英文:

Accessibility Tools/Services to Scan for WCAG 2.1 Level AAA Website Issues

问题

我使用过像UsableNet这样的工具来扫描WCAG 2.1 Level AA（以及像Siteimprove这样的工具来检查文本的阅读年龄级别等问题），但现在我想再进一步，扫描WCAG 2.1 Level AAA的问题。然而，我还没有找到可以做到这一点的工具或服务。

我确实找到了这个链接：https://tetralogical.com/blog/2021/12/09/testing-wcag-level-aaa/

它说：

> 大多数可用于自动化或手动测试的工具只涵盖Level A和Level AA的标准。

我唯一的一点希望是它说的是“大多数工具”，而不是“所有工具”。

是否有工具或服务可以扫描并显示Level AAA级别的问题（无论是针对特定网页还是整个网站）？

英文:

I've used tools like UsableNet to scan for WCAG 2.1 Level AA (and tools like Siteimprove to check for things like reading age levels for text), but now I'm looking to go a step further and scan for issues as part of WCAG 2.1 Level AAA. However, I haven't found any tools/services that do that.

I did come across this: https://tetralogical.com/blog/2021/12/09/testing-wcag-level-aaa/

And it says:

> Most tools available for automated or manual testing only cover Level A and Level AA criteria.

My one bit of hope is that is says "most tools" and not "all tools".

Is there a tool/service that will scan for and surface the level AAA issues (either on a specific webpage or an entire website)?

答案1

得分: 2

W3C在https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/上列出了一些辅助工具。目前有166个工具可供选择。它们有一些筛选选项，但其中一个选项不是按照WCAG等级来筛选，所以你无法只查看AAA级别的工具。但是，在页面上简单搜索“AAA”会显示一些工具。

更新，基于评论：

不幸的是，你选择的工具似乎是一种“叠加”工具，它声称可以用“一行代码”来修复你的网站（他们的营销口号，https://www.equally.ai/interface）。没有工具能够完全修复所有无障碍问题，修复无障碍问题需要人类。寻找无障碍问题也需要人类。

扫描工具可以帮助寻找无障碍问题，尽管来自扫描工具的所有结果都必须仔细检查以排除虚假阳性。不要假设扫描工具的结果是绝对可靠的，即使这个工具来自一个有声誉的公司。

很多WCAG标准都非常主观，不可能构建一个可以做主观决策的工具。

例如，WCAG 2.4.6 标题和标签

>“标题和标签描述主题或目的。”

工具能否决定标题（

、

等）或标签（、aria-label）是否足够描述了元素？绝对不能。没有办法让工具分析部分内容然后决定标题是否准确地描述了那个部分。

所以，如果工具不能检测标题或标签是否具有描述性，那么工具如何能够用“一行代码”修复这些问题？

那么简单一点的准则呢？WCAG 1.1.1 非文本内容

>“向用户呈现的所有非文本内容都必须具有为之提供等效目的的文本替代内容，除非下列情况...”

大多数扫描工具使用这个准则的简单解释，并表示元素必须具有alt属性。关于alt文本的HTML规范要复杂一些。

然而，假设工具使用了简单的解释，能否扫描所有元素并查看alt属性是否存在？当然可以。它可以警告你缺少吗？当然可以，尽管根据规范的说明，有一些情况下你不需要alt。

工具能否决定图像是装饰性的还是信息性的？也就是说，alt的值是否可以为空字符串“”或具有空值，或者是否应该描述图像？绝对不能。

所以，如果工具无法弄清楚这一点，那么工具如何能够修复你的图像？它会注入图像的描述吗？

抱歉这里说了这么多。扫描工具在寻找无障碍问题方面可能非常有帮助，但扫描工具在可以发现的问题方面非常有限。好的扫描工具可能只能找到大约20%的无障碍问题。那么剩下可能存在的80%问题呢？那需要一个精通无障碍测试的人类。

所以，如果扫描工具成功有限，你认为是否存在一个工具可以实际修复无障碍问题？

请随时使用你选择的工具来扫描问题，以便你可以修复你的代码。但不要依赖工具来神奇地为你修复问题，尤其是当它们要收取每月订阅费时。

以下是一些关于“叠加”工具的其他文章，这些工具声称可以自动修复问题：

• https://overlayfactsheet.com/
• https://overlayfalseclaims.com/
• https://www.lflegal.com/2020/08/quick-fix/
• https://adrianroselli.com/2020/06/accessibe-will-get-you-sued.html
• https://www.tpgi.com/accessibility-overlays-in-digital-content/
• https://www.tpgi.com/bolt-on-accessibility-5-gears-in-reverse/
• https://www.lflegal.com/2020/09/audioeye-vs-accessibe/
• https://www.a11yproject.com/posts/should-i-use-an-accessibility-overlay/
• https://www.boia.org/blog/if-your-accessibility-solution-can-be-turned-off-and-on-youve-got-an-accessibility-problem
• https://shouldiuseanaccessibilityoverlay.com/

英文:

The W3C has a list of accessibility tools on https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/. There are currently 166 tools listed, so plenty to pick from. They have some filters but one of them is not by WCAG level so you can't view just AAA tools. But doing a simple text search of "AAA" on the page shows a few.

Update, based on comment:

Unfortunately, the tool you picked looks like an "overlay", which purports to fix your website with "one line of code" (their marketing line, https://www.equally.ai/interface). There is 0% chance that a tool can fix all accessibility issues. Fixing accessibility issues requires a human being. Finding accessibility issues requires a human being.

Scanning tools help find accessibility issues, although all results from a scanning tool must be scrutinized for false positives. Do not assume scanning tool results of infallible, even if the tool comes from a reputable company.

A lot of WCAG is very subjective and it's impossible to build a tool that can make subjective decisions.

For example, WCAG 2.4.6 Headings and Labels

>"Headings and labels describe topic or purpose."

Can a tool decide if a heading (<h1>, <h2>, etc) or a label (<label>, aria-label) describes the element sufficiently? Absolutely not. There's no way a tool can analyze the content of a section and then decide if the heading accurately describes that section.

So if a tool cannot detect if a heading or label is descriptive or not, how can a tool fix those issues with "one line of code"?

What about an easier guideline? WCAG 1.1.1 Non-text Content

>"All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose, except for the situations listed below..."

Most scanning tools use a simple interpretation of that guideline and say that <img> elements must have an alt attribute. The HTML spec regarding the alt text is a bit more complicated.

However, let's say the tool uses the simple interpretation. Can a tool scan for all <img> elements and see if the alt attributes exists? Absolutely. Can it warn you that it's missing? Absolutely, although it should be a warning and not an error since as mentioned in the spec, there are cases where you don't need alt.

Can a tool decide if an image is decorative or informative? That is, can the value of alt be an empty string, "", or have a null value, or should it describe the image? No way.

So if a tool can't figure that out, how can a tool fix your images? What is it going to inject as a description of the image?

Sorry for the long diatribe here. Scanning tools can be quite helpful in finding accessibility issues but scanning tools are very limited in what they can find. Good scanning tools can find maybe 20% of your accessibility issues. What about the other potential 80% of issues that might exist? That requires a human being - one well-versed in testing for accessibility.

So if a scanning tool has very limited success, do you think a tool can exist to actually fix accessibility issues?

Feel free to use the tool you chose to scan for issues so that you can fix your code. But do not rely on a tool to magically fix issues for you, especially when they charge a monthly subscription to do so.

Here are some other articles regarding "overlay" tools, which again are tools that purport to automatically fix issues for you:

• https://overlayfactsheet.com/

• https://overlayfalseclaims.com/

• https://www.lflegal.com/2020/08/quick-fix/

• https://adrianroselli.com/2020/06/accessibe-will-get-you-sued.html

• https://www.tpgi.com/accessibility-overlays-in-digital-content/

• https://www.tpgi.com/bolt-on-accessibility-5-gears-in-reverse/

• https://www.lflegal.com/2020/09/audioeye-vs-accessibe/

• https://www.a11yproject.com/posts/should-i-use-an-accessibility-overlay/

• https://www.boia.org/blog/if-your-accessibility-solution-can-be-turned-off-and-on-youve-got-an-accessibility-problem

• https://shouldiuseanaccessibilityoverlay.com/

答案2

得分: 0

我可以热情推荐工具的组合，因为它们都专注于不同的方面，或者在不同的情况下使用效果最佳。

我主要使用以下这些：

1. https://wave.webaim.org/：它是免费的，非常准确，界面也很好，非常适合开发人员、内容创作者和编辑使用，用户友好。
2. https://www.totalvalidator.com/index.html：这是一个非常好的高级工具，还可以执行批量检查和站点爬取。
3. 在 macOS 上，使用 VoiceOver 来测试屏幕阅读器的体验。
4. 用于检查代码的 https://pa11y.org/ 可以在构建流水线中进行集成，进行自动化检查，只需一些小的努力即可。
5. 浏览器中的 Lighthouse。
6. 有时还会在浏览器中使用 Chrome 的附加组件 Axe。

英文:

I can warmly recommend a combination of tools, since all of them focus on different aspects, or are best used in different situations.

I'm mostly using these:

1. https://wave.webaim.org/: It's free, very accurate and has a good interface, making it very user-friendly for as well developers as content creators and editors.
2. https://www.totalvalidator.com/index.html: A very good advanced tool, that can perform also batch checking & site crawling.
3. On macOS use VoiceOver for testing screen reader experience.
4. For checking the code, https://pa11y.org/ can be - with some minor effort - nicely integrated into a build pipeline for automated checking
5. Lighthouse in the browser
6. sometimes also Axe in the browser as Chrome add-on.