Silk Tide accessibility test
I found this on my daily trawl:
Anyone come across it yet? Is it worth paying any attention to its results?
It was interesting but as for the accuracy of the results it was way-out I tested http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/beck/ and it said I used too much images and no CSS and it ranked my mirror site at "9000 in the world" and it isn't even viewable to public so again it was highly inaccurate.
I also tested http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/worthvalley/ and got these laughable results:
"This website appears to be in violation of the British Disability Discrimination Act"
"3 pages were found not using CSS (Cascading Style Sheets)"
Also the results they spat out contradicted themselves and obviously they do not understand the British DDA as it went into effect a while-back not this October, October 2004 was for accessible building regulations not websites, website regulation was long ago.
Does that answer you question it's mainly a sales gimmick which is inaccurate and abusing some peoples lack of knowledge on accessibility.
Yeah, when I tested my websites it said there were forms found on my page (they said this is always a good thing!?!?), which is total baloney because there weren't. Just wanted other peoples opinion.
Oh and their css didn't validate so they can't be that bothered about sticking to standards !
Well, I tested my no-ip account, so of course it ranted about my popularity. It claims I don't have enough images or forms, which is bull. Filling out forms sucks, and <img /> tags are... bleh. However, my features, speed, size of pages, and accessibility were all excellent, so I can't complain about it trashing anything that was fine in that aspect. One thing I must ask:
Since when has moderate profanity been a good thing, and where is this search facility? I guess that comments could be deemed a discussion forums, and blogging could be considered news, but still.
The following 4 features were specifically identified: Discussion forums, Moderate profanity, Search facility, News. Generally, our analysis detected a very positive selection of text and features.
In short, even as spiffy as it looks, and how well it rated me, I think it's bs. It's obviously not searching for the right things, and overall seems pretty weird. Interesting, but weird.
I'd agree with the bs comment.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)