Ensuring digital content is accessible to everyone, including individuals with disabilities, is not just a matter of social responsibility—it’s a legal requirement. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act mandates accessibility for federal agencies’ electronic and information technology. To navigate this complex landscape, organizations rely on 508 Scanning Tools to evaluate and remediate accessibility barriers efficiently. These tools are indispensable for website owners, developers, and content creators aiming for digital inclusivity and compliance.
This article delves into the world of 508 scanning tools, providing a comprehensive guide to understanding, selecting, and effectively utilizing them. We will explore the capabilities and limitations of automated testing, crucial technical requirements, the significance of ruleset validation, and how to integrate these tools into a holistic accessibility strategy. Whether you are new to digital accessibility or seeking to optimize your compliance process, this guide offers valuable insights to leverage 508 scanning tools for a more accessible digital world.
Understanding Automated 508 Testing
Automated 508 scanning tools are software applications designed to automatically analyze digital content, such as websites, documents, and applications, against the Revised 508 Standards. These standards are based on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and outline specific technical criteria for accessibility. By employing these tools, organizations can efficiently assess large volumes of content, identify potential accessibility violations, and gain insights into their overall compliance posture.
However, it’s critical to recognize that automated testing is not a complete solution. While 508 scanning tools excel at identifying structural and technical accessibility issues, they have limitations in assessing subjective aspects of accessibility and context-dependent requirements. These limitations include:
- Subjectivity and Context: Automated tools struggle with subjective criteria that require human judgment, such as the meaningfulness of alternative text for images or the clarity of website navigation.
- False Positives and Negatives: Depending on their configuration, tools may generate false positives (flagging issues that are not actual violations) or false negatives (missing genuine accessibility barriers).
- Limited Scope: Some tools may only test for a subset of the 508 requirements, especially when configured to minimize false positives.
- Content Behind Authentication: Server-based automated scanners may face challenges accessing content secured behind firewalls or password protection.
To maximize the value of 508 scanning tools, it is essential to understand their strengths and weaknesses. Agencies and organizations should strategically select tools that align with their specific requirements and expectations, focusing on tools with clearly defined and quantified rule sets. The key to success lies in fostering adoption across relevant roles, including UX designers and developers, ensuring that the chosen tools support a broad understanding and implementation of accessibility best practices.
Key Features of Effective 508 Scanning Tools
When considering 508 scanning tools, several technical and support service requirements are paramount to ensure effective and comprehensive accessibility testing.
Technical Requirements
The technical capabilities of a 508 scanning tool directly impact its effectiveness and usability within an organization’s workflow. Here are crucial technical requirements to evaluate:
- Content Type and Volume Coverage: Assess the tool’s ability to scan the variety and volume of electronic content your organization produces. Many tools specialize in web pages, but comprehensive solutions should also support PDF documents, Microsoft Office files, and other relevant formats.
- Customizable Scanning and Rulesets: The tool should allow customization of scanning parameters and test rulesets. This flexibility is crucial for tailoring the tool to specific agency needs and focusing on relevant accessibility criteria.
- Centralized Custom Ruleset Management: For consistency and efficiency, the tool should support a centralized custom ruleset that can be applied across all tool features. This ensures uniform testing standards throughout the organization.
- Ruleset Version Control: Administrative control over ruleset versions and their deployment to users from a central location is essential for managing updates and maintaining consistent testing standards.
- Local PC Scanning: The ability to scan code on a local PC is vital for supporting full compliance assessments within designer and developer unit-test environments, enabling early detection and remediation of accessibility issues.
- Error and Remediation Message Control: The tool should allow control and synchronization of error and remediation messages presented to users, particularly for customized rules. This ensures clear and consistent guidance for developers and content creators.
- False Positive Management: Effective tools should provide mechanisms to flag false positives and prevent their recurrence in subsequent test results. This reduces noise and focuses remediation efforts on genuine accessibility barriers.
- Issue Categorization: The tool should categorize issues by type, frequency, and severity. This allows for prioritized remediation efforts, focusing on the most critical and prevalent accessibility violations.
- Scan Configuration and Scheduling: Features for configuring, scheduling, and suspending scans, adjusting scan rates, and restarting scans in progress are important for managing testing workflows efficiently.
- Ruleset Customization for Accuracy: Full customization of evaluation rulesets is necessary to address inaccurate interpretations of requirements or to reduce false positives, ensuring the tool aligns with specific organizational needs.
- Exclusion Capabilities: Support for excluding specific domains, URL trees, pages, or sets of lines is essential for focusing scans on relevant content and avoiding unnecessary processing.
- Browser Emulation: The tool should emulate multiple browsers during scans to identify browser-specific accessibility issues and ensure broad compatibility.
- Contextually Relevant Remediation Guidance: Providing direct users to specific code locations generating errors and offering contextually relevant remediation guidance are crucial for efficient issue resolution.
- Reporting and Integration: Customizable summary and detailed reports are needed to monitor 508 conformance, analyze trends, and export results to external reporting tools. Integration with test automation environments (Dev/Ops) is increasingly important for seamless accessibility validation within development pipelines.
- Accessible System and Report Outputs: Paradoxically, the testing tool itself and its reports must be accessible to comply with Section 508. Ensure the tool produces accessible outputs for users of assistive technologies.
Support Services Requirements
Beyond technical features, the support services offered by a 508 scanning tool vendor are crucial for successful implementation and ongoing usability. Consider these support service requirements:
- Installation, Configuration, and Customization: Vendor support for installation, configuration, validation, and customization of 508 test rulesets, scans, and reporting capabilities is essential for smooth deployment.
- Integration Assistance: Support for integrating 508 scanning tools, reporting, and monitoring capabilities into existing test automation environments is critical for streamlined workflows.
- Training Resources: Comprehensive training resources, including online self-paced training for various roles (web content managers, developers, QA testers, project managers, tool administrators), are necessary for user adoption and effective tool utilization.
- Ongoing Operations & Maintenance Support: Reliable operations and maintenance support, including ongoing configuration and customization assistance, ensures the tool remains effective and up-to-date over time.
Validating Rulesets for Accuracy
Validating rulesets is a critical step in ensuring the reliability and accuracy of 508 scanning tools. A ruleset defines the criteria against which the tool evaluates content. Accurate rulesets are paramount for generating meaningful and trustworthy test results. Validation helps limit defects unrelated to Section 508, avoids issues not aligned with an organization’s testing methodology, and minimizes false positives and negatives.
Follow these steps to validate rulesets for automated web accessibility testing tools:
-
Assess Predefined Rulesets: Determine if separate rulesets exist for different content types (web pages, documents, etc.). You may need to adjust rulesets for different Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Different technologies like HTML, CSS, and JavaScript may require specific rules. Look for predefined settings labeled “WCAG 2.0 Level AA Success Criteria” or “Section 508,” which should test all WCAG Level A and AA criteria included in the Revised Section 508 requirements applicable to web content supported by the tool. Be aware that some tools may include tests beyond Section 508, such as WCAG 2.0 AAA or accessibility best practices, which may flag failures that are not strictly Section 508 violations.
-
Review Tool Documentation: Thoroughly examine vendor documentation to understand the purpose, scope, and applicability of each rule within a ruleset. Note that some rules may not fully test a specific Success Criterion. For example, while a rule might check for the presence of alternative text for an image, it may not assess if that text is truly equivalent in purpose to the image.
-
Explore Customization Options: Verify the tool allows customization of rulesets, including adding, modifying, or disabling rules. This adaptability is crucial for tailoring the ruleset to agency-specific needs and addressing issues identified during validation.
-
Assess Ruleset Reliability and Accuracy: Evaluate each ruleset’s reliability, accuracy, and alignment with agency requirements and testing methodologies.
a. Identify the Ruleset: Select the ruleset to assess (e.g., Section 508, WCAG 2.0 AA).
b. Identify Agency Testing Criteria: Determine the specific agency testing methodology/criteria to test the tool rule(s) against (e.g., Test 1-Images).
c. Identify Relevant Rules: Locate all rules within the tool that apply to the identified agency testing criteria (e.g., Rule ImgAlt111, Rule ImgTitle111).
d. Select a Rule to Test: Choose a specific rule to test (e.g., Rule ImgAlt111).
e. Create or Select Test Cases: Develop sufficient test cases or code samples. These do not need to be complex; small code snippets illustrating pass, fail, and not applicable scenarios are usually sufficient. Ensure test cases clearly demonstrate how well the rule aligns with the expected outcome. Include multiple ways to pass and fail a test. Uniquely identify each test case (pass, fail, not applicable) to quantify alignment as testing progresses.
f. Document Test Cases: For each test case, document:
i. Tool ruleset name and version.
ii. Agency testing methodology/criteria.
iii. Rule name and version within the tool.
iv. Description of the test case and expected outcome (pass, fail, not applicable).
v. Test case code or link.-
Example Fail Test Case:
i. Tool ruleset name: WCAG 2.0 AA v 8.2
ii. Agency testing criteria: Test 1-Images: Meaningful images must have equivalent text description.
iii. Rule name: ImgAlt_title_111 v8.2
iv. Fail test case: Meaningful image missing text alternative.
v. Test case code:<h1>This is a meaningful image of agency logo</h1> <img alt="" src="http://GSAagencylogo.jpeg"></img> -
Example Pass Test Case:
i. Tool ruleset name: WCAG 2.0 AA v8.2
ii. Agency testing criteria: Test 1-Images: Meaningful images must have equivalent text description.
iii. Rule name: ImgAlt_title_111 v8.2
iv. Pass test case: Meaningful image with alternative text.
v. Test case code:<h1>This is a meaningful image of agency logo</h1> <img alt="General Services Administration starmark logo" src="http://GSAagencylogo.jpeg"></img>g. Perform Tool Test: Run the selected 508 scanning tool against the test case.
h. Compare Results to Manual Testing: Compare the tool’s results to manual test results validated by senior subject matter experts trained in manual accessibility testing. If the tool outcome aligns with the expected test case outcome, the rule is likely reliable and can be included in the ruleset. Test the rule against all possible pass, fail, and not applicable scenarios before inclusion.
i. Address Misaligned Outcomes: If the tool’s outcome does not align with the test case, flag the rule for disabling or customization to avoid false results. Obtain developer assistance to customize the rule for improved reliability in your environment.
j. Iterative Testing: After creating an initial ruleset framework, test it by scanning multiple sites or applications to identify false positives and negatives. Disable inaccurate rules or customize them for better reliability.
k. Repeat Testing: Continue steps 4a-4h until you achieve a ruleset with an acceptable level of accuracy for your environment.
l. Integrate Ruleset: Once a reliable ruleset is established, integrate it into automated developer unit testing and relevant IT lifecycle activities.
m. Evaluate Ruleset Coverage: Determine gaps in Section 508 requirements that the automated tool cannot test. These requirements must be addressed through manual testing.
n. Regularly Review and Update: Periodically review and update the ruleset to align with agency testing methodologies, technology updates, tool changes, and best practices.
o. Provide Training: Train the accessibility testing team and other tool users on the tool’s rulesets and settings for effective and accurate use.
p. Create Documentation: Develop comprehensive documentation detailing the rulesets and settings used, including instructions on usage, customization, and results interpretation.
-
Configuring Scans and Reports
Effective use of 508 scanning tools requires careful configuration of scans and reports to align with organizational needs and reporting requirements.
Configure Scans
Several factors should be considered when configuring scans:
- Firewall Restrictions: Account for firewall restrictions that may prevent the tool from accessing certain content.
- Scan Depth: Define the scan depth to control how far into a website or application the tool explores.
- Results Aggregation: Determine how scan results should be aggregated for reporting and analysis.
- Server Capacity and Scan Time: Consider server capacity and the expected time required to complete scans, especially for large volumes of content.
- Scan Control: Ensure the ability to abort and restart scans, providing flexibility in managing testing processes.
- Warning Elimination: Configure the tool to eliminate rulesets that only generate warnings if these are not relevant to your compliance goals, focusing on actionable errors.
- Safe Harbor Provision: The tool should ideally identify content subject to the safe harbor provision. Content conforming to the Original 508 Standards and unaltered since January 18, 2018, may not need to conform to the Revised 508 Standards (legacy content).
Configure Reports
Reporting is a crucial output of 508 scanning tools, providing insights for different stakeholders. Configure reports based on:
- Target Audiences: Tailor reports to the specific needs of different audiences, such as web managers, program managers, and executive managers.
- Reporting Scope: Define the scope of reporting, including issue descriptions, categories, impact, priority, solution recommendations, and code locations.
- Reporting Format: Choose appropriate reporting formats, such as single scan views, comparisons against previous scans, trend highlighting, and identification of significant positive and negative changes in accessibility compliance.
Integrating with Manual and Hybrid Testing
While 508 scanning tools offer significant advantages for efficiency and coverage, they are not a replacement for manual testing. A hybrid testing approach, combining automated and manual methods, is generally the most effective solution for comprehensive 508 compliance.
- Manual Testing Importance: Manual testing by accessibility experts and users with disabilities is crucial for evaluating subjective aspects of accessibility and ensuring real-world usability. Follow established manual testing guidelines for thorough evaluations.
- Hybrid Approach Best Practices:
- Accessibility Built-In: Ensure developers integrate accessibility considerations into code from the beginning of the development lifecycle.
- Prioritize Manual Testing for New Content: Whenever feasible, conduct manual testing before publishing new content to catch and resolve accessibility issues proactively.
- Automated Tools for Initial Screening: Use standalone automated tools to identify obvious errors and augment manual testing efforts, streamlining the initial assessment process.
- DevOps Integration: Integrate automated rulesets into developer operations to scale 508 validation for applications before release, embedding accessibility checks into the development pipeline.
- Strategic Manual Testing Focus: Utilize automated scanning tools to assess large volumes of content and periodically conduct manual testing on high-priority published content, particularly content with poor scan results and high user traffic.
By strategically combining the efficiency of 508 scanning tools with the depth and nuance of manual testing, organizations can achieve robust and sustainable digital accessibility compliance.
Related Resources
This guidance is informed by resources developed by the U.S. Federal Government Revised 508 Standards Transition Workgroup, including contributions from the U.S. Federal CIO Council Accessibility Community of Practice, the U.S. Access Board, and the General Services Administration.
Reviewed/Updated: September 2023
