WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: How Web Developers use the WebContent AccessibilityGuidelines

for

From: Rehema Baguma
Date: Oct 10, 2008 7:30AM

Dear Katherine

Thank you very much for your quick feedback.

Kind Regards,Rehema.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katharine Whitelaw" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
To: < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] How Web Developers use the WebContent
AccessibilityGuidelines


> 1. Webmaster
> 2. a
> 3. c
> 4. a
> 5.
> 6. It's laid out in a clear simple manner.
> 7. Sometimes it doesn't offer truly useful information - some links in the
> navigation section are broken, writing for the web could be more
> informative (write semantic html)
> 8. none
>
>>>> "Rehema Baguma" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > 10/10/2008 6:37 AM >>>
> Hello,
>
> We are proposing an approach for filtering accessibility guidelines such
> as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) according to different
> contexts e.g. type of disability, content/navigation/user interface, stage
> of development, etc. but first wish to find out how developers use the
> WCAG guidelines.The aim of the proposed approach is to make the guidelines
> easier to use for Web developers.
>
> We would like your quick views on how you use WCAG by answering the
> following questions. There are only 8 questions and it should be possible
> to answer them in less than 5 minutes.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1. What is your main interest in regard to the web e.g. Web
> Developer, Software Developer, IT Procurement et cetera (Please write your
> answer in the space provided)
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. What version of WCAG do you use?
>
> (a) WCAG 1.0
>
> (b) WCAG 2.0
>
> (c) Both
>
> (d) Don't use WCAG (state why.......................)
>
>
>
>
>
> 3. How do you refer to WCAG?
>
> a) Carry details in my head
>
> b) Refer to printed copy
>
> c) Refer to online copy
>
> d) Ask someone else
>
>
>
>
>
> 4. Do you find WCAG easy to navigate?
>
> a) No problems
>
> c) Could be improved
>
>
>
>
>
> 5. If you think it could be improved, how might it be improved?
>
> a) Better navigation
>
> b) Search facility
>
> c) Reorganized
>
> d) Other (specify.............)
>
>
>
>
>
> 6. What do you like most about WCAG? (write in the space provided
> &specify the version in question)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 7. What don't you like about WCAG (write in the space provided
> &specify the version in question)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 8. Please provide any other comments you may have (please write in
> the space provided)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you. Please send completed questionnaire to both
> <EMAIL REMOVED> , <EMAIL REMOVED>
>
>
>
> Background:
>
> Accessibility Guidelines:
>
> Accessibility guidelines are intended for use by those involved in the
> procurement and development of information technology products and
> services. So far, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) is the
> most recognized set of accessibility guidelines. The WCAG have formed the
> basis of Web accessibility policy of many organizations across the world
> e.g. in UK and USA, are referred to in court cases concerning
> accessibility and are used as evaluation criteria by most automated
> evaluation tools (Mline et al. 2005; Sloan et al. 2005).
>
>
>
> However reports such as Donnelly and Magennis (2005) and Asakawa (2005)
> show that many members of the target audience still find WCAG difficult to
> use which results into products with in-built accessibility barriers. One
> of the main reasons given is difficulty in understanding or interpreting
> the guidelines (Donnelly and Magennis, 2005). E.g. WCAG 1.0 has been
> criticized for being difficult for much of its potential audience to
> understand. Consequently, the new version (WCAG 2.0) has been drafted with
> a provision for understanding by a wider, less technical audience, less
> ambiguous and technology neutral (Kleihm, 2006). However the yet in draft
> WCAG 2.0, has also been criticized for being 'overlong', unreadable and
> impossible to understand (Clarke, 2007, Kleihm, 2006). Some have
> recommended continuing with WCAG 1.0, notwithstanding corrections, given
> that it remains adequate for most Web sites (Clark, 2007). We hope that
> approaches such as the proposed one can improve the usa
> bility of the WCAG guidelines.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> About the Author: My name is Rehema Baguma, a PhD student at Makerere
> University, Uganda. My research area is web accessibility focusing on
> usability of accessibility guidelines so that they can be more useful to
> developers to address both technical and human aspects of accessibility
>
> Supervisors: Dr. Jude T. Lubega, Makerere University, Faculty of Computing
> & IT, Uganda
>
> Dr. Roger Stone, Loughborough University, Department of Computer
> Science, UK
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rehema Baguma,
> Department of Information Systems,
> Faculty of Computing & IT,
> Makerere University, Uganda.
>
> "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence is not an event. It is a habit.
> " - Aristotle
>