WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: WAVE 3.0 and Toolbar

for

From: julian.rickards@ndm.gov.on.ca
Date: Aug 14, 2003 7:32AM



> Do you "validate" your pages in order to be proud of
> something, or to make
> them more accessible to all? In the latter case, why would
> you pollute the page with such a statement?

Misquoted, misinterpretted, misunderstood, wrong! Actually, if you re-read
my message, you will find that I DID NOT EVER say that I was going to put
the WCAG icon on it or that my suggestion of the "Congrats" message would be
put on my web page. Rather what I was saying was that the WAVE "report" was
to provide some message as to how well the page adhered to the standard I
had chosen. As it works now, I have to review all of the icons to see what
they are refering to and determine if their presence is an indicator of
"passing" or "failing" with respect to the standard I had tested the page
against. Some form of report would be useful to allow me to determine how
close to the standard is my page. I realize that manual checks may not be
"programmable" but other checks are. The "congrats" message I suggested was
to only be with respect to the programmable checks, not to the manual
checks.

> > I know there have been discussions regarding the value
> > of the WCAG "badges" but if the page meets the requirements
> setout by the
> > specific standard, at least the ones that may be checked
> automatically, then
> > a statement to that effect would be useful.
>
> Useful to whom? And it would be false.

Useful to the tester of course.

So, are you suggesting that accessibility validation cannot be programmed?
Let's step back a bit. The WCAG group created their own validation tests
against their different levels of priorities. When, as best as the program
can do, a page has been determined to meet the requirements of a particular
level, the WCAG suggests that you are welcome to place the badge on the
page. If I remember correctly, UsableNet, Bobby and A-Prompt are similar -
pass the test and you can use the badge. So, what is false about that? If I
review the manual tests and find that I have met those requirements too,
then, personal taste aside, I am welcome to put the badge on my page.

Are you suggesting that the standards are false? Well, that may be true and
there have been many discussions about this here but until WCAG2 is
released, then all we have is WCAG1 and Section 508. If any one of us wants
to "tell" prospective clients that we are capable of creating accessible
webpages, what quicker way is there than to make our own pages accessible
and demonstrate that with the WCAG badge.

What are the options? One would be not to put a badge. You could still state
that you can create accessible pages (as any one, including those who make
absolutely no attempt at doing so) but how would you prove your
capabilities? You could create a text link to the WCAG test but all that
does is avoid the appearance of the badge. Furthermore, a plain text link is
not as visible as the badge so it would take some reading on the part of
your prospective client to locate the link and test your page against the
validation program. Another option would be to explain how you have
incorporated accessibility features into your page but again, that might
take a lot of reading. If you really don't agree with the standards as they
are right now, you could state why they don't meet the true needs for
accessibility but can you prove that or demonstrate that? Again, a
long-winded explanation may be used but do you want to force your
prospective clients to read your treatise?

Yes, the WCAG standards may be unsatisfactory. Yes, validation against them
may not demonstrate true accessibility. Yes, the icons may be ugly to some.
But, what choices do we have? If I really want to make my pages accessible,
do I go with the current standards?, do I wait for WCAG2?, or do I make my
own determination as to what accessibility means?

Confused and somewhat disheartened,

Jules






----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/