For most of the summer, I've been working on some accessibility issues discovered on my library's website. (All universities are going through the process of ensuring their web presence is fully accessible.) Back in May, my colleague and I met with a member of the auditing team. After the meeting, the auditor sent us an accessibility report that had been provided from a (free) three-party vendor. Some of the things were easy fixes. Other things I used Claude's coding capabilities to help with. But the vast majority of errors on the report were either lacking context so I couldn't find the problem, not actually issues, or just plain wrong. Time and time again, I kept trying to find and fix errors that didn't exist. I went to the third-party vendor and ran our website through over and over. It kept coming back with failures. Today, I gave my colleague an update on the things I fixed, the things I thought he could fix, and the many issues that seemed unfixable. About 30 minutes later he came back with a review from a different web accessibility tool that said "Aside from this one issue, you're good! The other tool is crap." (The tool my colleague used actually showed where on the page the errors were occurring. It also differentiated between have to fix and should fix.) I 100% support being fully accessible but if you're web audit sends me an error that says fix this code "<p></p>" with no context or page link or full code snippet, you're not being helpful. I can't wait until this project is over.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |

RSS Feed