E-mail List Archives
Thread: Conforming alternate version
Number of posts in this thread: 13 (In chronological order)
From:
Subject: Conforming alternate version
No previous message | Next message →
Hello,
WCAG 2.1 allows conforming alternate versions. There is a website :
_https://www.kmmk.hu/ <https://www.kmmk.hu/>_, which has a accessible
clone: _https://am.kmmk.hu/ <https://am.kmmk.hu/>_.
I wonder if this is allowed in WCAG 2.1? The main website has links are
presented the same as text in all pages. But the first item is an
accessible button, which leads to the accessible clone, where links are
underlined and there are other accessibility
Some of my testers, which permanently us AT says that this perfect for
them. They use the conforming alternate version all the time.
But there are testers, who are not using AT, and they hardly find the
links, and others are see the low-contrast letters on the main website.
They don't go to the accessible version, because they never use it and
they don't think that this is usable for them.
And all testers has a little bit of annoying, that accessible clone isÂ
are the same than the original.
I studied WCAG: conforming alternate version
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version>, and
also found SCR38 Creating a conforming alternate version for a web page
designed with progressive enhancement
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/SCR38.html>
_<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/SCR38.html>_but this is not the case.
What do you think, this solution is conforming WCAG 2.1? (Let's suppose
that the accissible clone is WCAG-conform)
I would very appreciate your thoughts.
--
Zsolt Edelényi
Web Accessibility Specialist
Mobile: +36205617144
email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Mark Magennis
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2022 3:45AM
Subject: Re: Conforming alternate version
← Previous message | Next message →
Has this website arrived from the 1990's via a time machine? You just don't see this approach any more, though back in the day the accessible alternative was widely promoted as a good idea.
It's great that you're getting to test it with users. Nice to see that and good luck to you.
Aside from the compliance issue (which I know is what you asked about), there were (or are) a number of problems with 'accessible versions' that caused them to go away. I hope the owners of this website are aware of these problems and are taking measures to prevent them:
- The 'accessible version' was often specifically aimed at screen reader users (typically removing all images for example) and offered a worse experience in some ways for some other users with disabilities, e.g. sighted keyboard users and magnification users. Those users therefore had a choice between two versions, neither of which met their needs.
- It required the user to understand what 'accessible' means and that "it applies to my needs" (I originally got into accessibility when my web dev company misunderstood a client's request for a website that was "accessible". We thought it meant "easy to find").
- In practice, the accessible version often had issues that were not noticed by the admins or were given a lower priority for fixing and therefore persisted for a longer time than they would have on the 'standard' version.
- In practice, the 'standard' version often had content and functionality that was not included in the accessible version.
- It was seen by many users as a form of ghetoisation. A special place for people with disabilities. Better than just having one inaccessible website, but still a subtle form of exclusion.
Mark
From: glen walker
Date: Wed, Jan 12 2022 8:44AM
Subject: Re: Conforming alternate version
← Previous message | Next message →
The "Conforming Alternate Version" is spelled out pretty well at the link
you mentioned:
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version
In this case, it looks like non-conforming version (the main website?) has
a link to the conforming version via the image link (the first link on the
page) that looks like a yellow circle with three embedded black circles.
The image has appropriate alt text leading the user to the "barrier free"
version.
However, both the link and the image are tab stops. The link does not have
a focus indicator but the image does, so technically the link would fail
the "accessibility-supported mechanism" requirement in #4.1 because it
doesn't have a focus indicator. But that's easy to fix. There's no need
to have tabindex=0 on the image since it's contained in the link and if the
focus indicator is fixed, it would satisfy a "conforming alternate version"
(assuming the website it's linked to is actually conforming and provides
all the same information as the original site and is kept up to date).
Personally, I think it's a lot more work to maintain two websites and make
sure they stay in sync when changes are made rather than the work required
to make the original website conformant.
From:
Subject: Re: Conforming alternate version
← Previous message | Next message →
Thank you Mark and Glen for your answer!
Zsolt
2022. 01. 12. 16:44 keltezéssel, glen walker Ãrta:
> The "Conforming Alternate Version" is spelled out pretty well at the link
> you mentioned:
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version
>
> In this case, it looks like non-conforming version (the main website?) has
> a link to the conforming version via the image link (the first link on the
> page) that looks like a yellow circle with three embedded black circles.
> The image has appropriate alt text leading the user to the "barrier free"
> version.
>
> However, both the link and the image are tab stops. The link does not have
> a focus indicator but the image does, so technically the link would fail
> the "accessibility-supported mechanism" requirement in #4.1 because it
> doesn't have a focus indicator. But that's easy to fix. There's no need
> to have tabindex=0 on the image since it's contained in the link and if the
> focus indicator is fixed, it would satisfy a "conforming alternate version"
> (assuming the website it's linked to is actually conforming and provides
> all the same information as the original site and is kept up to date).
>
> Personally, I think it's a lot more work to maintain two websites and make
> sure they stay in sync when changes are made rather than the work required
> to make the original website conformant.
> > > > --
Zsolt Edelényi
Web Accessibility Specialist
Mobile: +36205617144
email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: L Snider
Date: Thu, Jan 13 2022 7:04AM
Subject: Re: Conforming alternate version
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Zsolt,
I also had a flashback to 2003 with the alternate accessible site. I would
highly recommend not doing this for a number of reasons. We should be able
to make one site fairly accessible for many people. We can never make one
site accessible for 100% of users, because each one of us has different
needs. Technology changes every year, and sometimes in months-Look at voice
control, and how it has improved hugely in just 4 years and now it is a
major tech to check with...
Having two sites 'others' those of us with disabilities, and in 2022 this
would not be a strategy I recommend. For me, this is similar to overlays,
and I won't get into that rat's nest but if you aren't aware of that, do go
on Twitter and search overlays accessibility.
Plus, in my personal view, it opens you up to a lawsuit. It may not apply
to the country you reside in, but it is an important successful lawsuit in
my view:
https://www.levelaccess.com/settlement-shows-limits-separate-equal-approach-digital-accessibility/
Cheers
L:sa
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 4:57 AM Zsolt Edelényi < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Thank you Mark and Glen for your answer!
>
> Zsolt
>
> 2022. 01. 12. 16:44 keltezéssel, glen walker Ãrta:
> > The "Conforming Alternate Version" is spelled out pretty well at the link
> > you mentioned:
> >
> > https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version
> >
> > In this case, it looks like non-conforming version (the main website?)
> has
> > a link to the conforming version via the image link (the first link on
> the
> > page) that looks like a yellow circle with three embedded black circles.
> > The image has appropriate alt text leading the user to the "barrier free"
> > version.
> >
> > However, both the link and the image are tab stops. The link does not
> have
> > a focus indicator but the image does, so technically the link would fail
> > the "accessibility-supported mechanism" requirement in #4.1 because it
> > doesn't have a focus indicator. But that's easy to fix. There's no need
> > to have tabindex=0 on the image since it's contained in the link and if
> the
> > focus indicator is fixed, it would satisfy a "conforming alternate
> version"
> > (assuming the website it's linked to is actually conforming and provides
> > all the same information as the original site and is kept up to date).
> >
> > Personally, I think it's a lot more work to maintain two websites and
> make
> > sure they stay in sync when changes are made rather than the work
> required
> > to make the original website conformant.
> > > > > > > > >
> --
> Zsolt Edelényi
> Web Accessibility Specialist
> Mobile: +36205617144
> email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> > > > >
From: Paul Rayius
Date: Thu, Jan 13 2022 7:51AM
Subject: Re: Conforming alternate version
← Previous message | Next message →
As others have mentioned, I would also highly recommend making the site accessible and not relying on a separate, accessible version. While it's true that WCAG 2.0 (and 2.1) allow for this it really should be used as a "last resort" option.
As per the W3C's documentation in "Understanding Conformance," (https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html), they state: "Note that providing an alternate version is a fallback option for conformance to WCAG and the preferred method of conformance is to make all content directly accessible."
I hope that helps to inform decision-makers and other stakeholders.
Best,
Paul
Paul Rayius
Vice-President of Training
CommonLook
From:
Subject: Re: Conforming alternate version
← Previous message | Next message →
Thank you,
I understand, that this is not a good strategy, but this is acceptable
at all? Basically, the site is not usable for the users not using or
not perceiving the accessible version.
Zsolt
2022. 01. 13. 15:04 keltezéssel, L Snider Ãrta:
> Hi Zsolt,
>
> I also had a flashback to 2003 with the alternate accessible site. I would
> highly recommend not doing this for a number of reasons. We should be able
> to make one site fairly accessible for many people. We can never make one
> site accessible for 100% of users, because each one of us has different
> needs. Technology changes every year, and sometimes in months-Look at voice
> control, and how it has improved hugely in just 4 years and now it is a
> major tech to check with...
>
> Having two sites 'others' those of us with disabilities, and in 2022 this
> would not be a strategy I recommend. For me, this is similar to overlays,
> and I won't get into that rat's nest but if you aren't aware of that, do go
> on Twitter and search overlays accessibility.
>
> Plus, in my personal view, it opens you up to a lawsuit. It may not apply
> to the country you reside in, but it is an important successful lawsuit in
> my view:
> https://www.levelaccess.com/settlement-shows-limits-separate-equal-approach-digital-accessibility/
>
> Cheers
>
> L:sa
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 4:57 AM Zsolt Edelényi < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> Thank you Mark and Glen for your answer!
>>
>> Zsolt
>>
>> 2022. 01. 12. 16:44 keltezéssel, glen walker Ãrta:
>>> The "Conforming Alternate Version" is spelled out pretty well at the link
>>> you mentioned:
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version
>>>
>>> In this case, it looks like non-conforming version (the main website?)
>> has
>>> a link to the conforming version via the image link (the first link on
>> the
>>> page) that looks like a yellow circle with three embedded black circles.
>>> The image has appropriate alt text leading the user to the "barrier free"
>>> version.
>>>
>>> However, both the link and the image are tab stops. The link does not
>> have
>>> a focus indicator but the image does, so technically the link would fail
>>> the "accessibility-supported mechanism" requirement in #4.1 because it
>>> doesn't have a focus indicator. But that's easy to fix. There's no need
>>> to have tabindex=0 on the image since it's contained in the link and if
>> the
>>> focus indicator is fixed, it would satisfy a "conforming alternate
>> version"
>>> (assuming the website it's linked to is actually conforming and provides
>>> all the same information as the original site and is kept up to date).
>>>
>>> Personally, I think it's a lot more work to maintain two websites and
>> make
>>> sure they stay in sync when changes are made rather than the work
>> required
>>> to make the original website conformant.
>>> >>> >>> >>> >> --
>> Zsolt Edelényi
>> Web Accessibility Specialist
>> Mobile: +36205617144
>> email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>
>> >> >> >> >>
> > > > --
Zsolt Edelényi
Web Accessibility Specialist
Mobile: +36205617144
email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From:
Subject: Re: Conforming alternate version
← Previous message | Next message →
Thank you Paul,
I have nothing to do with this website. I'm only a WAS and I'm curious.
Zsolt
2022. 01. 13. 15:51 keltezéssel, Paul Rayius Ãrta:
> As others have mentioned, I would also highly recommend making the site accessible and not relying on a separate, accessible version. While it's true that WCAG 2.0 (and 2.1) allow for this it really should be used as a "last resort" option.
>
> As per the W3C's documentation in "Understanding Conformance," (https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html), they state: "Note that providing an alternate version is a fallback option for conformance to WCAG and the preferred method of conformance is to make all content directly accessible."
>
> I hope that helps to inform decision-makers and other stakeholders.
>
> Best,
> Paul
>
> Paul Rayius
> Vice-President of Training
> CommonLook
>
>
From: L Snider
Date: Fri, Jan 14 2022 8:31AM
Subject: Re: Conforming alternate version
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Zsolt,
For me, I would talk with the client and find out why they want to do a
seperate site-what is the motivation. Then I would talk to them about why I
feel this is a very flawed strategy. If they wouldn't budge, then I
wouldn't be the right person for this client...if the only option they see
is alternate, then I can't make change. That is just me, others will have
different views. One can argue well at least there is an accessible
version-but for me that isn't equality or inclusion and it still makes
people with disabilities 'other' (others may see it that way, I don't).
Cheers
Lisa
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 6:52 AM Zsolt Edelényi < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Thank you,
>
> I understand, that this is not a good strategy, but this is acceptable
> at all? Basically, the site is not usable for the users not using or
> not perceiving the accessible version.
>
> Zsolt
>
> 2022. 01. 13. 15:04 keltezéssel, L Snider Ãrta:
> > Hi Zsolt,
> >
> > I also had a flashback to 2003 with the alternate accessible site. I
> would
> > highly recommend not doing this for a number of reasons. We should be
> able
> > to make one site fairly accessible for many people. We can never make one
> > site accessible for 100% of users, because each one of us has different
> > needs. Technology changes every year, and sometimes in months-Look at
> voice
> > control, and how it has improved hugely in just 4 years and now it is a
> > major tech to check with...
> >
> > Having two sites 'others' those of us with disabilities, and in 2022 this
> > would not be a strategy I recommend. For me, this is similar to overlays,
> > and I won't get into that rat's nest but if you aren't aware of that, do
> go
> > on Twitter and search overlays accessibility.
> >
> > Plus, in my personal view, it opens you up to a lawsuit. It may not apply
> > to the country you reside in, but it is an important successful lawsuit
> in
> > my view:
> >
> https://www.levelaccess.com/settlement-shows-limits-separate-equal-approach-digital-accessibility/
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > L:sa
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 4:57 AM Zsolt Edelényi < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you Mark and Glen for your answer!
> >>
> >> Zsolt
> >>
> >> 2022. 01. 12. 16:44 keltezéssel, glen walker Ãrta:
> >>> The "Conforming Alternate Version" is spelled out pretty well at the
> link
> >>> you mentioned:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version
> >>>
> >>> In this case, it looks like non-conforming version (the main website?)
> >> has
> >>> a link to the conforming version via the image link (the first link on
> >> the
> >>> page) that looks like a yellow circle with three embedded black
> circles.
> >>> The image has appropriate alt text leading the user to the "barrier
> free"
> >>> version.
> >>>
> >>> However, both the link and the image are tab stops. The link does not
> >> have
> >>> a focus indicator but the image does, so technically the link would
> fail
> >>> the "accessibility-supported mechanism" requirement in #4.1 because it
> >>> doesn't have a focus indicator. But that's easy to fix. There's no
> need
> >>> to have tabindex=0 on the image since it's contained in the link and if
> >> the
> >>> focus indicator is fixed, it would satisfy a "conforming alternate
> >> version"
> >>> (assuming the website it's linked to is actually conforming and
> provides
> >>> all the same information as the original site and is kept up to date).
> >>>
> >>> Personally, I think it's a lot more work to maintain two websites and
> >> make
> >>> sure they stay in sync when changes are made rather than the work
> >> required
> >>> to make the original website conformant.
> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> --
> >> Zsolt Edelényi
> >> Web Accessibility Specialist
> >> Mobile: +36205617144
> >> email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>
> >> > >> > >> > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> --
> Zsolt Edelényi
> Web Accessibility Specialist
> Mobile: +36205617144
> email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> > > > >
From: Paul Rayius
Date: Fri, Jan 14 2022 8:58AM
Subject: Re: Conforming alternate version
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi all,
The W3C is pretty clear, when talking about alternate versions, that IF this option is chosen, the non-accessible site (or page, etc.) should be able to be navigated to *from* the accessible site (or page). Not the other way around.
That might be another thing to consider about going this route.
Best,
Paul
Paul Rayius
Vice-President of Training
CommonLook
From: glen walker
Date: Fri, Jan 14 2022 9:33AM
Subject: Re: Conforming alternate version
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Paul, where are you seeing that? As posted earlier, there are a list of
4 things that are required for a conforming alternative version. Point 4.1
says:
the conforming version can be reached *from* the non-conforming page via an
accessibility-supported mechanism
That's saying the opposite of what you're saying.
Point 4.2 says what you're saying:
the non-conforming version can only be reached from the conforming version
The three points under #4 says at least one of the sub-points is true. So
it's possible to have the non-accessible site first and then you navigate
*from* the non-accessible site to the accessible site, as long as that
navigation mechanism is accessible.
I don't think anyone on this list likes conforming alternative versions but
we're just discussing what is officially allowed.
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 8:58 AM Paul Rayius < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi all,
> The W3C is pretty clear, when talking about alternate versions, that IF
> this option is chosen, the non-accessible site (or page, etc.) should be
> able to be navigated to *from* the accessible site (or page). Not the
> other way around.
> That might be another thing to consider about going this route.
> Best,
> Paul
>
> Paul Rayius
> Vice-President of Training
> CommonLook
>
>
From: Paul Rayius
Date: Fri, Jan 14 2022 10:49AM
Subject: Re: Conforming alternate version
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Glen,
You're right and I stand corrected, thanks. That's what I get for trying to skim read too quickly. <smile>
Paul
Paul Rayius
Vice-President of Training
CommonLook
From: Jeff Kline
Date: Fri, Jan 14 2022 11:43AM
Subject: Re: Conforming alternate version
← Previous message | No next message
Alternate conforming website versions imply seamless synchronization with the non-conforming, main site. This can be a particular problem, especially for websites with distributed authorship, as well as other operational aspects that will translate into non-equivalent websites and experiences. Users will continue to be disenfranchised, and the offending organizations still open to complaints and litigation.
Regards,
Jeff Kline
Accessibility Consulting