UsableNet AQA

Pros

We were able to deploy an internal instance to test products on our internal servers. We can also use the browser extension for quick tests.

Cons

We had some issues deploying the internal instance - but the team is very responsive and helpful.

Alternatives Considered

Reasons for Switching to UsableNet AQA

Pros

AQA allows us to carry out accessibility audits of our web platforms pretty painlessly. I love how it steps you through the manual checks and also shows you visually exactly where errors appear on the page. Having the 'auto only' options is great too. The reporting options are excellent, particularly the one for stakeholders showing an overall accessibility score and a summary of issues, and the one for dev teams with links into the tool for every issue. It's also really helpful to see the issues shown on a complexity/severity chart – super useful.

Cons

There are some elements we feel could be improved, which the team at UsableNet are always interested in hearing about and will work on improvements if they can. It would also be great if we could run our own tests on native apps, but I know this is a little more tricky!

Alternatives Considered

Reasons for Switching to UsableNet AQA

Pros

It is potentially critical to our organization becoming ADA compliant and avoiding any lawsuits

Cons

It is not the most user-friendly - the explanation of certain things which are reported is not always clear and sometimes can be downright confusing and frustrating. Additional clarity on certain elements would go a long way towards improving users' satisfaction with the software.

Pros

AQA is an easy-to-learn tool that allows for quicker auditing, manual testing, and defect creation. It integrates with JIRA easily and now has the ability to test emails and documents. Using AQA has saved a considerable amount of time compared to documenting defects on a spreadsheet and creating defects manually. It has been a game-changer for the projects I have worked on.

Cons

Integrating with some platforms who don't use traditional code can be tricky. The team has been great about finding work-arounds. The downfall is we have needed the AQA tech team to customize the platform for us in order to adequately test the platform our client is using.

Alternatives Considered

Reasons for Switching to UsableNet AQA

Pros

- Very clear difference between automatic issues and issues that can be manually determined to be fixed or not.

- Liked the rating of issues from easy to hard fix and their priority/impact.

- Having sessions with the AQA team was valuable when we had questions/concerns. The team is very nice and helpful, they try their best to give personalized advice, however, beware that a lot depends on the quality of your website's code and your resources to fix it.

- I loved the report exporting feature and that I was able to download the spreadsheet with all issues on all pages that were tested. I used the spreadsheet way more than the access to projects/tests via AQA itself. Spreadsheets are more intuitive.

Cons

- There has been a lot of confusion between "tests" and "audits" for our team. We still do not see much difference between the two and do not understand why there has to be both when they do look identical and offer identical information upon the analysis. In audits, it's even harder to find access to the issues Review page. I also don't understand why I can run a new test but cannot run a new audit. There are no quick tooltips or anything like that to explain the feature.

- I think there has to be a lot of work done across the platform in terms of wording. I spent a lot of time understanding how to download an excel spreadsheet with the test results. It says "run the report" (or something of this sort). Why not say "download the report" instead? It's more straightforward.

- There is no way to leave a comment on the platform to the commenter from the AQA team directly. I used Jira to communicate with the AQA team and ask questions there, which does take additional time of yours, however, I like how I could share screenshots and format text there for more clarity.

- There's a chat feature that my team never used. I think unless there's a possibility to chat with AQA's team via this chat, it is not really helpful.

- In this exact review survey, they are asking to rate some of the features I've never even seen or heard of. I tried googling them and no results. It's hard to understand what they are talking about if there's no consistency in wording across all touchpoints

Pros

It is the best accessibility option for the price in terms of improving your site, learning, and avoiding lawsuits

Cons

the support offered was not technical enough when i would ask questions...there should be standing meetings or quick turnaround on questions. the responses should not create an entire email chain of questions, it should be a solid response the first time with advice/action

WAYYYYY too much manual effort and time to go through a scan. nothing is saved from scan to scan so you never can reduce this time. scan recommendations and descriptions are weak and necessitate that you already have an expert understanding of accessibility or you will need to read dry, long WCAG guidelines from the WCAG site, not usable net

Pros

What I like most about UsableNet AQA is that it makes it easy to get the team - technological members and non-technological members - aligned on a standardization for ADA compliance, as well as actionable goals to work towards.

Cons

What I like least about UsableNet AQA is the fact that it is just so robust. It's actually a good thing, but sometimes, I find myself lost in the UI because there are so many features involved.

Pros

After a year into our project with AQA, I don't feel we would have gotten this far without the JIRA integration and the ability to create tickets based on the issues found. Managing the volume of issues with ease has been very helpful for us.

Cons

I feel we could have benefit more from real time communication on the software itself. In the event our team had any questions, the comment section didn't lend itself to any direct communication with the UsableNet team to resolve issues as quickly as we liked, especially for more technical heavy suggestions.

Pros

Ease of Use
On the fly report generation
Detailed Feedback on compliance issues

Cons

ease of use should be extended for Mobile /Tablet and other devices as well

Pros

Web accessibility audit and identifying the content issue is very easy with UsableNet AQA. We could easily run the report on single or multiple pages and identify the issues.
UsableNet also provides some tips for fixing the content issue that is really helpful.

Cons

Nothing. Everything I found helpful and there are so many things that I learned regarding web accessibility using UsableNet AQA.

Pros

The test coverage against WCAG guidelines and Section 508 standards is on a broader scope.

Cons

reporting parameters are not as comfortable as other tools

Pros

Any feature that required for staying ADA compliant is present in UsableNet AQA.

Cons

It is a little bit hard to use the features of UsableNet AQA in full capacity.

Pros

Our initial site audit has been the roadmap for ADA mediation. The feedback and WCAG references it provides give a clear indication of the criteria needed to provide all users an appropriate site experience. We're comfortable reanalyzing pages or site areas when content/layouts get broad updates, and for new content areas. I also appreciate the ease by which the AQA Chrome plug-in enables testing/retesting of our web pages. It allows us to easily test ideas in real-time using Chrome's developer tools with the plug-in.

Cons

Occasionally, some of the feedback is redundant, but the redundancy makes sense and is easily overcome. Rarely, the feedback from the tool is generic, but UsableNet provides clear interpretations when needed.

Pros

Its so easy to onboard new users to this product

Cons

There could be some better third-party support tools

Pros

I love the ease at which the AQA tool reviews the DOM and the accurate descriptions of what needs to be fixed and how to fix it.

Cons

Last I checked there was only a chrome plugin; would love to use in other browsers as well.

Pros

Its easy to use. Reports are easy to read & I can pass of any details to our developers to fix backen issues.

Cons

Nothing that I can think of at this time.

Pros

Can easily find what type of things a webpage needs to have to be ADA Compliant.

Cons

Some checks are repetitive when reviewing multiple pages for a site.

Pros

Ease of use, and detailed testing capabilities

Cons

description of issues are not always clear

Pros

The amount of testing that can be done using the program

Cons

The dashboard is not very simple and user friendly to use, the test script should be more navigable and the waiting for reload the test every time I open it is a bit annoying

Pros

Complrehensive features to monitor, analyze & track accessibility issues

Cons

It requires extensive trainng to undersatnd the usage of the tool

Pros

Comprehensive feature set that all ties together nicely

Cons

A little bit of a learning curve when first getting started

Pros

Going through first time wasn't easy to understand but once you do its quite easy

Cons

UI could be nicer and more modern as just looks very basic