E-mail List Archives
Re: WCAG and various Laws
From: Steve Green
Date: Mar 30, 2010 8:24AM
- Next message: Simius Puer: "Re: WCAG and various Laws"
- Previous message: James Kennard: "Re: WCAG and various Laws"
- Next message in Thread: Simius Puer: "Re: WCAG and various Laws"
- Previous message in Thread: James Kennard: "Re: WCAG and various Laws"
- View all messages in this Thread
Good question. The word 'equivalent' could be interpreted in more than one
way, and I don't think that the COI thought about this when they wrote the
One way would be to say that WCAG 2.0 AA is equivalent to WCAG 1.0 AA. This
is the interpretation we are using on current government websites. I chose
this interpretation because it is easy for non-technical people to
understand, not because I necessarily think it's right.
On the other hand, some of the WCAG 1.0 requirements have been relaxed or
removed in version 2.0, so the latter is not really equivalent even if you
build a website or document to AAA.
Conversely, WCAG 2.0 includes requirements that are not in version 1.0. Are
the COI suggesting that these can be ignored?
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Geof Collis
Sent: 30 March 2010 14:11
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG and various Laws
Thanks, very difficult to navigate and understand pdf document though.
Would the "equivalent" be WCAG 2.0 AA or A though?
At 08:52 AM 3/30/2010, you wrote:
>The COI guidance to UK government departments has been updated to read
>"Compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines is acceptable
>at Level Double-A of version 1.0 or the equivalent level in version 2.0."
>The document is at
>However, this is only guidance - it has no legal status.
>From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
>[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Simius Puer
>Sent: 30 March 2010 13:35
>To: WebAIM Discussion List
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG and various Laws
>Same goes for the UK Geof - WCAG 1.0 AA is cited as the baseline.
>Again, it covers all websites that "provide a service" rather than just
>.gov websites and it puts the onus on website owners to take
>"reasonable steps" in terms of provision.
>I can't quote the exact guidance note that goes along with the
>legislation at the moment as it has changed ownership so many times in
>the last few years...it used to be the remit of the e-Envoy until they
>were wound up in
>2004 - it is now part of the Cabinet Office who issue the guidelines.
>There's more info on the Direct Gov website if you need it: