You Call <em>That</em> Web Site Testing?

Posted on July 11, 2000

in Commentary & Society

by Adrian Roselli (aardvark)

Rated 4.12 (Ratings: 7) (Add your rating)

Want more?

More articles in Commentary & Society
More articles by aardvark

Adrian Roselli

Member info | Full bio

User since: December 13, 1998

Last login: September 01, 2006

Articles written: 48

I received this spam (scroll to bottom) the other day from a company claiming to audit web sites. Unfortunately, i have no idea what they could actually audit since accessibility, usability, and compliance are not even remotely demonstrated on their own site.

So I offer up this email to you folks (with names changed to protect the offenders) in case you get the same spam. If your boss hears of this and wants to use it, or a client thinks it's worth purchasing, steer them away.

Validation can be done by the W3C validator for free, accessibility features can be tested by Bobby for free, load time can be done with a stopwatch (and that nifty IE5/win add-on that shows all the images and d/l time on a page - try it, or ImageReady, FireWorks, or many other utilities), links can be checked (and should be) by a human or any number of shareware or online utilities (search on "link checking" at download.com for some samples), and usability can be achieved through some pretty simple testing (I refer you to Jakob Nielsen, or an evolt article). You don't need to pay people without a clear understanding to do it for you.

Ultimately, as developers, we are all responsible for testing our own work. Having another set of eyes review it is good, but paying someone to do it is often pointless. Few organizations can stay on top of the technologies if all they do is test, and cultivating in-house talent is always more valuable.

And the worst thing you can do is spam a company who performs very thorough audits with auditing offers, especially when the spamming site indicates a capability on par with some low-level interns.

So I offer this poor soul up for sacrifice on the altar of evolt.org, and hope that my message can only help them see the error in their ways, and help others who neglect to test their own sites with some simple tips. Have I received a response from them you ask? Not yet. Will I? Probably not. I never do...

--------------------

I reviewed your web site to take a look at the services you offer, in particular the web site testing and validation, and was surprised to see that your own site is brimming with errors.

You note that the average Fortune 100 company web site (what about the others?) contains 13 HTML coding errors, when your own site, according to the W3C HTML validator, contains 40 basic errors including improperly nested tags, unclosed tags, unquoted attributes, two <body> tags, and even the most basic - a missing document type declaration at the start of the document. As a result, I only checked it against the HTML 4.01 Transitional specification since there is no clue what version of HTML the page is supposed to be beyond the use of a number of deprecated and proprietary tags and attributes.

In addition to that, and not covered by a software validator, are many elements that are barriers to accessibility. Section 508 of the Workforce Investment Act, enacted on August 7, 1998, requires government sites and government funded or related sites to be accessible to all users. It is conceivable that future case law will make this apply to many public sites as well (consider the AOL class-action lawsuit by blind users). Given this, your site lacks the most basic features for disabled users such as 'alt' attributes in its images, and HTML 4.01 and Web Accessibility Initiative accessibility features in your form elements.

From a usability standpoint, the lack of clear page headers and consistent navigation are just starters on the interface problems with the site. It does not work very well on most of the 80+ browsers on which I perform testing, and its page sizes go beyond the oft-cited 8 second rule, by as much as 41 seconds on a 14.4kbps connection.

I would go on, but if you have the staff to audit sites with the skill level you claim, you might want to turn them loose on your own site. As it stands, your own site does not demonstrate that your organization has the capability to perform audits to the level that we require.

Thank you for your time.

Adrian Roselli
Vice President, Interactive
Algonquin Studios
http://algonquinstudios.com
716.842.1439

> -----Original Message-----
> From: K Foo [kfoo@foo.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 9:25 PM
> To: info@algonquinstudios.com
> Subject: Web Site Testing Services
>
> Algonquin Studios,
> With the emergence of e-commerce sites and the growth of
> business performed over the web, it is critical for
> companies to have their web sites tested extensively.
> According to a study by ParaSoft, the average Web page
> operated by a Fortune 100 company contains 13 HTML coding
> errors, and link errors occur about once every four
> pages. Furthermore, Zona Research estimated that U.S.
> companies lose approximately $58 million per month in e-
> commerce sales due to Web page loading failures. Web
> sites need to be tested to ensure that they function
> correctly, are compatible over many different browser and
> operating system configurations and can handle a large
> amount of concurrent users.
> Foo, Inc. is an independent testing facility that
> specializes in web site testing and load testing
> solutions. If you would like us to send you more
> information about our web site testing and load testing
> services, please e-mail us at info@foo.com to
> receive further information about our testing services or
> visit our web site at http://www.foo.com.
>
> Thank you,
>
> K Foo
> Project Manager
> Foo, Inc.
> E-mail: kfoo@foo.com
> http://www.foo.com

A founder of evolt.org, Adrian Roselli (aardvark) is the Senior Usability Engineer at Algonquin Studios, located in Buffalo, New York.

Adrian has years of experience in graphic design, web design and multimedia design, as well as extensive experience in internet commerce and interface design and usability. He has been developing for the World Wide Web since its inception, and working the design field since 1993. Adrian is a founding member, board member, and writer to evolt.org. In addition, Adrian sits on the Digital Media Advisory Committee for a local SUNY college and a local private college, as well as the board for a local charter school.

You can see his personal portfolio at http://roselli.org/.

Adrian authored the usability case study for evolt.org in Usability: The Site Speaks for Itself, published by glasshaus. He has written three chapters for the book Professional Web Graphics for Non Designers, also published by glasshaus. Adrian also managed to get a couple chapters written (and published) for The Web Professional's Handbook before glasshaus went under. They were really quite good. You should have bought more of the books.

While you're reading, a friend of mine has just launched her site, and you should take a look. Kristen Kos, a lovely and talented actress, now has her own site with her acting resume and some new head shots.

11 comments on this article. Log in to add your comment | Rate this article:

Submitted by hackworth on July 13, 2000 - 07:18.

I'd love to read any response that you receive. That is, if you actually receive a response, which I doubt you will. You've stated your case and they're likely to ignore it and keep looking for more suckers instead...

Submitted by erika on July 14, 2000 - 00:59.

I'm not sure I understand the need to "protect the offending party."

Submitted by algrimes on July 17, 2000 - 15:44.

Yahoo! (tm) This article's been posted on webword.com. And the evolution continues...

Submitted by redfox on July 20, 2000 - 08:54.

Is this for real? I tried to find www.foo.com and just got a goto.com redirect. Maybe you put them out of business already ;)

Submitted by aardvark on July 20, 2000 - 21:36.

I can't take it anymore. People keep asking who the offending party is, and I can't justify hiding it without good reason. The email was unsolicited spam, and my reply is my reply. So:
TelSoft, Inc.

Submitted by googol on July 24, 2000 - 08:03.

Try putting Microsoft or Hewlett-Packard's homepage through the w3 validator and see what you come up with. Also, try running Data-Dimensions' URL (http://www.data-dimensions.com/home.html) through the validator. This company is regarded as the premier web site testing firm and their company is traded on the NASDAQ. They know more about web site testing than any "web developers" ever will. They also realize that using rinky-dink tools like the w3 validator are useless and wouldn't waste their time doing so. You mention staying abreast of knew technologies. Have you even heard of companies like Mercury Interactive, Segue, RSW, etc. who make REAL web site testing tools. One last comment. Mercury Interactive is a billion dollar company who develops premier web application testing tools. Put their URL (http://www.merc-int.com) through the validator. As I said, real companies use REAL tools to test their web sites and don't waste their time with the rinky-dink tools. They are more concerned with the functionality and compatibility of their web sites and will perform those types of tests (which are the important ones). Please, don't soley rely on W3 Validator, or other robots for web site testing and remember developers develop and they should not test.

Submitted by aardvark on July 24, 2000 - 08:27.

I am familiar with the other companies you cite, and I am aware that their sites generally do not validate. The assertion that they know more about web site testing than any developer is both flawed and not backed up in any way. They have to have been developers at some point in order to understand both the specs and the necessary trade-offs. If a company offers web site audits and does not include HTML validation in the scope of the check, they are not performing a thorough audit. To say otherwise is to deny the need for compliant code and promote the use of proprietary tags and poor coding. This, ultimately, leads to more browser incompatibilities.

And yes, I am familiar with the site testing companies you cite as well, and they are not the subject of this piece. Whether or not they are worth millions or billions is irrelevant to me if they cannot audit a site properly.

Your assertion that the W3C validator is a "rinky-dink" tool, while "real" companies use "real" tools is also flawed. The W3C validator is the first step toward validating a page; they defined the specs, so who better to validate adherence? There are many other tools that can be used, and should be used. Many of them also involve browser testing (see the evolt.org browser archive, which I provided to evolt.org). All developers should test as they go, and all testers should have developer experience.

Finally, I appreciate your need to validate my site via the 8 different emails and other cross-posts with which you have spammed my company, and I appreciate your passion on this topic, but when you spam me and I cannot reply to your email account without it bouncing, I can only wonder if you would take the time to sit back and consider the need for HTML validation in any audit.

Submitted by googol on July 24, 2000 - 09:01.

Since the W3C validator is the first step toward validating a page; they defined the specs, why does your page and your client pages contain errors resulting from this test? Should you inform you clients that the page you developed does not meet the W3C validator standard? Maybe you should not release a site to your customers until it passes what you deem (WS3 Validator)as a valid test? Yes, HTML validation is needed, however, most sites, like your own and your customers will display correctly without error, but will not pass the validator.

Submitted by aardvark on July 24, 2000 - 09:12.

I tried to reply to your Netmechanic (a bot) forced subscriptions, as well as your other messages. They all bounced. So instead I will include the reply here. I understand your need to discredit me as the author of this article to bolster your points, but I think with careful review of our reasons, and the few sites that have not been modified by clients, you will see compliance to the specs. Ultimately, this is not about the clients anyway, or me, or anyone else you cited. This is about the company cited above. The email:

While I appreciate your efforts to show that some of our client sites do not conform to the specs, you should also note that we did *not* perform web development for the clients you cite. If you read the task note on the clients page, we provided consulting services in both cases.

For ClientLogic, we told them of the problems with their site after performing an audit, but their agency did not follow all our recommendations.

For ChoiceOne, we had no part in their site development (although we did perform a basic audit). We worked with them on their internet services strategy.

You will also note that the only 'errors' in the Algonquin Studios page are the use of the margin attributes in the <body>, which is something I chose to allow, and the use of the 'lang' attribute in the meta tags, something which is actually suggested by Web Accessibility Initiative. So no, I did not rely on the validator to tell me how to code the site, but instead to make sure the code was good despite my desire to use those two attributes.

Also, please do not attempt to subscribe me to any newsletters. I get enough email as it is.

shits and giggles....

Submitted by aardvark on March 19, 2002 - 10:51.

Just re-discovered this article. It's been nearly two years now, and guess what? Their site is still a fine collection of errors and usability failures. Oh well, at least they're using 'alt' attributes now.

Problem with post title

Submitted by Xanadu on September 14, 2005 - 13:06.

<p>In Evolt 3.0 the post title shows the HTML tags used for emphasis around the word "That".</p>

Start of page header

Other Fine Evolt.org Sites

Navigation Starts

Submit

Article Categories

Highest rated articles

Recent comments

Main Page Content

You Call <em>That</em> Web Site Testing?

Want more?

Adrian Roselli

shits and giggles....

Problem with post title