Two weeks have now passed since the 2016 CSUN Conference, and I'm still inspired by many of the bright ideas that were generated from sessions, conversations, tweets, etc. and considering how to apply them.
I gave two sessions at CSUN, What's New With Able Player? and Web Accessibility 101 with Accessible University 3.0. In the second of these session, I modeled how to use our Accessible University (AU) demo site in an interactive training session on web accessibility. The AU site consists of three core pages: A "before" page, with at least 18 accessibility problems, an "after" page, with those problems fixed, and an intermediary page that describes the problems and solutions.
One of the sessions I intended to attend but was locked out due to a capacity crowd was Luis Garcia's Automated Testing Tool Showdown. Fortunately Luis shared his slide deck. After looking over his findings, I found myself wondering how the various accessibility checkers would do with a web page like AU's "before" page, the page with at least 18 known accessibility problems. I decided to find out.
The Tools I Tested
Below are the tools I set out to test, listed in alphabetical order. This includes all the tools Luis Garcia tested, plus a few others.
- AInspector Sidebar - from the OpenAjax Alliance; essentially the Functional Accessibility Evaluator (FAE) 2.0 service provided as a Firefox plugin.
- aXe - from Deque Systems, tested using the aXe Developer Tools extension for Firefox
- Bobby - the original web accessibility checker, from CAST
- Cynthia Says - free accessibility checker from Cryptzone (formerly HiSoftware)
- Google Accessibility Developer Tools - A Chrome extension from Google Accessibility
- HTML CodeSniffer - tested using the Accessibility Auditor Bookmarklet, and verified via the command-line interface of pa11y ("your automated accessibility testing pal")
- QUAIL - jQuery accessibility plugin (see also QUAIL on GitHub).
- SiteImprove - a commercial website quality and compliance checker, included here because the UW is a subscriber so I have easy access
- Tenon.io - from Karl Groves and the gang
- WAVE - "Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool" from the web accessibility gurus at WebAIM.
Ok, I didn't really test with Bobby
Bobby is the original web accessibility checker, created by CAST and launched in 1995, but was officially closed a decade later, in 2005. The accessibility engine lived on for a while in tools by Watchfire, then IBM, but there is no more Bobby. So if you see claims of "Bobby-compliance", you know the claimant isn't really up on accessibility. These claims are still out there though.
The Bobby home page is still available via the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. However, it's not a functional service. I did try though.
Ok, I didn't test with Cynthia Says either
I did run the page through Cynthia Says. However, when I tried to sift through the report (a tree with expandable/collapsible sections) I found it to be an incredibly painful experience for two reasons:
- Tiny fonts. The default font size in Firefox is 16 pixels. The calculated font size of text in the Cynthia Says report ranges between 6.8 to 8.8 pixels (less than half the default size). I couldn't see the results at all, no matter how hard I squinted. I could increase the font size and it scaled reasonably well, but I was a little miffed that this was necessary. What finally stopped me in my tracks though was the second problem...
- Truncated error messages. The top level in the tree is WCAG 2.0 success criteria, labeled with the criterion number plus a human-readable word or phrase (e.g., "Criterion 1.3.1 [Info and Relationships]"). This may or may not be intuitive to users who are not already WCAG scholars. However the bigger problem occurs as users drill into these categories, and find issues such as "Use the title attribute to identify form contro...", "Ensuring that the Web Page contains another CAP...", and "Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 and 1.2.1 du...". Given the tiny font, and the fact that the report spans the full width of the web page, I'm stumped as to why they feel a need to truncate these messages. These truncated messages are never completely spelled out, not after the item is expanded, nor as a title attribute. Consequently I found it very challenging to make any sense of the report, and ultimately gave up out of frustration.
Ok, I didn't test with QUAIL either
I actually really wanted to test with QUAIL. First, I'm a big fan of recursive acronyms (QUAIL = "QUAIL Accessibility Information Library"). Second, I've seen it in action and find it to be a very thorough and useful tool. It is most commonly used as an accessibility checker that's integrated into content management systems (e.g., the Accessibility Drupal Module and CKEditor Accessibility Checker plugin). I had some initial trouble building the software, but fortunately the problem I was experiencing was a known issue so I was able to eventually get beyond that and attempt a test from the command line with a slightly less-than-current version. However, both of my attempts resulted in PhantomJS crashing, so I ultimately decided it wasn't meant to be. Despite my failure, I suspect it would perform pretty well as it has over 250 rules, which are well documented in the QUAIL documentation.
The Eighteen Issues
The eighteen known problems I checked against are described on the AU: List of Accessibility Issues page. Here's a short summary of each:
- No headings: The page has clear visible headings, but no HTML heading markup.
- No alt text: There are several informative images with no alt attributes.
- Bad alt text: There are three decorative images with alt="horizontal line graphic".
- Color contrast: The navigation menu has poor color contrast.
- Dropdown menu: The dropdown menu has many problems, the greatest being that the submenus are hidden from everyone (including screen reader users), and can only be revealed by hovering with a mouse.
- Visible focus: There is no visible focus indicator for links. In fact, the browser's default indicator has been overridden in CSS.
- Link text: There are three instances of "click here" as link text.
- Color used for information: The application form says "required fields are in blue". Also, hyperlinks in the main body are not underlined, therefore only distinguishable as links by color.
- Language: There is no lang attribute that identifies the language of the page as English. There is also a block of Spanish content that has no lang attribute identifying it as Spanish.
- Form fields: There are no <label>, <fieldset>, or <legend> elements in the application form.
- CAPTCHA: The application form includes a visual CAPTCHA.
- Form validation: If the user submits the form with errors, an error message appears at the top of the form that says "Your form has errors. Please correct them and resubmit." This error message provides insufficient help to the user, and is not coded in a way that exposes it to screen reader users.
- ARIA Landmarks: There are no ARIA landmark roles on this page.
- Modal dialog: One of the "click here" links triggers a modal dialog, which is not truly modal. It fails to trap keyboard focus, cannot be closed by pressing the escape key, and is not easily accessible to screen reader users.
- Carousel: Carousels are complex widgets with many parts. The carousel on this page is a fairly typical carousel with many problems: Keyboard users are unable to access all components; screen reader users are unable to operate the controls or access and understand all content; and people who are distracted by movement or who need more time to read the content are unable to pause the animation.
- Data table: The page includes a data table that does not use <th> elements to identify row and column headers.
- Abbreviations: The data table includes several abbreviations that could be difficult for all users to understand, including at least one ambiguous one ("ECO" could be "Ecology" or "Economics"). Providing a mechanism for expanding abbreviations (e.g., the <abbr> element) is only a Level AAA success criterion in WCAG 2.0, but in this case would be extremely helpful.
- HTML validation: Validation of this page yields five errors, all related to images with no alt text.
Regarding that last item, none of the accessibility checkers tested specifically include HTML validation checks, but I didn't expect them to. That's what the W3C Markup Validation Service is for. Also, since all the validation errors are related to images with no alt text, all accessibility checkers will likely catch this and other explicitly measurable accessibility-related errors, even if not specifically checking for HTML validation.
|1. No Headings||Yes||No||No||Partial||Yes||No||Yes|
|2. No alt text||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|3. Bad alt text (decorative)||No||No||No||Sort of||No||No||Yes|
|4. Insufficient color contrast||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes||No||Yes|
|5. Inaccessible dropdown menu||No||No||No||No||No||No||No|
|6. Insufficient visible focus||Sort of||No||No||No||No||No||No|
|7. Redundant, uninformative link text||Yes||No||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|8. Color used to communicate information||Sort of||No||No||No||Yes||No||No|
|9. Language not specified||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|10. Missing accessible form markup||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|11. Inaccessible CAPTCHA||No||No||No||No||No||No||No|
|12. Inaccessible form validation||Sort of||No||No||No||No||No||No|
|13. Missing ARIA Landmarks||Yes||No||No||No||No||No||No|
|14. Inaccessible modal dialog||Sort of||No||No||No||No||No||No|
|15. Inaccessible carousel||Sort of||No||No||No||No||No||No|
|16. Missing accessible table markup||Sort of||Yes||No||Sort of||No||Yes||Sort of|
|17. Missing abbreviation tags||No||No||No||No||No||No||No|
- All but one of the tools that returned errors related to headings simply detected the absence of headings. HTML CodeSniffer is a bit different: It returns a heading error if entire lines of text are marked up with <b> elements (maybe <strong> too though I didn't test that). However, large bold text that's stylized using CSS does not return the same error.
- WAVE is the only tool that detected "suspicious alternate text" on the three decorative images.
- Karl Groves of Tenon says he's "in the process of adding 63 new tests and revising nearly all of the others". Included among new tests is a test for at least one heading and a contrast checker. So expect a few more "Yes" cells in the Tenon column in the near future.
- No tools specifically identified the problems with the dropdown menus, although some tools identify relevant issues such as keyboard operability as a "manual check". These issues appear on all pages though, and are not customized for the current page.
- AInspector Sidebar includes a manual check that says "Focus must be visible", but it does this for all pages.
- AInspector includes a manual check for "Use of color". However, the only tool that recognizes a specific problem with the non-underlined link text is SiteImprove.
- Although all tools return an error for missing document language, none recognize this problem for the block of Spanish text. AInspector Sidebar does include "Identify language changes" as a manual check.
- Although all tools return an error for missing labels on form fields, most oversimplify the solution. HTML CodeSniffer and WAVE both decribe various methods for labeling form fields in their accompanying help text (e.g., title, aria-label, and aria-labelledby). However, AInspector Sidebar is the only tool that delves into even greater depth and explains the need for fieldset and legend.
- Although I gave up early on sifting through the Cynthia Says results, it does deserve credit for being the only tool that recognized the presence of a CAPTCHA on the page. It turns out the truncated message mentioned above "Ensuring that the Web Page contains another CAP..." is actually about CAPTCHA. When I expanded this item, I found the following sub-item: "CAPTCHA found, please verify that the information is conveyed through audio as well as visual." I'm not satisfied with this solution, as it's overly simple and fails to address the needs of users who are deaf-blind. Still, it's impressive that the tool recognized the CAPTCHA at all, whereas all other tools only identified the CAPTCHA as an image that needs alt text.
- No tool specifically detected problems with the methods used for reporting form validation errors to users. However, AInspector Sidebar has a wide variety of relevant issues that appear under "manual check".
- AInspector is the only tool that returns errors for missing ARIA landmark roles. It returns three violations: "All content must be contained within landmarks", "MAIN landmark: At least one", and "NAVIGATION landmark: At least one". Some may dispute whether these are valid rules.
- All tools recognized the need for alt text on the images in the carousel. However, the images are only one small problem in the overall carousel interface. No other tools identified the greater issues, nor should we expect them to. AInspector Sidebar comes closest: It returns an error "Keyboard/mouse/drag events must have a role" on all the navigation controls within the carousel, and the accompanying help text for this issue provides additional details about the need for ARIA markup.
- Tools that received a "Sort of" related to the data table issue assumed the table was a layout table since it doesn't have <th> elements. AInspector didn't make that assumption but still, its error "Identify table markup as data or layout" is similar. The two tools that received a "Yes" (aXe and Tenon) assumed (correctly) that this was a data table, and was missing <th> elements. Whether this was just a lucky guess would require further testing. However, it's plausible to automatically determine with some confidence whether a table is a layout or data table (screen readers do this fairly well).
- The need for clarifying abbreviations (e.g., with the <abbr> element) is only a Level AAA WCAG 2.0 success criterion so one can perhaps forgive all tools for failing to detect this issue. However, several of the tools claim to support Level AAA yet still didn't detect this issue. This is an instance where I wish I had been successful at running a QUAIL test, because I know QUAIL has tests for abbreviations.
Ultimately I think none of these details are really all that important. More important is whether the tool's user interface, its feature set, and its accompanying help text is effective in helping designers and developers to improve the accessibility of their websites. The tools I tested have widely different philosophies about how to accomplish that. AInspector Sidebar/FAE seems to be the most comprehensive. Its combination of violations, warnings, and manual checks covers a wide swath of web scenarios, and its help text provides more specific technical detail, including ARIA techniques, than any other tool. If users fully utilize all of this information they will likely be much better at developing accessible web applications. The question is: Is it too much? Other tools, most notably aXe and Tenon, are developed with the belief that too much information can be counterproductive. They focus on the low-hanging fruit, testing issues that can be accurately measured without overwhelming the user with false positives, duplicates, and the need to (as stated on the aXe website) "wade through reams of accessibility issues that have nothing to do with the feature you are developing".
Way back in 2002 (when Bobby was still a thing), Melody Ivory and Aline Chevalier published A Study of Automated Web Site Evaluation Tools (PDF). In their study, they asked experienced developers, most of whom had little exposure to web accessibility, to fix accessibility of five websites, using various combinations of automated assistance (no assistance, or with either the W3C HTML Validator, Bobby, LIFT (another defunct tool that was popular back then), or all three). They found that the automated evaluation tools identified more errors than designers identified without using them, but designers made more page modifications when not using the tools (they had a time limit). Also the modifications they made without the automated tools resulted in better user performance than modifications made using any of the automated tools (user performance was measured subsequently with a sample of users with and without disabilities). Granted, this was 2002. Accessibility checkers have come a long way, as have web design and development techniques. Today's developers are accustomed to using a variety of tools, and nearly all of the checkers I tested have APIs that enable them to be seamlessly integrated into developers' existing toolsets. It would be interesting to replicate this earlier study with a more contemporary set of tools, larger sample of developers, and better controls for prior accessibility knowledge and experience. To my knowledge nobody has done such a study.
Meanwhile, I think web accessibility checkers have a place in our overall accessibility strategy, but perhaps it's a relatively minor place. We certainly should not depend on them. In order to truly understand the issues surrounding the web pages we're developing today, which include dropdown menus, carousels, and other complex interactive widgets, there's no substitute for designers and developers learning all they can about accessibility techniques. Automated accessibility checkers can help a little with that, but we need to appreciate their limitations.