A Holistic Approach To Web Usability, Accessibility And Interoperability: Tools That Can Help

1. Talk 2 http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/ili-2005/workshop/ A Holistic Approach To Web Usability, Accessibility And Interoperability:Tools That Can Help The talk in which we describe some of the tools which can help us to identify problems and potential examples of 'Web rage' Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath Email: B.Kelly@ukoln.ac.uk UKOLN is supported by:

2. Background • Problems • You've identified some problem areas for users of Web sites: • Functionality – it doesn't work • Usability – it's difficult for me 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

3. Useful tools: • W3C's HTML validator: can spot functionality & accessibility problems • W3C's CSS validator • RSS validator (if you have an RSS newsfeed) • … Tools: Functionality (1) Tools • HTML, CSS, … Validation: • Web page doesn't look right in my browser • First thing: validate page!

4. 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? • What to do with large no. of errors?

5. 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

6. http://www.wave.webaim.org/ http://webxact.watchfire.com/ The WAVE is one other alternative Tools: Accessibility Tools • Many accessibility testing tools are available WebXact (formally known as Bobby) is probably the best known • NOTES • Automated tools can't detect all (many?) accessibility problems • Findings from tools can be inconsistent • Underlying WAI guidelines are open to interpretation

7. 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 page • Simple to implement – see QA Focus briefing no. 59 Tools: ,validate ,rvalidate ,checklink ,rchecklink ,cssvalidate …

8. Checky allows: • Validation • Link checking • Access to misc tools These tools are very useful and their use by all is strongly encouraged 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

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Conclusions • To conclude: • Tools can help in identifying problems areas • However tools may be flawed and inconsistent • In order to make tools easier to use they can be accessed: (a) using a URL interface or (b) within the browser • Systematic use as part of a QA framework is desirable

13. Questions • Any questions or comments? • Issues • How useful are the tools? • What are their limitations? • What else is needed?