It pretty much confirms people’s comments here.

I’d be quite surprised if there were any other accessibility oriented checks, so it actually means 75% might be accessible.

Since the report said 75% failed, surely you mean “25% might be accessible”?

As I’ve mentioned before:

How come the SiteMorse website uses tables for layout? Maybe there’s an accessibility advantage to this I’m not aware of.

I’m quite happy to say SiteMorse don’t know their own business because of that, the quality of their PDFs and other indicators of incompetence I regularly see from them. Diplomacy be damned!

I was wondering whether to post this, and a friend said For the love of God you have to, for those of us who can’t read inaccessible PDFs. (And something about Sitemorse I won’t repeat!)

It’s one thing to miss something, like the odd alternative text, or occasional HTML error. It is something else to intentionally prevent accessibility.

Ben, did you mean has not appeared? I couldn’t see anything there.

Did they ever publish what their PDF accessibility tests actually are? I asked them on Accessify Forums, along with many others, after they said they published the complete list. It still has not appeared, as far as I can tell.

I generally try my absolute damndest to be as fair as I possibly can to the SiteMorse chappies, but sometimes it’s hard.

Imagine the purely hypothetical situation of someone criticising another company on AccessifyForum for “every page failing AA”, when that company is really a magazine/news & events site, rather than accessibility experts.

Imagine that the company who make criticisms do claim that they themselves are accessibility experts.

Now imagine that their press releases where they criticise the accessibility of others aren’t in themselves accessible.

In that situation, what precisely would that do to your opinion of said hypothetical company?