Automated web accessibility testing tools have been found complementary. The implication: To catch as many issues as possible, use multiple tools. Doing this efficiently entails integration costs. Is there a small set of tools that, together, make additional tools redundant? I approach this problem by comparing nine comprehensive accessibility testing tools that are amenable to integration: alfa, axe-core, Continuum, Equal Access, HTML CodeSniffer, Nu Html Checker, QualWeb, Tenon, and WAVE. I tested 121 web pages of interest to CVS Health with these tools. Each tool only fractionally duplicated any other tool. Each discovered numerous issue instances missed by all the others. Thus, testing with all nine tools was substantially more informative than testing with any subset.
翻译：自动化网络无障碍测试工具已被发现互补。这意味着为了尽可能多地捕捉问题，需要使用多个工具。高效地进行这项工作涉及到集成成本。是否有一小组工具，一起使用可以避免使用其他工具？我通过比较九种可集成的全面无障碍测试工具：alfa、axe-core、Continuum、Equal Access、HTML CodeSniffer、Nu Html Checker、QualWeb、Tenon和WAVE来解决这个问题。我通过使用这些工具测试CVS Health感兴趣的121个网页。每个工具只有一小部分会与其他工具重复。每个工具发现了其他所有工具遗漏的众多问题。因此，使用所有九种工具的测试比任何子集的测试都更加有价值。
相关内容
微信扫码咨询专知VIP会员