In a governmental health care project, we had both an accessibility consultant and a blind person evaluating a website. The accessibility expert ran the site through a systematic validation and found "6 priority 1 errors" and "8 priority 2 errors." This gave the site the lowest evaluation possible: "A bad website in terms of accessibility." Our blind accessibility tester evaluated the site with his screen reader and was fairly pleased. He praised the site for being well-structured and didn't find any severe accessibility problems, though he had problems here and there. While the outcomes of the two tests were disturbingly different, it was even more disturbing that most of the problems that the blind tester found didn't attract the attention of the accessibility consultant.
So well... What does that tell us, hm?
similar entries (vs):
similar entries (cg):no similar entries (yet?)