"Web-Stack" developer with a focus on accessibility design and development patterns, data visualization and DevOps automation.
Fell in love with Node, JS, SPA's and the JAMStack. Bye LAMP.
When looking for a web accessibility tool, check out this testing page by the UK Government.
This completely inaccessible page is chock-full of 143 accessibility errors and lets you benchmark your Accessibility tools' effectiveness. We made a custom fork of this at work to use for benchmarking tools.
WAVE by WebAIM is okay but there are better tools that scored higher for more coverage like Tenon or Asqatasun for checking during CI/CD pipes.
Not all tools are made equal so it's important to see which tool works best for you!
Those are great suggestions. I normally use Wave, but I have used Tenon too (I need to try Asqatasun).
I always tell people that their results must be taken with a grain of salt, as they mostly check the "technical parts" and miss many real issues (like some on the site that you linked, that would require a more "personal" approach), and many others are overzealous reporting things that could be considered false positives (which could be overwhelming, especially when you are beginning).
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
When looking for a web accessibility tool, check out this testing page by the UK Government.
This completely inaccessible page is chock-full of 143 accessibility errors and lets you benchmark your Accessibility tools' effectiveness. We made a custom fork of this at work to use for benchmarking tools.
WAVE by WebAIM is okay but there are better tools that scored higher for more coverage like Tenon or Asqatasun for checking during CI/CD pipes.
Not all tools are made equal so it's important to see which tool works best for you!
Those are great suggestions. I normally use Wave, but I have used Tenon too (I need to try Asqatasun).
I always tell people that their results must be taken with a grain of salt, as they mostly check the "technical parts" and miss many real issues (like some on the site that you linked, that would require a more "personal" approach), and many others are overzealous reporting things that could be considered false positives (which could be overwhelming, especially when you are beginning).