Testverfahren in Europa
Unterschiedliche Ansätze zur Prüfung der Barrierefreiheit - ein Kurzvergleich


Wo stehen andere Organisationen in Europa, die die Barrierefreiheit von Webangeboten prüfen? BIK stellte siebzehn Fragen und veröffentlicht nun die eingegangenen Antworten.

Die Antworten von bisher sieben Organisationen geben einen Eindruck von den unterschiedlichen Ansätzen. Da BIK zur Zeit den BITV-Test in Anpassung an die bevorstehende Novellierung der BITV überarbeitet, interessierte uns besonders, welchen Weg die anderen Organisationen bei der Überarbeitung ihrer eigenen Verfahren eingeschlagen haben.

Teilgenommen haben bisher:

Die Ergebnisse sind nachzulesen im Artikel A snapshot review of web accessibility testing approaches.

Wir nehmen gerne weiterere Organisationen in Europa, die Tests auf Barrierefreiheit durchführen, in diesen Überblick auf. Senden Sie uns einfach Ihre (möglichst englischen) Antworten auf diese siebzehn Fragen:

  1. Is there a reference or a clear mapping to WCAG checkpoints or the UWEM methodology?
  2. What is the status of the approach regarding WCAG 2.0? Is the evaluation procedure being overhauled to reflect changing requirements?
  3. Is a pre-audit carried out to filter sites before they are evaluated?
  4. Is there a documentation of test steps?
  5. Is there documentation on the required qualification of testers?
  6. Is there an element of verification / quality control of tests carried out, especially manual tests? If so, how is it documented?
  7. Is there a documentation of the tests carried out (public or confidential) including the ranking decisions per checkpoint?
  8. Are there instructions as to the required sample size for web site testing (number of pages, mandatory inclusions of pages).
  9. In manual checks, are there detailed instructions per checkpoint referring to test tools such as browser web accessibility bars?
  10. Is there information on the share of automatic and manual (expert) testing and the way they may be used in combination?
  11. Is testing browser-based only, or is assistive technology or other user agents (e.g. mobile phones or PDAs) used during evaluation?
  12. Is the method of assessment or ranking documented / transparent?
  13. Are usability aspects included in accessibility testing?
  14. What levels of compliance are provided to sites tested? Do they map onto other schemes (such as the A - AA - AAA of the WCAG)?
  15. Are there elements that ensure the sustainability of results, such as requirements for repeat checks or other linked activities, e.g. for training online editors?
  16. Is the method linked to some sort of quality seal? If so, is the issuing of the seal limited to a particular period or tied to activities aimed at ensuring sustainability?
  17. Is the approach publicly funded or offered as a commercial service (or is it a mix of both)?