Accessibility Metatesting: Comparing Nine Testing Tools

April 15, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Jonathan Robert Pool arXiv ID 2304.07591 Category cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction Cross-listed cs.SE Citations 9 Venue International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
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.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
πŸ“„ View on arXiv 🌐 View on ar5iv πŸ“‘ PDF πŸŽ‰ Report Code Found
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Human-Computer Interaction

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted