E-mail List Archives
Thread: Standards question
Number of posts in this thread: 13 (In chronological order)
From: Mark Guisinger
Date: Tue, Sep 15 2009 7:30AM
Subject: Standards question
No previous message | Next message →
All,
I was noticing that WCAG 2.0 has removed the explicit requirement that pages work without script or other programmatic objects. But, Section 508 still contains a similar requirement. I was wondering how this group feels about this, as I have to write the requirements for two groups , one that I can specify the standard and levels we support (WCAG 2.0 priority A). The second has a government website that has to meet both WCAG and Section 508. I was hoping to be able to leave the JavaScript and other programmatic objects out of the standards.
Any thoughts or ideas on this?
Thanks for your advice in advance,
Mark
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Tue, Sep 15 2009 3:45PM
Subject: Re: Standards question
← Previous message | Next message →
Mark Guisinger wrote:
> I was hoping to be able
> to leave the JavaScript and other programmatic objects out of the
> standards.
Whatever the meaning of that statement might be, the approach is wrong.
You should aim at being accessible to different people, not at meeting some
"standards" and making that easy.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Steve Green
Date: Tue, Sep 15 2009 4:00PM
Subject: Re: Standards question
← Previous message | Next message →
From: Jared Smith
Date: Tue, Sep 15 2009 4:05PM
Subject: Re: Standards question
← Previous message | Next message →
I agree with Jukka - focus on accessibility, not just compliance. Both
Section 580 and WCAG 2 require that the site be accessible whether it
relies on javascript or not. Neither of these guidelines require that
the page work without javascript.
Whether you should require javascript or whether your application
should work if javascript is disabled is a general usability issue,
not an accessibility issue. As far as I've ever seen, the prevalence
of javascript is no different for those with disabilities than it is
for anybody else. In other words, if your web site requires
javascript, it's not accessible to anybody that has javascript
disabled or unavailable, regardless of whether they have a disability.
Neither 508 nor WCAG 2 address this because it's not directly an
accessibility issue. So if your intention is simply to meet these
guidelines and you're comfortable alienating a significant number of
users who have javascript disabled, then yes, you can build something
that requires javascript.
Jared Smith
WebAIM
From: Keith Parks
Date: Wed, Sep 16 2009 3:00PM
Subject: Re: Standards question
← Previous message | Next message →
On Sep 15, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> You should aim at being accessible to different people, not at
> meeting some
> "standards" and making that easy.
On Sep 15, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
> I agree with Jukka - focus on accessibility, not just compliance.
> [snip...]
> So if your intention is simply to meet these guidelines [snip...]
I think that this kind of answer is, while not disingenuous, at least
impractical.
In others words, "Easy for *you* to say." ;^)
There are many of us on this list (and of course many, many, many more
not on the list) who are not accessibility experts, nor should we be.
That's what "standards" are for.
My intent is irrelevant in this regard. Hopefully, it is the intent of
the standards and guidelines to assure accessible content. Then I, as
a developer, can just design to the standards, . So yes, that is my
goal, to "simply meet the guidelines". Those standards are created and
updated by people who are (I assume) much more knowledgeable than I.
If meeting those standards doesn't guarantee accessibility, then
either smarter people need to be writing the standards, or else maybe
it's just not possible.
But it seems to me that the run of the mill, "in the trenches"
developer shouldn't have to worry about that. The "experts" should
have their act together, and yes, make it "easy" for us. Just tell all
the rest of us "Follow these guidelines and you'll be doing OK."
Is that too much to ask for?
******************************
Keith Parks
Graphic Designer/Web Designer
Student Affairs Communications Services
San Diego State University
San Diego, CA 92182-7444
(619) 594-1046
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/communications
http://kparks.deviantart.com/gallery
----------------------------------------------------------
Putting the "no" in "Innovation" since 1988.
From: Jared Smith
Date: Wed, Sep 16 2009 4:25PM
Subject: Re: Standards question
← Previous message | Next message →
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Keith Parks < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hopefully, it is the intent of
> the standards and guidelines to assure accessible content.
> If meeting those standards doesn't guarantee accessibility, then
> either smarter people need to be writing the standards, or else maybe
> it's just not possible.
Standards and guidelines *CANNOT* assure or guarantee accessibility.
They do not claim to do so. It is impossible for them to do so. Their
purpose is to help well-intended developers in learning about
accessibility and defining some measure (and admittedly a very minimal
measure) of accessibility.
Take something as simple (and I use that word loosely) as alternative
text for images. Guidelines can require alternative text in certain
instances, but no guideline or standard could ever measure whether the
alternative text you provide is adequate and equivalent. Only somebody
with a reasonable understanding of accessibility can determine this.
You can be fully compliant with the most strict of guidelines yet
still be totally inaccessible to some users. In order to understand
the gap between where standards end and where true accessibility
happens requires knowledge and experience. Simply following a
checklist will never get you to true accessibility. This is not to
discount the value of guidelines, especially their power to help you
understand that gap, but relying on them alone is never going to be an
assurance of accessibility.
> The "experts" should
> have their act together, and yes, make it "easy" for us. Just tell all
> the rest of us "Follow these guidelines and you'll be doing OK."
I truly wish it were that easy. For the most part, if you follow the
guidelines you will be OK. They are wonderful tools for implementing
and learning about basic accessibility, but they only go so far.
So do you have to be an accessibility "expert" to determine if you are
truly accessible? Yes, for the most part, you do. That's why people
like us provide so many resources and materials freely to the public
so they can truly learn what accessibility is. However, the beauty of
the guidelines is that they get you the vast majority of the way there
without requiring a more advanced understanding of how people with
disabilities access and use the web, usability, assistive
technologies, etc.
Jared Smith
WebAIM
From: Keith Parks
Date: Wed, Sep 16 2009 5:15PM
Subject: Re: Standards question
← Previous message | Next message →
Jared,
I appreciate the thoughtful reply.
On Sep 16, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
>>
> Standards and guidelines *CANNOT* assure or guarantee accessibility.
> They do not claim to do so. It is impossible for them to do so. Their
> purpose is to help well-intended developers in learning about
> accessibility and defining some measure (and admittedly a very minimal
> measure) of accessibility.
>
> Take something as simple (and I use that word loosely) as alternative
> text for images.
I *do* understand how implementing a guideline like "non-text element
must have a text equivalent" can be a lot more complicated that one
might think (I refer to your article on the subject regularly). But
properly implementing that requirement is more of a common sense
issue, whereas whether a page needs to work with scripting turned off
is to me a different type of question, a more technical one.
If it's "Yes, you have to test the page with scripting OFF.", I know
how to test that. But if it's "It doesn't *necessarily* have to work
with scripting OFF, but instead you have to evaluate the scripted
functions for blah blah blah...", well, it quickly gets over my head.
And it's the type of explicit, technical requirement that I *do* wish
for the easy answer for, both for myself *and* for the programmers
that I have to advise, and test the work of. It's not a judgement
call. It either works, or it doesn't.
> So do you have to be an accessibility "expert" to determine if you are
> truly accessible? Yes, for the most part, you do.
I guess this is where the "goal/intent" stuff comes in. As much as I
can appreciate the value of having content that is genuinely
accessible and usable, the idea of being confident that we've met that
goal is so far out of reach, I (and I think many other) have to settle
for getting our content to meet the standards, which, as you
say..."For the most part, if you follow the guidelines you'll will be
OK."
Keith
******************************
Keith Parks
Graphic Designer/Web Designer
Student Affairs Communications Services
San Diego State University
San Diego, CA 92182-7444
(619) 594-1046
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/communications
http://kparks.deviantart.com/gallery
----------------------------------------------------------
Yes We Can!*
*should not be interpreted to mean that we necessarily will
From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Thu, Sep 17 2009 7:05AM
Subject: Standards
← Previous message | Next message →
I am uncertain I understand this comment.
"Standards and guidelines *CANNOT* assure or guarantee accessibility.
They do not claim to do so. It is impossible for them to do so. Their
purpose is to help well-intended developers in learning about
accessibility and defining some measure (and admittedly a very minimal
measure) of accessibility."
If standards define a minimal level of accessibility, then I would assume a web site or application that conforms to that definition would be accessible--at least, at that minimal level. Or am I missing something? Which is always a definite possibility.
My viewpoint is that if you understand and conform to the standards, you should be able to create a *passable* user experience.
I think what differentiates accessibility experts from others is that they possess the knowledge and skill to create an accessible user interface that provides a *great* user experience. I think that is because they focus on the people more than the standards.
Tim
From: Simius Puer
Date: Thu, Sep 17 2009 7:40AM
Subject: Re: Standards
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Tim
A (slightly over-simplified) example is a standard that states "an image
must have alt text". Compliance to such a standard just means that there is
alt text there...not that it is necessarily right. e.g. a picture of a dog
with the alt text of "cat" - the alt text is present but is ultimately
wrong.
This is similar to validation of HTML/XHTML code. A web page could have
100% valid code but would not necessarily be 'right'. For example, someone
using the <table> tag to lay the page out can produce valid code, but this
was never what the tag was intended for.
Standards and guidelines are great at capturing 90% of the common elements
that go towards making a website accessible, but they can not account for
every eventuality and so a good helping of common sense and testing need to
be applied.
There is, if you like, a marked difference between ticking off the boxes on
an accessibility checklist, and actually complying to the 'spirit' of
accessibility.
From: J. B-Vincent
Date: Thu, Sep 17 2009 8:35AM
Subject: Re: Standards
← Previous message | Next message →
Tim:
If all websites used a single design template, then accessibility would be a far simpler matter. However, and fortunately, web designers have free rein to create pages that meet their needs or the needs of their clients. This means that there may be some perfectly legitimate features that conflict with accessibility, resulting in conflicts that cannot be addressed by a fixed set of standards.
A simple example: Let's say that a business is strongly associated with the colors spring green and yellow, and decides they want a website that uses yellow text on a spring green background. By any accessibility criteria (and most aesthetic criteria), this combination is a disaster, but the business powers-that-be feel that the colors are an important part of their branding, message, etc. Someone skilled in accessibility should be able to not only identify standards issues, but also be able to ask questions that can lead to making useful suggestions about situation-driven compromises: e.g., could the hues be modified for more contrast? could the color combination be restricted to the logo? could there be a prominent high-contrast link that allows the user to control page colors?
--Jane Vincent, Center for Accessible Technology
--- On Thu, 9/17/09, Tim Harshbarger < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
From: Tim Harshbarger < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: [WebAIM] Standards
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date: Thursday, September 17, 2009, 5:57 AM
I am uncertain I understand this comment.
"Standards and guidelines *CANNOT* assure or guarantee accessibility.
They do not claim to do so. It is impossible for them to do so. Their
purpose is to help well-intended developers in learning about
accessibility and defining some measure (and admittedly a very minimal
measure) of accessibility."
If standards define a minimal level of accessibility, then I would assume a web site or application that conforms to that definition would be accessible--at least, at that minimal level. Or am I missing something? Which is always a definite possibility.
My viewpoint is that if you understand and conform to the standards, you should be able to create a *passable* user experience.
I think what differentiates accessibility experts from others is that they possess the knowledge and skill to create an accessible user interface that provides a *great* user experience. I think that is because they focus on the people more than the standards.
Tim
From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Thu, Sep 17 2009 9:35AM
Subject: Re: Standards
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Andrew!
"There is, if you like, a marked difference between ticking off the boxes on
an accessibility checklist, and actually complying to the 'spirit' of
accessibility."
I agree. Standards don't usually ensure the best results, just competent results.
However, I would use your example differently. All of the accessibility standards I know of (like WCAG 1.0, WCAG 2.0, Section 508, etc) indicate that the presence of an alt attribute on an image isn't enough to claim accessibility. The description that is part of that alt attribute needs to be consistent with the purpose or content of the image.
Tim
From: Simius Puer
Date: Thu, Sep 17 2009 9:40AM
Subject: Re: Standards
← Previous message | Next message →
indeed! ...as I mentioned, it was a somewhat over-simplified example ;)
From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Thu, Sep 17 2009 10:15AM
Subject: Re: Standards
← Previous message | No next message
Hi Jane!
I like your example. I expect most of us have had experiences like this. Someone shows you a design and the thing they think is absolutely brilliant or necessary is a huge accessibility problem.
When I write about "understanding" the standards, I mean that the person should know the standards well enough to apply them within their area of expertise. A developer should know how to apply the standards within his/her discipline. A designer should know how to apply the standards within his/her discipline.
If they know it well enough to apply it, they should be able to offer some suggestions. An accessibility expert would likely to be able to offer more options though. I think most of the accessibility experts I know seem to have knowledge that spans across professions.
Tim