E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 21 (In chronological order)

From: Geof Collis
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 4:33PM
Subject: WCAG 2.0 level A
No previous message | Next message →

Hi All

Here in Ontario our Government has enacted a law at www.aoda.ca and
one of the standards is for web accessibility. It has come to my
attention that the powers that be are considering making WCAG 2.0
level A as the benchmark. This would be a big mistake so I am looking
for any information that I can present in opposition to this
consideration. If anyone can help it would be greatly appreciated.

cheers

Geof


Editor
Accessibility News
www.accessibilitynews.ca
Accessibility News International
www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 5:06PM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 level A
← Previous message | Next message →

Why do you feel it would be a mistake?
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Senior Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe Systems
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

----- Original Message -----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Sat Dec 12 15:29:29 2009
Subject: [WebAIM] WCAG 2.0 level A

Hi All

Here in Ontario our Government has enacted a law at www.aoda.ca and
one of the standards is for web accessibility. It has come to my
attention that the powers that be are considering making WCAG 2.0
level A as the benchmark. This would be a big mistake so I am looking
for any information that I can present in opposition to this
consideration. If anyone can help it would be greatly appreciated.

cheers

Geof


Editor
Accessibility News
www.accessibilitynews.ca
Accessibility News International
www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com

From: Geof Collis
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 5:57PM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 level A
← Previous message | Next message →

I'm assuming by your questioning that WCAG 2.0 level A will cover
accessibility for all disabilities. So I ask you is level A
sufficient? If not, then which disabilities are expendable?

It has been my understanding that level AA is the benchmark, is this
not correct?

At 07:05 PM 12/12/2009, you wrote:
>Why do you feel it would be a mistake?
>Andrew Kirkpatrick
>Senior Product Manager, Accessibility
>Adobe Systems
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Sat Dec 12 15:29:29 2009
>Subject: [WebAIM] WCAG 2.0 level A
>
>Hi All
>
>Here in Ontario our Government has enacted a law at www.aoda.ca and
>one of the standards is for web accessibility. It has come to my
>attention that the powers that be are considering making WCAG 2.0
>level A as the benchmark. This would be a big mistake so I am looking
>for any information that I can present in opposition to this
>consideration. If anyone can help it would be greatly appreciated.
>
>cheers
>
>Geof
>
>
>Editor
>Accessibility News
>www.accessibilitynews.ca
>Accessibility News International
>www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com
>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 9:09PM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 level A
← Previous message | Next message →

Geoff,
You're making a big assumption I think. I'm not suggesting anything in my question and am certainly not going to detail that any disabilities are "expendable".

You seemed to state that you didn't think that WCAG 2.0 was appropriate and I wanted to hear your thoughts on why. Now it sounds like your concern is whether it is WCAG 2.0 A or AA - is that correct? I'm still interested in your thoughts on this.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick

Senior Product Manager, Accessibility

Adobe Systems

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Geof Collis
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 7:55 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG 2.0 level A

I'm assuming by your questioning that WCAG 2.0 level A will cover
accessibility for all disabilities. So I ask you is level A
sufficient? If not, then which disabilities are expendable?

It has been my understanding that level AA is the benchmark, is this
not correct?

At 07:05 PM 12/12/2009, you wrote:
>Why do you feel it would be a mistake?
>Andrew Kirkpatrick
>Senior Product Manager, Accessibility
>Adobe Systems
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Sat Dec 12 15:29:29 2009
>Subject: [WebAIM] WCAG 2.0 level A
>
>Hi All
>
>Here in Ontario our Government has enacted a law at www.aoda.ca and
>one of the standards is for web accessibility. It has come to my
>attention that the powers that be are considering making WCAG 2.0
>level A as the benchmark. This would be a big mistake so I am looking
>for any information that I can present in opposition to this
>consideration. If anyone can help it would be greatly appreciated.
>
>cheers
>
>Geof
>
>
>Editor
>Accessibility News
>www.accessibilitynews.ca
>Accessibility News International
>www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com
>

From: Wayne Dick
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 9:21PM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 level A
← Previous message | Next message →

Geof,

Here is why I like WCAG 2.0 Level A. It is
sufficient to cover US 508 at an equally effective
access level. Please feel free to check my work.

http://www.csulb.edu/~wed/public/EqEffAcc/508toWCAG2.html

Wayne

From: John Foliot
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 10:45PM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 level A
← Previous message | Next message →

Geof Collis wrote:
>
> Here in Ontario our Government has enacted a law at www.aoda.ca and
> one of the standards is for web accessibility. It has come to my
> attention that the powers that be are considering making WCAG 2.0
> level A as the benchmark. This would be a big mistake so I am looking
> for any information that I can present in opposition to this
> consideration. If anyone can help it would be greatly appreciated.

Geof,

I would suggest that the AA compliance level would be the desired level.

Currently the Canadian Federal Government mandate AA (or Priority 1 and
Priority 2 checkpoints) of WCAG1
(http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/clf2-nsi2/clfs-nnsi/clfs-nnsi-2-eng.asp#cn_1_cww
), and the AA WCAG2 level closely maps to the level of effort required
(for lack of a better term) to reach compliance. Countries such as New
Zealand that have adopted WCAG2 as their Standard with compliance to AA
are existing precedent that it is viable and achievable for government
institutions to meet. (http://bit.ly/8Ct6wR)

WCAG2 A compliance is more closely associated to Section 508 compliance;
most governmental entities in Canada (and elsewhere) currently have
existing higher standard requirements, usually resulting in AA compliance
requirements to either the older WCAG1 or the newer WCAG2.

Hope this helps.

JF

From: ckrugman@sbcglobal.net
Date: Sun, Dec 13 2009 1:54AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 level A
← Previous message | Next message →

As I'm not familiar with the details of this please explain why this would
be a bigt mistake. Thanks.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geof Collis" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 3:29 PM
Subject: [WebAIM] WCAG 2.0 level A


> Hi All
>
> Here in Ontario our Government has enacted a law at www.aoda.ca and
> one of the standards is for web accessibility. It has come to my
> attention that the powers that be are considering making WCAG 2.0
> level A as the benchmark. This would be a big mistake so I am looking
> for any information that I can present in opposition to this
> consideration. If anyone can help it would be greatly appreciated.
>
> cheers
>
> Geof
>
>
> Editor
> Accessibility News
> www.accessibilitynews.ca
> Accessibility News International
> www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com
>

From: Simius Puer
Date: Sun, Dec 13 2009 3:39AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 level A
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Geof

I think your original phrasing of question has created some confusion. As I
understand it you are not anti-accessibility (as your question seemed to
suggest) at all, but simply that you don't think single-A conformance is
sufficient.

To be honest I'd have to agree with you. I've worked with many Government
departments in the UK and Australia, both of whom have much more stringent
accessibility requirements than many other countries and AA conformance was
seen as the sensible minimum standard.

I say minimum standard, as many people seem to forget that you can aim
higher...there is nothing stopping you.

The reason I think AA is the best balance is that it is a) very easily
achievable and b) covers a broad range of disabilities. As soon as you try
to hit full AAA compliance the difficulty rating hikes considerably and the
number of additional people it caters for diminishes so whether you are
looking at it in business terms (of return on investment) or Government
terms (of sound public spending) there are significantly diminishing reasons
for doing so. Again, I'm not saying there are no reasons so please do not
take my comments as anti-AAA conformance - I just live in the real world.

Most of the clients I have worked for I have actually convinced to go a step
further than AA, but without actually aiming for full AAA compliance. There
are many requirements of the AAA level which are actually easy to meet
whilst adding very little to development costs, and sometimes nothing to the
running costs of a website.

Sadly here in Ireland many Government bodies barely pay lip-service to the
matter of accessibility and even An Garda Síochána (the national police
force) recently relaunched their website which fails miserably to address
the issue. Thankfully the National Disability Authority is working to turn
that around.

With regards to the new legislation in Ontario I would not be anti-single-A
conformance at all. It is usually necessary to do these things in stages (a
bit like transitional/strict DTD for HTML...it's 'transitional' for a reason
people!) whereby a simple standard is adopted with an aim towards working
towards a higher standard over time. For example the UK Government set out
a plan (not yet fully successful) for all Government site to be single A
accessible first, with a deadline for AA conformance a while later. They
even threatened to pull budgets for any new/revisted website that does not
conform to AA though this proved a little bit of a toothless threat.

If your "powers that be" issue a consultation request, please post a link up
here as I'm sure that quite a few people here would be happy to contribute.
You might also want to post it on the Web Accessibility Group (
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=41800) on LinkedIn if you are a member.

Cheers

From: Geof Collis
Date: Sun, Dec 13 2009 6:39AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 level A
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi John

Much appreciated!!

cheers

Geof

From: Geof Collis
Date: Sun, Dec 13 2009 6:42AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 level A
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Andrew

Andrew echoed my sentiments in his response.

cheers

Geof

From: Geof Collis
Date: Sun, Dec 13 2009 6:45AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 level A
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Wayne

Thanks, will definitely look into it.

cheers

Geof

From: Geof Collis
Date: Sun, Dec 13 2009 6:48AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 level A
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Chuck

After rereading my post I see why now the confusion, it was only
meant to be A not AA.

cheers

Geof

At 03:53 AM 12/13/2009, you wrote:
>As I'm not familiar with the details of this please explain why this would
>be a bigt mistake. Thanks.
>Chuck
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Geof Collis" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 3:29 PM
>Subject: [WebAIM] WCAG 2.0 level A
>
>
> > Hi All
> >
> > Here in Ontario our Government has enacted a law at www.aoda.ca and
> > one of the standards is for web accessibility. It has come to my
> > attention that the powers that be are considering making WCAG 2.0
> > level A as the benchmark. This would be a big mistake so I am looking
> > for any information that I can present in opposition to this
> > consideration. If anyone can help it would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Geof
> >
> >
> > Editor
> > Accessibility News
> > www.accessibilitynews.ca
> > Accessibility News International
> > www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com
> >

From: Geof Collis
Date: Sun, Dec 13 2009 6:51AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 level A
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Andrew

Sorry if there was any confusion that was exactly what I meant and I
agree wholeheartedly with your opinion.

Our standard in its rough draft also set out deadlines for meeting A
and AA which is acceptable if there is some sort of enforcement
mechanism, however that in itself appears to be toothless at present.

I believe public consultation is either already posted or will be
coming up, will look into it.

cheers

Geof

From: Wayne Dick
Date: Sun, Dec 13 2009 6:48PM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 level A
← Previous message | Next message →

A stepped model would be best, but enforcement is
the problem. Any time you can get one step
instead of 2, you're better off.

An extremely practical model is this. You can
push for all sites created after 20XX to be in
Level A. After 20YY new sites should be Level AA.
If the early ones don't get converted it is
probably not serious, Level A is a very strong
508. Moreover, most sites don't live long enough
to avoid the ultimate conversion to Level AA.

Wayne

From: Geof Collis
Date: Wed, Dec 16 2009 2:03PM
Subject: WCAG
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi All

Just used another online accessibility checker that gave me the
following error:

* Each ul or ol element that precedes the last h1 element and
appears to be a navigation bar should be immediately preceded by a
heading element, preferably an h2.
* Warn: 2 ul or ol elements (out of 2 total) do not meet the criteria.
* Each map element that precedes the last h1 element and appears
to be a navigation bar should be immediately preceded by a heading
element, preferably an h2

Is this correct?

cheers

Geof



Editor
Accessibility News
www.accessibilitynews.ca
Accessibility News International
www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com

From: Jared Smith
Date: Wed, Dec 16 2009 2:27PM
Subject: Re: WCAG
← Previous message | Next message →

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Geof Collis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Is this correct?

No. It's silly to expect or require that all things that might
possibly be, look like, or even actually are navigation elements be
proceeded by a heading. How many sites do you know of that have a
"Navigation" heading immediately before the main navigation links?
It's reasonable to assume that both sighted and non-sighted users will
understand that a group of links near the beginning of the page that
link to major areas of the site are probably the navigation.
Suggesting that developers must explicitly tell the user what they are
via a heading is a bit extreme.

Now if the group of navigation items already has a visible header,
then yes, that header should be marked up as a header at the
appropriate level.

Additionally, adding the ARIA role="navigation" allows assistive
technology to explicitly know the section of the page that is
navigation.

Jared Smith
WebAIM

From: Geof Collis
Date: Wed, Dec 16 2009 3:03PM
Subject: Re: WCAG
← Previous message | Next message →

Thanks Jared, just what I thought. I have the Landmarks there but it
didn't detect them and if I were to put headings it would throw off
my whole design

cheers

Geof

t 04:25 PM 12/16/2009, you wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Geof Collis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> > Is this correct?
>
>No. It's silly to expect or require that all things that might
>possibly be, look like, or even actually are navigation elements be
>proceeded by a heading. How many sites do you know of that have a
>"Navigation" heading immediately before the main navigation links?
>It's reasonable to assume that both sighted and non-sighted users will
>understand that a group of links near the beginning of the page that
>link to major areas of the site are probably the navigation.
>Suggesting that developers must explicitly tell the user what they are
>via a heading is a bit extreme.
>
>Now if the group of navigation items already has a visible header,
>then yes, that header should be marked up as a header at the
>appropriate level.
>
>Additionally, adding the ARIA role="navigation" allows assistive
>technology to explicitly know the section of the page that is
>navigation.
>
>Jared Smith
>WebAIM
>

From: jfoliot@stanford.edu
Date: Wed, Dec 16 2009 8:42PM
Subject: Re: WCAG
← Previous message | Next message →

That is one interpretation (FAE evaluator correct?). You will not find
explicit language like that in the WCAG 2 spec however...

FWIW, I disagree with that interpretation, and have said so publicly
before.

JF

John Foliot
(Sent from my mobile)
Stanford Online Accessibility Program
http://soap.stanford.edu

On Dec 16, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Geof Collis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Hi All
>
> Just used another online accessibility checker that gave me the
> following error:
>
> * Each ul or ol element that precedes the last h1 element and
> appears to be a navigation bar should be immediately preceded by a
> heading element, preferably an h2.
> * Warn: 2 ul or ol elements (out of 2 total) do not meet the
> criteria.
> * Each map element that precedes the last h1 element and appears
> to be a navigation bar should be immediately preceded by a heading
> element, preferably an h2
>
> Is this correct?
>
> cheers
>
> Geof
>
>
>
> Editor
> Accessibility News
> www.accessibilitynews.ca
> Accessibility News International
> www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com
>

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Thu, Dec 17 2009 1:30AM
Subject: Re: WCAG
← Previous message | Next message →

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 4:40 AM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

>
> FWIW, I disagree with that interpretation, and have said so publicly
> before.
>

Same here...it's opinion codified in a validator (I've said the same about
what Frauenhofen institute are doing at their end with regards to automated
WCAG 2 validation...I'd go as far as saying that, by its very nature, you
can't automatically test for WCAG 2)

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra
Date: Thu, Dec 17 2009 3:15AM
Subject: Re: WCAG
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Patrick, all,

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 4:40 AM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I disagree with that interpretation, and have said so publicly
>> before.
>>
>
> Same here...it's opinion codified in a validator (I've said the same about
> what Frauenhofen institute are doing at their end with regards to automated
> WCAG 2 validation...I'd go as far as saying that, by its very nature, you
> can't automatically test for WCAG 2)

Coding opinions in tools or evaluation methodologies is unfortunately
another aspect of standards fragmentation that contributes to confusion
and slows down the overall implementation of web accessibility.

Note, however, that you couldn't test *for* WCAG 1 either but you can
test for the existence of some known issues. For instance, in WCAG 2
some of the Failure Techniques are automatable. I think tool producers
can benefit from this structure in WCAG 2 and from the opportunity to
contribute additional (Failure) Techniques to the WCAG Working Group.

Best,
Shadi

--
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
WAI International Program Office Activity Lead |
W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |

From: Geof Collis
Date: Thu, Dec 17 2009 6:21AM
Subject: Re: WCAG
← Previous message | No next message

Hi John

Yup, that's the one. Ran one of my sites through it and noticed that
error right away.

cheers

Geof

At 10:40 PM 12/16/2009, you wrote:
>That is one interpretation (FAE evaluator correct?). You will not find
>explicit language like that in the WCAG 2 spec however...
>
>FWIW, I disagree with that interpretation, and have said so publicly
>before.
>
>JF
>
>John Foliot
>(Sent from my mobile)
>Stanford Online Accessibility Program
>http://soap.stanford.edu
>
>On Dec 16, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Geof Collis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> > Hi All
> >
> > Just used another online accessibility checker that gave me the
> > following error:
> >
> > * Each ul or ol element that precedes the last h1 element and
> > appears to be a navigation bar should be immediately preceded by a
> > heading element, preferably an h2.
> > * Warn: 2 ul or ol elements (out of 2 total) do not meet the
> > criteria.
> > * Each map element that precedes the last h1 element and appears
> > to be a navigation bar should be immediately preceded by a heading
> > element, preferably an h2
> >
> > Is this correct?
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Geof
> >
> >
> >
> > Editor
> > Accessibility News
> > www.accessibilitynews.ca
> > Accessibility News International
> > www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com
> >