En
Automated Lies, with one line of code se da una buena explicación de los problemas o de las cosas que no hacen las herramientas automáticas de evaluación de la accesibilidad web:
It should be universally understood that automated testing tools cannot offer complete test coverage for all possible accessibility issues on the web. Therefore it stands to reason that if you cannot automatically find all your site’s accessibility issues, you certainly cannot automatically fix all of them, either. This is extraordinarily simple logic. In fact, automatically fixing issues is even less likely to be successful than finding them. This fact is demonstrated within Mallet. While Mallet is extremely good at finding & fixing some issues, it is still limited to around 2-dozen types of ‘fixes’ that work on their own without any configuration. The remainder of Mallet’s fixes require some level of configuration. To put this into perspective, Tenon.io has approximately 200 accessibility tests that look for around 2500 different failure conditions. In other words, we can easily find at least 10x as many issues as we can reliably fix, because fixing the issues requires far more knowledge about the user interface than an automated tool has.
Y también dice:
As always, it is important to remind the reader that there are limits to what can be discovered with automatic testing. It stands to reason that if you cannot automatically test for something you definitely cannot fix it, either.
- Captions/ transcripts for audio-only content or audio content in videos.
- Audio description for video content
- Content that relies on sensory characteristics to understand
- Error prevention and error handling
- Effective focus management
The above is only a subset of the many things in web accessibility that cannot be accurately tested via automated means. Many of them are hugely impactful for people with disabilities.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario