pass my sniff test – Ryan B Jul 11 '13 at 12:59
  • I suggest you try using the extension, you may be surprised. It is accurate in my experience and has useful messaging. – ckundo Jul 11 '13 at 14:35
  • I'll pass. Thanks though. WAVE + actual testing is the way I do it – Ryan B Jul 11 '13 at 15:36
1

Try Wave, which is free to use. But not sure if it has full functionality. Check it out yourself and let me know if its the right one for you.

Ryan B
  • 3,364
  • 21
  • 35
Mohammad Dohadwala
  • 301
  • 1
  • 3
  • 10
  • 1
    Not a single automated tool has "full functionality" because it can't: it also needs an human for testing relevance of a whole bunch of things like headings and links ;) Otherwise Wave is a great tool when you test a few pages and want to *show* errors – FelipeAls Jul 10 '13 at 05:52
1

As Felipe said, no automated testing should be relied upon. Specifically if you need to test for Section 508, it states that you have to test with AT. WAVE and Deque WorldSpace does not satisfy this requirement. WAVE is a fine tool to catch low hanging fruit. Maybe the Google Plug-in does as well, but would not rely upon it due to how Chrome handles and reports things to MSAA and other APIs.

I have heard numbers thrown around how well automated testers are. Personally, I set them around the 50% mark, particially due to the "full functionality" aspect that Felipe mentions in Mohammad's answer. In terms of Section 508, this phrase is called "equivalent facilitation", which is covered in 1194.31, which no automated tester can cover. Subpart 1194.31 is the functional standards, which apply to all activities if Section 508 is applicable. The same goes with 1194.41.

FelipeAls said:

[Section 508] outdated and W3C/WAI WCAG 2.0 is a way better resource for improving accessibility nowadays (but of course if you must be compliant with 508, then also test for 508)

While I will say Section 508 is rough around the edges, I wouldn't say it is useless as some market it as. In my experience people pushing this, have limited experience actually dealing with Section 508, or they work behind a product that does testing. Their biggest arguement is usually "heh look, if Section 508 is so good, why doesn't it require headings (<h1>)?" Well, Section 508 was derived from WCAG 1.0, which didn't have it either, so that argument is weak in my opinion. Also, remember how I said people don't realise that 1194.31 is applicable? Let's look at 1194.31(a):

(a) At least one mode of operation and information retrieval that does not require user vision shall be provided, or support for assistive technology used by people who are blind or visually impaired shall be provided.

You can read that as: code a page so that AT can find specific parts of/on a page. What's a good way to allow people to jump around? Headings, and now WAI-ARIA Landmarks.

Section 508 is also being worked on to adopt WCAG 2.0.

Ryan B
  • 3,364
  • 21
  • 35