E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 40 (In chronological order)

From: Geof Collis
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:27AM
Subject: WCAG and various Laws
No previous message | Next message →

Hi All

I'm looking for resources that let me know what level of
accessibility the following laws have to achieve:

Section 508
UK DDE(?)
Austrailia's Law

thanks for any help

Geof


Administrator
Coalition of Ontario Accessibility Advisory Committees (COAAC) Website
www.coaac.ca
Follow COAAC on Twitter
www.twitter.com/coaac

From: Steve Green
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:33AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

The UK's DDA does not specify any technical requirements. It is assessed
individually for each person who brings a case to court, and it is concerned
with actual outcomes. The judgement takes into account a wide range of
factors including the resources the website owner has available to them to
conduct remedial work.

This means that:

A. It is not possible to know if a website is DDA compliant without going
through the court process.

B. A website may be DDA-compliant with respect to one user but not another.

C. A website may be DDA-compliant with respect to one website owner but not
another.

Steve Green
Director
Test Partners Ltd

From: Geof Collis
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:48AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Steve

Thanks, I would assume according to the article I posted at
http://www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com/?p=1356 that it
isn't going to get any easier to understand.

cheers

Geof


At 10:33 AM 3/29/2010, you wrote:
>The UK's DDA does not specify any technical requirements. It is assessed
>individually for each person who brings a case to court, and it is concerned
>with actual outcomes. The judgement takes into account a wide range of
>factors including the resources the website owner has available to them to
>conduct remedial work.
>
>This means that:
>
>A. It is not possible to know if a website is DDA compliant without going
>through the court process.
>
>B. A website may be DDA-compliant with respect to one user but not another.
>
>C. A website may be DDA-compliant with respect to one website owner but not
>another.
>
>Steve Green
>Director
>Test Partners Ltd
>
>
>

From: Steve Green
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:12AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

I think the current DDA is very easy to understand. I have not read the new
law, but I know Struan Robertson who wrote that article, and if he says it's
bad then I am happy to believe it.

The EHRC is an unmitigated disaster, and the blame can be laid squarely at
Trevor Phillips' door. He has driven out most of the best people from the
three organisations that were merged to form the EHRC. The sooner he goes,
the better.

Steve

From: Webb, KerryA
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:00PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Geof asked:

> Hi All
>
> I'm looking for resources that let me know what level of
> accessibility the following laws have to achieve:
>
> Section 508
> UK DDE(?)
> Austrailia's Law
>

This is from the Australian Human Rights Commission's site:

Until we are in a position to make comprehensive recommendations for the
implementation of WCAG 2.0, our referenced benchmark for website
accessibility continues to be WCAG 1.0, with Level AA of WCAG 1.0 being
the minimum conformance level that we recommend.

(almost a year old)

Kerry

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Geof Collis
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:06PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Thanks Kerry!

cheers

Geof
At 06:56 PM 3/29/2010, you wrote:
>Geof asked:
>
> > Hi All
> >
> > I'm looking for resources that let me know what level of
> > accessibility the following laws have to achieve:
> >
> > Section 508
> > UK DDE(?)
> > Austrailia's Law
> >
>
>This is from the Australian Human Rights Commission's site:
>
>Until we are in a position to make comprehensive recommendations for the
>implementation of WCAG 2.0, our referenced benchmark for website
>accessibility continues to be WCAG 1.0, with Level AA of WCAG 1.0 being
>the minimum conformance level that we recommend.
>
>(almost a year old)
>
>Kerry
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also
>privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
>sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any
>attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any
>purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>

From: Vicki Stanton
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:21PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Geof,

On 30/03/2010, at 6:56 AM, Webb, KerryA wrote:
> This is from the Australian Human Rights Commission's site:
>
> Until we are in a position to make comprehensive recommendations for the
> implementation of WCAG 2.0, our referenced benchmark for website
> accessibility continues to be WCAG 1.0, with Level AA of WCAG 1.0 being
> the minimum conformance level that we recommend.
>
> (almost a year old)

The Australian Human Rights Commission has embraced WCAG 2.0 and government agencies must conform by 2015:

http://www.financeminister.gov.au/media/2010/mr_052010_joint.html

However, that news release doesn't say to what degree conformance will be required.

The "World Wide Web Access: Disability Discrimination Act Advisory Notes" (http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html) do say, however, that under the Disability Discrimination Act 1994:

"Equal access for people with a disability in this area is required by the DDA where it can reasonably be provided. This requirement applies to any individual or organisation developing a Worldwide Web page in Australia, or placing or maintaining a Web page on an Australian server."

So it's not just government agencies that have to provide accessible websites - it's everyone - as long as it can be "reasonably provided".

HTH,

Vicki. :-)

--
Vicki Stanton
http://www.nvworx.com

From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 6:15AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Vicki

Much appreciated!



cheers

Geof

At 11:20 PM 3/29/2010, you wrote:
>Hi Geof,
>
>On 30/03/2010, at 6:56 AM, Webb, KerryA wrote:
> > This is from the Australian Human Rights Commission's site:
> >
> > Until we are in a position to make comprehensive recommendations for the
> > implementation of WCAG 2.0, our referenced benchmark for website
> > accessibility continues to be WCAG 1.0, with Level AA of WCAG 1.0 being
> > the minimum conformance level that we recommend.
> >
> > (almost a year old)
>
>The Australian Human Rights Commission has embraced WCAG 2.0 and
>government agencies must conform by 2015:
>
>http://www.financeminister.gov.au/media/2010/mr_052010_joint.html
>
>However, that news release doesn't say to what degree conformance
>will be required.
>
>The "World Wide Web Access: Disability Discrimination Act Advisory
>Notes"
>(http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/www_3/www_3.html)
>do say, however, that under the Disability Discrimination Act 1994:
>
>"Equal access for people with a disability in this area is required
>by the DDA where it can reasonably be provided. This requirement
>applies to any individual or organisation developing a Worldwide Web
>page in Australia, or placing or maintaining a Web page on an
>Australian server."
>
>So it's not just government agencies that have to provide accessible
>websites - it's everyone - as long as it can be "reasonably provided".
>
>HTH,
>
>Vicki. :-)
>
>--
>Vicki Stanton
>http://www.nvworx.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Simius Puer
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 7:36AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

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:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/RightsAndObligations/DisabilityRights/DG_4001068

From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 7:51AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Andrew

Thanks!

I had links and quotes to all of these Laws but cant seem to find
them anywhere on my computer, getting sloppy in my old age. :O)

cheers

Geof
At 08:35 AM 3/30/2010, you wrote:
>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:
>http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/RightsAndObligations/DisabilityRights/DG_4001068
>
>

From: Steve Green
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 7:54AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

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
http://coi.gov.uk/documents/guidance/delivering-inclusive-websites.pdf

However, this is only guidance - it has no legal status.

Steve

From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 8:12AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Thanks, very difficult to navigate and understand pdf document though.

Would the "equivalent" be WCAG 2.0 AA or A though?

cheers

Geof

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
>http://coi.gov.uk/documents/guidance/delivering-inclusive-websites.pdf
>
>However, this is only guidance - it has no legal status.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>

From: James Kennard
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 8:18AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

To reach WCAG AA, you must achieve WCAG A.

And

To reach WCAG AAA, you must achieve WCAG AA.

So to answer your question, it means you must achieve both.

Check out: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance

From: Steve Green
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 8:24AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

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
guidance.

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?

Steve

From: Simius Puer
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 8:57AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

>
> 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."
>

Thanks for that Steve - must have missed that one being issued *looks rather
sheep-faced*!

That is however only aimed at the public sector websites - the Code of
Practice that goes along with the DDA is a different set of documents. The
latest CoPs can be found here:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/information-for-advisers/codes-of-practice/

Regarding the debate on what is "equivalent" between WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 - the
technical detail is a little bit of a mute point, although it obviously
needs to be addressed if you are moving the compliance focus from one to the
other. AA from WCAG 1.0 is the same as AA in WCAG 2.0 in the broad terms of
which disability groups it is trying to cater for, which in my opinion, is
the most important factor when addressing accessibility rather than looking
at individual checkpoints.

From: James Kennard
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 9:03AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Just realised I totally misunderstood what you were saying - ignore me
prattling on to myself ;)

From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 9:12AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Thanks to all the responses, I was hoping that I could find some
concrete information that WCAG 2.0 Level AA was the benchmark around
the World for compliance to use in my argument to our
Provincial Governments upcoming Law for web accessibility, you might
remember me saying they are debating whether to stop at Level A as
the minimum. A number of groups are lobbying them to go to Level AA.

I seem to remember reading an article where Sweden or some country
upped theirs from A to AA recently, will have to go looking for it.

cheers

Geof




At 09:58 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."
> >
>
>Thanks for that Steve - must have missed that one being issued *looks rather
>sheep-faced*!
>
>That is however only aimed at the public sector websites - the Code of
>Practice that goes along with the DDA is a different set of documents. The
>latest CoPs can be found here:
>http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/information-for-advisers/codes-of-practice/
>
>Regarding the debate on what is "equivalent" between WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 - the
>technical detail is a little bit of a mute point, although it obviously
>needs to be addressed if you are moving the compliance focus from one to the
>other. AA from WCAG 1.0 is the same as AA in WCAG 2.0 in the broad terms of
>which disability groups it is trying to cater for, which in my opinion, is
>the most important factor when addressing accessibility rather than looking
>at individual checkpoints.
>
>
>

From: Simius Puer
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 9:39AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Geof

From experience you are right on the mark with WCAG 2.0 being the 'norm'
(with WCAG 1.0 AA preceding that) for the more technically advanced
countries to hang their legislation off of.

Have you checked out http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/ ? This has great
background on specific country legislation and the issuing body. It doesn't
give any quick answers as to the specific technical standard (WCAG being the
predominant solution) or the level that should be attained, but it does tell
you the issuing body so it is easy enough to check (the WAI might even be
able to assist you).

It would be great to see a resource that listed exactly what you are after
but I'm not sure that would feasible (as it's never quite that straight
forward & would be difficult to ensure it was up-to-date) - the link above
is a good start though.

From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 9:45AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Andrew

Thanks I haven't seen that link. I'll look it over and see if I can
find anything to bolster my argument.

cheers

Geof

At 10:39 AM 3/30/2010, you wrote:
>Hi Geof
>
> From experience you are right on the mark with WCAG 2.0 being the 'norm'
>(with WCAG 1.0 AA preceding that) for the more technically advanced
>countries to hang their legislation off of.
>
>Have you checked out http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/ ? This has great
>background on specific country legislation and the issuing body. It doesn't
>give any quick answers as to the specific technical standard (WCAG being the
>predominant solution) or the level that should be attained, but it does tell
>you the issuing body so it is easy enough to check (the WAI might even be
>able to assist you).
>
>It would be great to see a resource that listed exactly what you are after
>but I'm not sure that would feasible (as it's never quite that straight
>forward & would be difficult to ensure it was up-to-date) - the link above
>is a good start though.
>
>
>

From: Christophe Strobbe
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 10:39AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

At 16:39 30/03/2010, Simius Puer wrote:
>Hi Geof
>
> >From experience you are right on the mark with WCAG 2.0 being the 'norm'
>(with WCAG 1.0 AA preceding that) for the more technically advanced
>countries to hang their legislation off of.
>
>Have you checked out http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/ ? This has great
>background on specific country legislation and the issuing body.

It looks outdated. For example, it still says that France has no
legislation on web accessibility.

(The bottom of the page says it has not been updated since 2006.)

Best regards,

Christophe


--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
---
"Better products and services through end-user empowerment"
http://www.usem-net.eu/
---
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other
"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but
I haven't.

From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 10:45AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

After poking around a bit I found that many weren't that recent so
not very helpful to my cause.

I did find this in a Google:

Accessibility of Australian Government websites was mandated as an
opt-out arrangement by the Secretaries ICT Governance Board (SIGB) in
December 2009.
Compliance will be required at Level A by 2012, and Double A by 2015.

http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au/Accessibility


I'm still trying to track down an article that mentioned a European
Country had updated its Law to WCAG 2.0 AA, at least that's what I
remember, if anyone else has info that'd be great.


cheers

Geof

At 11:40 AM 3/30/2010, you wrote:

>At 16:39 30/03/2010, Simius Puer wrote:
> >Hi Geof
> >
> > >From experience you are right on the mark with WCAG 2.0 being the 'norm'
> >(with WCAG 1.0 AA preceding that) for the more technically advanced
> >countries to hang their legislation off of.
> >
> >Have you checked out http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/ ? This has great
> >background on specific country legislation and the issuing body.
>
>It looks outdated. For example, it still says that France has no
>legislation on web accessibility.
>
>(The bottom of the page says it has not been updated since 2006.)
>
>Best regards,
>
>Christophe
>
>
>--
>Christophe Strobbe
>K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
>Research Group on Document Architectures
>Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
>B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
>BELGIUM
>tel: +32 16 32 85 51
>http://www.docarch.be/
>---
>"Better products and services through end-user empowerment"
>http://www.usem-net.eu/
>---
>Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other
>"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but
>I haven't.
>
>

From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 10:54AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Christophe

I found the article and it should have rung a bell with you although
I did get the Country wrong. :O)

http://www.epractice.eu/en/blog/308297

cheers

Geof


At 11:40 AM 3/30/2010, you wrote:

>At 16:39 30/03/2010, Simius Puer wrote:
> >Hi Geof
> >
> > >From experience you are right on the mark with WCAG 2.0 being the 'norm'
> >(with WCAG 1.0 AA preceding that) for the more technically advanced
> >countries to hang their legislation off of.
> >
> >Have you checked out http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/ ? This has great
> >background on specific country legislation and the issuing body.
>
>It looks outdated. For example, it still says that France has no
>legislation on web accessibility.
>
>(The bottom of the page says it has not been updated since 2006.)
>
>Best regards,
>
>Christophe
>
>
>--
>Christophe Strobbe
>K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
>Research Group on Document Architectures
>Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
>B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
>BELGIUM
>tel: +32 16 32 85 51
>http://www.docarch.be/
>---
>"Better products and services through end-user empowerment"
>http://www.usem-net.eu/
>---
>Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other
>"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but
>I haven't.
>
>

From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 11:00AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi All

If anyone has read the new Section 508 draft and can provide info
related to the level of conformance with links that'd be great and
any info to other Countries that have adopted WCAG 2.0 would help as well.

So far I have the following:

World Wide Compliance:

Australia
Accessibility of Australian Government websites was mandated as an
opt-out arrangement by the Secretaries ICT Governance Board (SIGB) in
December 2009.
Compliance will be required at Level A by 2012, and Double A by 2015.

http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au/Accessibility
Switzerland

Switzerland has updated its guidelines for accessible websites to
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.
On 26 January 2010 the Federal IT Council
(FITC) in Switzerland (Informatikrat des Bundes - IRB) accepted
with unanimous consent the changes to standard P028 Version 2.0. As a
result of these changes, existing federal websites must meet WCAG 2.0 Level AA
by 31 December 2010. New federal websites must meet this
conformance level immediately.
http://www.epractice.eu/en/blog/308297


cheers

Geof

From: Simius Puer
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 11:09AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

>
> After poking around a bit I found that many weren't that recent so
> not very helpful to my cause.
>

...Sorry Geof. I perhaps should have put a disclaimer on my email ;)

Good quality, accurate content is the part of the foundations for
accessibility (and usability in general) even though you won't see that in
any guidelines, so it's sad to see the WAI information being so out of date
(no great shock), but then, that was the point I making about the
feasibility of a centralised source for this information.

Best of luck with your information hunting and it would be great if you
could share your findings (maybe you could email it to the WAI heh heh!!) if
you get more.

From: Christophe Strobbe
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 11:24AM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Geof,

At 17:53 30/03/2010, Geof Collis wrote:
>Hi Christophe
>
>I found the article and it should have rung a bell with you although
>I did get the Country wrong. :O)
>
>http://www.epractice.eu/en/blog/308297

I also forgot to mention a thread on the WAI-IG list from April last
year, where I mentioned other sources of information:
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2009AprJun/0026.html>;.

Best regards,

Christophe


>cheers
>
>Geof
>
>
>At 11:40 AM 3/30/2010, you wrote:
>
> >At 16:39 30/03/2010, Simius Puer wrote:
> > >Hi Geof
> > >
> > > >From experience you are right on the mark with WCAG 2.0 being the 'norm'
> > >(with WCAG 1.0 AA preceding that) for the more technically advanced
> > >countries to hang their legislation off of.
> > >
> > >Have you checked out http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/ ? This has great
> > >background on specific country legislation and the issuing body.
> >
> >It looks outdated. For example, it still says that France has no
> >legislation on web accessibility.
> >
> >(The bottom of the page says it has not been updated since 2006.)
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >Christophe
> >
> >
> >--
> >Christophe Strobbe


--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
---
"Better products and services through end-user empowerment"
http://www.usem-net.eu/
---
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other
"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but
I haven't.

From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 12:33PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Christophe and All

Followed that link and I've pasted below
Countries that have some mention of Guidelines,
not sure how current some of them are though.

cheers

Geof

Austria

In conformity with the e-Europe Initiative,
Austria has committed itself to adjusting all
public web services according to the WAI level A.

http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/austria/websites/

Belgium

AnySurfer (formerly BlindSurfer) is a collective
organization of Belgian’s largest organizations
for the blind and visually impaired. AnySurfer is mainly
known for granting quality labels (guidelines are
based on WCAG1). Both the Flemish and the Walloon
Government have formally accepted the revised AnySurfer
guidelines (released in July 2006) as the only
set of guidelines for testing public websites.

http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/belgium/websites/

Cyprus

In principle, eGovernment services are available
to all citizens through an eGovernment portal.
National guidelines related to the Government Computerisation
Master Plan refer to WCAG 1.0 level A and to some
extent to level AA. Acoording to this, all public
websites should be accessible by the end of 2008.

http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/cyprus/websites/

Czech Republic

Government resolution No. 64, 7th February 2008
provides harmonisation with and implementation of
EU requirements. Among other things, the Ministry of Interior
was to prepare a standard on publishing
information that complies with the WAI
initiative. These recommendations were published to comprise altogether
33 rules putting together the three methodologies
used for eAccessibility (WCAG 2.0, Section 508
and Blind Friendly Web). This is a very detailed handbook
comprising 33 chapters and encompassing explanations and examples.

http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/czech-republic/websites/

Denmark

Although Denmark has adopted a non-legislative
approach towards accessibility of public
websites, the use of WAI guidelines has been made mandatory by the
public sector as of 1st January 2008 by means of
a formal agreement which spansthe federal,
regional and local district levels. This agreement is as a
result of Parliament Resolution B103 of September
2007 on the use of mandatory open standards for
software in the public sector. Prior to the resolution,
the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and
Innovation carried out a national review, and the
results indicated that there are still major obstacles
for eAccessibility on public websites.
Consequently, the Danish Minister of Science,
Technology and Innovation launched a number of measures directed towards
improving the current state of affairs. To begin
with, mandatory use of accessibility standards is
followed by an obligation to explain non-compliance
to the agreement (i.e., a comply or explain
principle). Moreover, from 2008 onwards there
will be an annual benchmarking that evaluates all public websites
against WCAG AA criteria, and the results will be published on the internet.

http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/denmark/websites/

France

The Law for Equal Rights and Opportunities,
Participation and Citizenship of People with
Disabilities (Law n° 2005-102 of 11 February 2005), Article 47,
makes accessibility of all public online services
mandatory. Public digital communication services
(public websites in particular, but also phone and TV
services) must be accessible to people with
disabilities according to international
standards. The law does not specify further the services that are concerned,
nor does it refer to specific standards.

There is no direct legal or regulatory obligation
for the accessibility of private websites.

http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/france/websites/

Germany

The Federal Disabled Equalization Law (BGG) and
the Federal Decree on Barrier-free Information
Technology (the so-called BITV regulation) are the main legal/regulatory
provisions for web accessibility. Section 11 of
the BGG stipulates an obligatory requirement on
federal public bodies to make their websites accessible
to people with disabilities by the end of 2005.
Under the BITV, guidelines are provided on how to
make public websites accessible to disabled users (based
on WAI WCAG 1.0). BITV required new sites to
conform immediately, content dedicated to people
with disabilities by the end of 2003, and others by the end
of 2005.

http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/germany/germany-website/

Greece

While there is no direct law onaccessibility of
public websites, the recently revised (2001)
Hellenic Constitution states that “everyone has the right
to participation in [the] Information Society.”
The facilitation of access to electronic
information, as well as the production, exchange and dissemination
of this information, is an obligation of the State.

http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/greece/websites/

Italy

Two subsequent decrees implemented the Law: the
Decree of the President of the Republic (March 1,
2005, No.75) containing the Implementation Regulations,
and the Ministerial Decree (July 8, 2005)
containing the Technical Rules. The technical
requirements were drafted with a view to having a shared consensus
with associations and companies and also to be
compliant with international recommendations
(ISO, W3C, Section 508 etc.). They can be periodically updated
whenever relevant changes are made to
international accessibility rules. An assessment
methodology was also developed. Public administrations may carry
out a self-assessment or use a third-party from a
list of officially recognised evaluators.




http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/italy/italy-websites/

Netherlands

As the result of a cabinet committee decision,
all public websites must be in compliance with
web guidelines which include the W3C guidelines. The goal
is to achieve compliance for all public websites
to the standards of the ‘webrichtlijnen’
guidelines before 2010, though it appears that there are no sanctions
for non-compliance. Also, the first rule of the
interdepartmental style guide (2006) obliges
public websites to comply with this standard and there is
a commitment in the ‘Better Governance’ policy
(2003) that the government must be transparent,
effective, efficient and accessible for everyone.
http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/the-netherlands/websites/

Slovakia

On the basis of an Act on information systems of
public administration (2006), the Ministry of
Transport, Post and Telecommunications has published standards
for information systems which include
eAccessibility standards. On the basis of Article
13 of the Act, this standard makes compliance with WCAG 1.0 level
A mandatory, and includes some additional rules
from Levels AA and AAA. The standard is valid
from 1st August 2006 for new public websites and 2008 for
all public websites. Annual monitoring by the
responsible ministry has been carried out since
2006 and will be done 2 times a year starting in 2008. An
awareness-raising seminar is planned for public administrations in 2008.

http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/slovakia/websites/

United Kingdom
The COI guidelines set a minimum level of accessibility:

1. The minimum level of accessibility for all
Government websites is Level Double-A of the W3C
guidelines. Any new site approved by the Cabinet Sub-Committee
on Public Engagement and the Delivery of Service
(DA(PED)) must conform to these guidelines from the point of publication.
2. Continuing standalone sites must achieve this
level of accessibility by December 2008. Websites
which fail to meet the mandated level of conformance
shall be subject to the withdrawal process for
.gov.uk domain names, as set out in Naming and Registering Websites (TG101).

http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/united-kingdom/united-kingdom-websites/

Canada

The Common Look and Feel Standards 2.0 were
approved by Treasury Board Ministers in December,
2006 and apply to all federal government websites. They adopt
W3C WCAG 1.0 and also provide additional web
accessibility regulations. They are mandatory for
all covered institutions, though there are no formal methods
of enforcement or sanctioning in place. Deputy
Ministers of the Government are responsible for
implementation within their departments. The standards are
intended to describe how to implement policy that
respects Canadian law including the Access to
Information Act and therefore non-compliance may be viewed
as a failure to meet obligations under that Act.

http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/canada/websites/

Taken from http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/

From: ckrugman
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 2:54PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

I find it interesting that in Canada web accessibility is being dealt with
on a provincial level rather than something that is uniform throughout
Canada. Let me know if I'm not totally understanding this.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geof Collis" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG and various Laws


> Thanks to all the responses, I was hoping that I could find some
> concrete information that WCAG 2.0 Level AA was the benchmark around
> the World for compliance to use in my argument to our
> Provincial Governments upcoming Law for web accessibility, you might
> remember me saying they are debating whether to stop at Level A as
> the minimum. A number of groups are lobbying them to go to Level AA.
>
> I seem to remember reading an article where Sweden or some country
> upped theirs from A to AA recently, will have to go looking for it.
>
> cheers
>
> Geof
>
>
>
>
> At 09:58 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."
>> >
>>
>>Thanks for that Steve - must have missed that one being issued *looks
>>rather
>>sheep-faced*!
>>
>>That is however only aimed at the public sector websites - the Code of
>>Practice that goes along with the DDA is a different set of documents.
>>The
>>latest CoPs can be found here:
>>http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/information-for-advisers/codes-of-practice/
>>
>>Regarding the debate on what is "equivalent" between WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 -
>>the
>>technical detail is a little bit of a mute point, although it obviously
>>needs to be addressed if you are moving the compliance focus from one to
>>the
>>other. AA from WCAG 1.0 is the same as AA in WCAG 2.0 in the broad terms
>>of
>>which disability groups it is trying to cater for, which in my opinion, is
>>the most important factor when addressing accessibility rather than
>>looking
>>at individual checkpoints.
>>
>>
>>

From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 3:12PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

There is the Common Look and Feel which is Federal, but up here
we're a bit anal at times. :O)

cheers

Geof

At 03:55 PM 3/30/2010, you wrote:
>I find it interesting that in Canada web accessibility is being dealt with
>on a provincial level rather than something that is uniform throughout
>Canada. Let me know if I'm not totally understanding this.
>Chuck
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Geof Collis" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:12 AM
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG and various Laws
>
>
> > Thanks to all the responses, I was hoping that I could find some
> > concrete information that WCAG 2.0 Level AA was the benchmark around
> > the World for compliance to use in my argument to our
> > Provincial Governments upcoming Law for web accessibility, you might
> > remember me saying they are debating whether to stop at Level A as
> > the minimum. A number of groups are lobbying them to go to Level AA.
> >
> > I seem to remember reading an article where Sweden or some country
> > upped theirs from A to AA recently, will have to go looking for it.
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Geof
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 09:58 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."
> >> >
> >>
> >>Thanks for that Steve - must have missed that one being issued *looks
> >>rather
> >>sheep-faced*!
> >>
> >>That is however only aimed at the public sector websites - the Code of
> >>Practice that goes along with the DDA is a different set of documents.
> >>The
> >>latest CoPs can be found here:
> >>http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/information
> -for-advisers/codes-of-practice/
> >>
> >>Regarding the debate on what is "equivalent" between WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 -
> >>the
> >>technical detail is a little bit of a mute point, although it obviously
> >>needs to be addressed if you are moving the compliance focus from one to
> >>the
> >>other. AA from WCAG 1.0 is the same as AA in WCAG 2.0 in the broad terms
> >>of
> >>which disability groups it is trying to cater for, which in my opinion, is
> >>the most important factor when addressing accessibility rather than
> >>looking
> >>at individual checkpoints.
> >>
> >>
> >>

From: Moore,Michael (DARS)
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 3:30PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Ah but in Canada they have health care and a gold medal in hockey :)

Mike Moore

From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 3:42PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hey there,

On 2010-03-30, at 3:55 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> I find it interesting that in Canada web accessibility is being dealt with
> on a provincial level rather than something that is uniform throughout
> Canada. Let me know if I'm not totally understanding this.
> Chuck

Actually, it's a little bit of both.

There is an accessibility standard on the federal government level that applies to federal government websites only (CLF 2.0/WCAG 1.0, to be updated to CLF 3.0/WCAG 2.0 in an upcoming version).

There are also accessibility standards on the provincial level that will apply to a variety of websites, depending on the province you look at.

In Quebec for instance, we have SGQRI 008 that pretty much means WCAG 2.0. It applies to all government and agencies websites.

In Ontario, it's AODA, but I'm not sure exactly what it aplies to yet, I haven't had a chance to really look into it, but I hear it will cover a wider spectrum than the Quebec standard.

I'm guessing other provinces also have something cooking, but I have yet to check that out.

Obviously, from my answer, I guess it shows I'm from Quebec. ;p

The politics are pretty special up here so it's no surprise that there would be different standards depending on which governement level you're looking at. Not sure it's actually helping the cause, but this is how things are usually handled up here.

As far as I can tell, there isn't really anything that's actually uniform across the country, may it be a11y standards or whatever, as the french- and english-speaking communities are from pretty different cultural backgrounds.

Appearently, we all feel special enough to want our own thing... for better for for worse.

For instance, an unified canadian standard would allow us to speak on behalf of a close to 40 million people market. That amounts to a pretty interesting number. Like a larger state for the US I guess.

In Quebec, we only represent a 7.7 million market share. We saw how much that "cripples" us when our government tried to put pressure on Adobe two years ago for a french version of Acrobat. We barely got their attention, let alone changed things.

We may even had more effect last week at CSUN we three of us got down at the Adobe booth to talk difrectly to Adobe's Accessibility Team. Politics wouldn't help at all.

Hope this helps,

--
Denis Boudreau
www.twitter.com/dboudreau

From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 3:57PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Dennis

At this point Ontario is looking to go WCAG 2.0 Level A only so you
got us beat. :O)

Do you have a link, hopefully in English that refers to your standards?

cheers

Geof


At 04:43 PM 3/30/2010, you wrote:
>Hey there,
>
>On 2010-03-30, at 3:55 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> > I find it interesting that in Canada web accessibility is being dealt with
> > on a provincial level rather than something that is uniform throughout
> > Canada. Let me know if I'm not totally understanding this.
> > Chuck
>
>Actually, it's a little bit of both.
>
>There is an accessibility standard on the federal government level
>that applies to federal government websites only (CLF 2.0/WCAG 1.0,
>to be updated to CLF 3.0/WCAG 2.0 in an upcoming version).
>
>There are also accessibility standards on the provincial level that
>will apply to a variety of websites, depending on the province you look at.
>
>In Quebec for instance, we have SGQRI 008 that pretty much means
>WCAG 2.0. It applies to all government and agencies websites.
>
>In Ontario, it's AODA, but I'm not sure exactly what it aplies to
>yet, I haven't had a chance to really look into it, but I hear it
>will cover a wider spectrum than the Quebec standard.
>
>I'm guessing other provinces also have something cooking, but I have
>yet to check that out.
>
>Obviously, from my answer, I guess it shows I'm from Quebec. ;p
>
>The politics are pretty special up here so it's no surprise that
>there would be different standards depending on which governement
>level you're looking at. Not sure it's actually helping the cause,
>but this is how things are usually handled up here.
>
>As far as I can tell, there isn't really anything that's actually
>uniform across the country, may it be a11y standards or whatever, as
>the french- and english-speaking communities are from pretty
>different cultural backgrounds.
>
>Appearently, we all feel special enough to want our own thing... for
>better for for worse.
>
>For instance, an unified canadian standard would allow us to speak
>on behalf of a close to 40 million people market. That amounts to a
>pretty interesting number. Like a larger state for the US I guess.
>
>In Quebec, we only represent a 7.7 million market share. We saw how
>much that "cripples" us when our government tried to put pressure on
>Adobe two years ago for a french version of Acrobat. We barely got
>their attention, let alone changed things.
>
>We may even had more effect last week at CSUN we three of us got
>down at the Adobe booth to talk difrectly to Adobe's Accessibility
>Team. Politics wouldn't help at all.
>
>Hope this helps,
>
>--
>Denis Boudreau
>www.twitter.com/dboudreau
>
>

From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 4:15PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Geoff,

On 2010-03-30, at 4:56 PM, Geof Collis wrote:

> At this point Ontario is looking to go WCAG 2.0 Level A only so you
> got us beat. :O)

W00t! And here I was, thinking that I never win anything. ;p

AODA is "only" WCAG lvl A? Really? That's too bad.

Come to think of it, in terms of video, we only aim as high as lvl A also. Everything else is lvl AA, with a few little things from lvl AAA when they felt important.


> Do you have a link, hopefully in English that refers to your standards?

I do have links, yes, but only in french. I doubt it will ever get translated, at least with government funding.

Someone's bound to do it eventually. I might at some point, as some people have been asking for it already. I doubt Google Translate would do a good job, but until then, this is all we got...

The standard is divided in three normative documents : web sites (SGQRI 008-01), downloaded documents (SGQRI 008-02) and multimedia (SGQRI 008-03).

Here they are :

SGQRI 008-01: <http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/normalisation/standards/accessibilite/siteweb/index.html>;
SGQRI 008-02: <http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/normalisation/standards/accessibilite/doc_telechargeable/index.html>;
SGQRI 008-03: <http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/normalisation/standards/accessibilite/multimedia/index.html>;

There is also a summary of everything if you land here: <http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/normalisation/standards/accessibilite/>;.

I'm not sure the PDF versons are accessible yet, but it's part of the plan to make them accessible.

This is the official verison dated october 2009. We expect to deliver the final version in the upcoming weeks. It should then be adopted by our Treasury Board sometime before the summer if all goes well.

If you guys are interested, I'd be more than happy to keep you posted on the whole thing as it evolves.

Take care,


--
Denis Boudreau
www.twitter.com/dboudreau



> cheers
>
> Geof
>
>
> At 04:43 PM 3/30/2010, you wrote:
>> Hey there,
>>
>> On 2010-03-30, at 3:55 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>>> I find it interesting that in Canada web accessibility is being dealt with
>>> on a provincial level rather than something that is uniform throughout
>>> Canada. Let me know if I'm not totally understanding this.
>>> Chuck
>>
>> Actually, it's a little bit of both.
>>
>> There is an accessibility standard on the federal government level
>> that applies to federal government websites only (CLF 2.0/WCAG 1.0,
>> to be updated to CLF 3.0/WCAG 2.0 in an upcoming version).
>>
>> There are also accessibility standards on the provincial level that
>> will apply to a variety of websites, depending on the province you look at.
>>
>> In Quebec for instance, we have SGQRI 008 that pretty much means
>> WCAG 2.0. It applies to all government and agencies websites.
>>
>> In Ontario, it's AODA, but I'm not sure exactly what it aplies to
>> yet, I haven't had a chance to really look into it, but I hear it
>> will cover a wider spectrum than the Quebec standard.
>>
>> I'm guessing other provinces also have something cooking, but I have
>> yet to check that out.
>>
>> Obviously, from my answer, I guess it shows I'm from Quebec. ;p
>>
>> The politics are pretty special up here so it's no surprise that
>> there would be different standards depending on which governement
>> level you're looking at. Not sure it's actually helping the cause,
>> but this is how things are usually handled up here.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, there isn't really anything that's actually
>> uniform across the country, may it be a11y standards or whatever, as
>> the french- and english-speaking communities are from pretty
>> different cultural backgrounds.
>>
>> Appearently, we all feel special enough to want our own thing... for
>> better for for worse.
>>
>> For instance, an unified canadian standard would allow us to speak
>> on behalf of a close to 40 million people market. That amounts to a
>> pretty interesting number. Like a larger state for the US I guess.
>>
>> In Quebec, we only represent a 7.7 million market share. We saw how
>> much that "cripples" us when our government tried to put pressure on
>> Adobe two years ago for a french version of Acrobat. We barely got
>> their attention, let alone changed things.
>>
>> We may even had more effect last week at CSUN we three of us got
>> down at the Adobe booth to talk difrectly to Adobe's Accessibility
>> Team. Politics wouldn't help at all.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>>
>> --
>> Denis Boudreau
>> www.twitter.com/dboudreau
>>
>>

From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 4:42PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Dennis

If you could copy the paragraph that states the level and the link
that would be great, the Minister is bilingual.


cheers

Geof
At 05:16 PM 3/30/2010, you wrote:
>Hi Geoff,
>
>On 2010-03-30, at 4:56 PM, Geof Collis wrote:
>
> > At this point Ontario is looking to go WCAG 2.0 Level A only so you
> > got us beat. :O)
>
>W00t! And here I was, thinking that I never win anything. ;p
>
>AODA is "only" WCAG lvl A? Really? That's too bad.
>
>Come to think of it, in terms of video, we only aim as high as lvl A
>also. Everything else is lvl AA, with a few little things from lvl
>AAA when they felt important.
>
>
> > Do you have a link, hopefully in English that refers to your standards?
>
>I do have links, yes, but only in french. I doubt it will ever get
>translated, at least with government funding.
>
>Someone's bound to do it eventually. I might at some point, as some
>people have been asking for it already. I doubt Google Translate
>would do a good job, but until then, this is all we got...
>
>The standard is divided in three normative documents : web sites
>(SGQRI 008-01), downloaded documents (SGQRI 008-02) and multimedia
>(SGQRI 008-03).
>
>Here they are :
>
>SGQRI 008-01:
><http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/normalisation/standards/accessibilite/siteweb/index.html>;
>SGQRI 008-02:
><http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/normalisation/standards/accessibilite/doc_telechargeable/index.html>;
>SGQRI 008-03:
><http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/normalisation/standards/accessibilite/multimedia/index.html>;
>
>There is also a summary of everything if you land here:
><http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/normalisation/standards/accessibilite/>;.
>
>I'm not sure the PDF versons are accessible yet, but it's part of
>the plan to make them accessible.
>
>This is the official verison dated october 2009. We expect to
>deliver the final version in the upcoming weeks. It should then be
>adopted by our Treasury Board sometime before the summer if all goes well.
>
>If you guys are interested, I'd be more than happy to keep you
>posted on the whole thing as it evolves.
>
>Take care,
>
>
>--
>Denis Boudreau
>www.twitter.com/dboudreau
>
>
>
> > cheers
> >
> > Geof
> >
> >
> > At 04:43 PM 3/30/2010, you wrote:
> >> Hey there,
> >>
> >> On 2010-03-30, at 3:55 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >>
> >>> I find it interesting that in Canada web accessibility is being
> dealt with
> >>> on a provincial level rather than something that is uniform throughout
> >>> Canada. Let me know if I'm not totally understanding this.
> >>> Chuck
> >>
> >> Actually, it's a little bit of both.
> >>
> >> There is an accessibility standard on the federal government level
> >> that applies to federal government websites only (CLF 2.0/WCAG 1.0,
> >> to be updated to CLF 3.0/WCAG 2.0 in an upcoming version).
> >>
> >> There are also accessibility standards on the provincial level that
> >> will apply to a variety of websites, depending on the province
> you look at.
> >>
> >> In Quebec for instance, we have SGQRI 008 that pretty much means
> >> WCAG 2.0. It applies to all government and agencies websites.
> >>
> >> In Ontario, it's AODA, but I'm not sure exactly what it aplies to
> >> yet, I haven't had a chance to really look into it, but I hear it
> >> will cover a wider spectrum than the Quebec standard.
> >>
> >> I'm guessing other provinces also have something cooking, but I have
> >> yet to check that out.
> >>
> >> Obviously, from my answer, I guess it shows I'm from Quebec. ;p
> >>
> >> The politics are pretty special up here so it's no surprise that
> >> there would be different standards depending on which governement
> >> level you're looking at. Not sure it's actually helping the cause,
> >> but this is how things are usually handled up here.
> >>
> >> As far as I can tell, there isn't really anything that's actually
> >> uniform across the country, may it be a11y standards or whatever, as
> >> the french- and english-speaking communities are from pretty
> >> different cultural backgrounds.
> >>
> >> Appearently, we all feel special enough to want our own thing... for
> >> better for for worse.
> >>
> >> For instance, an unified canadian standard would allow us to speak
> >> on behalf of a close to 40 million people market. That amounts to a
> >> pretty interesting number. Like a larger state for the US I guess.
> >>
> >> In Quebec, we only represent a 7.7 million market share. We saw how
> >> much that "cripples" us when our government tried to put pressure on
> >> Adobe two years ago for a french version of Acrobat. We barely got
> >> their attention, let alone changed things.
> >>
> >> We may even had more effect last week at CSUN we three of us got
> >> down at the Adobe booth to talk difrectly to Adobe's Accessibility
> >> Team. Politics wouldn't help at all.
> >>
> >> Hope this helps,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Denis Boudreau
> >> www.twitter.com/dboudreau
> >>
> >>

From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 5:09PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Geof,


On 2010-03-30, at 5:44 PM, Geof Collis wrote:

> Hi Dennis
>
> If you could copy the paragraph that states the level and the link
> that would be great, the Minister is bilingual.

The HTML version doesn't say, really. The details are in the long version: <http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/documents/standards/access_web_ve.pdf>;.

References to WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 are everywhere in the document. It allows for a mapping of every requirement to their source in either versions of WCAG.

I guess I could work a way to enter that information more clearly in the document however. It's probably not too late in the process to do so.

This version of the first standard (SGQRI 008-01) is divided in three lvls of conformance. Pretty much like WCAG. Howver this will be flattended out in the final version so it's not representative of what will come out in a few weeks/months.

Here are some extracts from the long version that contains the requirements and complementary explanations:

p17.
"Les exigences du deuxième niveau de conformité correspondent aux recommandations de la priorité A du standard WCAG 2.0 du W3C."

p17.
"Les exigences du troisième niveau de conformité correspondent à certaines recommandations des priorités AA et AAA du standard WCAG 2.0 du W3C."

p17.
"Ce standard s’appuie sur les travaux de la Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI, [http://www.w3.org/WAI/] du World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), dont les recommandations se trouvent dans le document intitulé Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, (WCAG 1.0, http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/) et version 2.0 (WGAG 2.0, http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/)."

p86.
"Cette annexe énumère les recommandations (ou critères de réussite) du projet de standard Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0) du W3C qui n'ont pas été retenues dans les standards sur l’accessibilité d’un site Web (SGQRI 008-01), l’accessibilité d’un
document téléchargeable (SGQRI 008-02) et l’accessibilité du multimédia dans un site Web (SGQRI 008-03). Il s'agit principalement de recommandations de niveau AAA, auxquelles s’ajoutent quelques recommandations de niveau AA. Elles ont été jugées trop contraignantes pour l’instant pour les intégrer aux exigences de ce standard. Ces recommandations permettent cependant d'accroître le niveau d'accessibilité parce qu’elles améliorent la convivialité pour les personnes handicapées. Elles devraient donc être considérées dans une démarche d'amélioration de l'accessibilité aux personnes handicapées à un site Web. Ces recommandations peuvent être appliquées à un site Web public, un intranet ou un extranet ou, de façon plus circonscrite, à un document, à un objet multimédia ou à une page Web destinée précisément à cette clientèle. Les extraits qui suivent sont cités du document intitulé Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, Règles pour l'accessibilité des contenus Web (WCAG) 2.0, Traduction Française Agréée, Publication le 25 juin 2009 (http://www.w3.org/Translations/WCAG20-fr/)."

Hope that helps.

--
Denis Boudreau
www.twitter.com/dboudreau



>
>
> cheers
>
> Geof
> At 05:16 PM 3/30/2010, you wrote:
>> Hi Geoff,
>>
>> On 2010-03-30, at 4:56 PM, Geof Collis wrote:
>>
>>> At this point Ontario is looking to go WCAG 2.0 Level A only so you
>>> got us beat. :O)
>>
>> W00t! And here I was, thinking that I never win anything. ;p
>>
>> AODA is "only" WCAG lvl A? Really? That's too bad.
>>
>> Come to think of it, in terms of video, we only aim as high as lvl A
>> also. Everything else is lvl AA, with a few little things from lvl
>> AAA when they felt important.
>>
>>
>>> Do you have a link, hopefully in English that refers to your standards?
>>
>> I do have links, yes, but only in french. I doubt it will ever get
>> translated, at least with government funding.
>>
>> Someone's bound to do it eventually. I might at some point, as some
>> people have been asking for it already. I doubt Google Translate
>> would do a good job, but until then, this is all we got...
>>
>> The standard is divided in three normative documents : web sites
>> (SGQRI 008-01), downloaded documents (SGQRI 008-02) and multimedia
>> (SGQRI 008-03).
>>
>> Here they are :
>>
>> SGQRI 008-01:
>> <http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/normalisation/standards/accessibilite/siteweb/index.html>;
>> SGQRI 008-02:
>> <http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/normalisation/standards/accessibilite/doc_telechargeable/index.html>;
>> SGQRI 008-03:
>> <http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/normalisation/standards/accessibilite/multimedia/index.html>;
>>
>> There is also a summary of everything if you land here:
>> <http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/normalisation/standards/accessibilite/>;.
>>
>> I'm not sure the PDF versons are accessible yet, but it's part of
>> the plan to make them accessible.
>>
>> This is the official verison dated october 2009. We expect to
>> deliver the final version in the upcoming weeks. It should then be
>> adopted by our Treasury Board sometime before the summer if all goes well.
>>
>> If you guys are interested, I'd be more than happy to keep you
>> posted on the whole thing as it evolves.
>>
>> Take care,
>>
>>
>> --
>> Denis Boudreau
>> www.twitter.com/dboudreau
>>
>>
>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> Geof
>>>
>>>
>>> At 04:43 PM 3/30/2010, you wrote:
>>>> Hey there,
>>>>
>>>> On 2010-03-30, at 3:55 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I find it interesting that in Canada web accessibility is being
>> dealt with
>>>>> on a provincial level rather than something that is uniform throughout
>>>>> Canada. Let me know if I'm not totally understanding this.
>>>>> Chuck
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it's a little bit of both.
>>>>
>>>> There is an accessibility standard on the federal government level
>>>> that applies to federal government websites only (CLF 2.0/WCAG 1.0,
>>>> to be updated to CLF 3.0/WCAG 2.0 in an upcoming version).
>>>>
>>>> There are also accessibility standards on the provincial level that
>>>> will apply to a variety of websites, depending on the province
>> you look at.
>>>>
>>>> In Quebec for instance, we have SGQRI 008 that pretty much means
>>>> WCAG 2.0. It applies to all government and agencies websites.
>>>>
>>>> In Ontario, it's AODA, but I'm not sure exactly what it aplies to
>>>> yet, I haven't had a chance to really look into it, but I hear it
>>>> will cover a wider spectrum than the Quebec standard.
>>>>
>>>> I'm guessing other provinces also have something cooking, but I have
>>>> yet to check that out.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, from my answer, I guess it shows I'm from Quebec. ;p
>>>>
>>>> The politics are pretty special up here so it's no surprise that
>>>> there would be different standards depending on which governement
>>>> level you're looking at. Not sure it's actually helping the cause,
>>>> but this is how things are usually handled up here.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can tell, there isn't really anything that's actually
>>>> uniform across the country, may it be a11y standards or whatever, as
>>>> the french- and english-speaking communities are from pretty
>>>> different cultural backgrounds.
>>>>
>>>> Appearently, we all feel special enough to want our own thing... for
>>>> better for for worse.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, an unified canadian standard would allow us to speak
>>>> on behalf of a close to 40 million people market. That amounts to a
>>>> pretty interesting number. Like a larger state for the US I guess.
>>>>
>>>> In Quebec, we only represent a 7.7 million market share. We saw how
>>>> much that "cripples" us when our government tried to put pressure on
>>>> Adobe two years ago for a french version of Acrobat. We barely got
>>>> their attention, let alone changed things.
>>>>
>>>> We may even had more effect last week at CSUN we three of us got
>>>> down at the Adobe booth to talk difrectly to Adobe's Accessibility
>>>> Team. Politics wouldn't help at all.
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Denis Boudreau
>>>> www.twitter.com/dboudreau
>>>>
>>>>

From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 5:30PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Dennis

Yikes!! LOL

So does it it say somewhere in there Level AA? I
got WCAG 2.0 but didn't detect the level not being bilingual myself. :O)

cheers

Geof


At 06:10 PM 3/30/2010, you wrote:
>Hi Geof,
>
>
>On 2010-03-30, at 5:44 PM, Geof Collis wrote:
>
> > Hi Dennis
> >
> > If you could copy the paragraph that states the level and the link
> > that would be great, the Minister is bilingual.
>
>The HTML version doesn't say, really. The
>details are in the long version:
><http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/documents/standards/access_web_ve.pdf>;.
>
>References to WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 are everywhere in
>the document. It allows for a mapping of every
>requirement to their source in either versions of WCAG.
>
>I guess I could work a way to enter that
>information more clearly in the document
>however. It's probably not too late in the process to do so.
>
>This version of the first standard (SGQRI
>008-01) is divided in three lvls of conformance.
>Pretty much like WCAG. Howver this will be
>flattended out in the final version so it's not
>representative of what will come out in a few weeks/months.
>
>Here are some extracts from the long version
>that contains the requirements and complementary explanations:
>
>p17.
>"Les exigences du deuxième niveau de conformité
>correspondent aux recommandations de la priorité
>A du standard WCAG 2.0 du W3C."
>
>p17.
>"Les exigences du troisième niveau de conformité
>correspondent à certaines recommandations des
>priorités AA et AAA du standard WCAG 2.0 du W3C."
>
>p17.
>"Ce standard s’appuie sur les travaux de la Web
>Accessibility Initiative (WAI,
>[http://www.w3.org/WAI/] du World Wide Web
>Consortium (W3C), dont les recommandations se
>trouvent dans le document intitulé Web Content
>Accessibility Guidelines, (WCAG 1.0,
>http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/) et version 2.0
>(WGAG 2.0, http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/)."
>
>p86.
>"Cette annexe énumère les recommandations (ou
>critères de réussite) du projet de standard Web
>Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0)
>du W3C qui n'ont pas été retenues dans les
>standards sur l’accessibilité d’un site Web
>(SGQRI 008-01), l’accessibilité d’un
>document téléchargeable (SGQRI 008-02) et
>l’accessibilité du multimédia dans un site Web
>(SGQRI 008-03). Il s'agit principalement de
>recommandations de niveau AAA, auxquelles
>s’ajoutent quelques recommandations de niveau
>AA. Elles ont été jugées trop contraignantes
>pour l’instant pour les intégrer aux exigences
>de ce standard. Ces recommandations permettent
>cependant d'accroître le niveau d'accessibilité
>parce qu’elles améliorent la convivialité pour
>les personnes handicapées. Elles devraient donc
>être considérées dans une démarche
>d'amélioration de l'accessibilité aux personnes
>handicapées à un site Web. Ces recommandations
>peuvent être appliquées à un site Web public, un
>intranet ou un extranet ou, de façon plus
>circonscrite, à un document, à un objet
>multimédia ou à une page Web destinée
>précisément à cette clientèle. Les extraits qui
>suivent sont cités du document intitulé Web
>Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0,
>Règles pour l'accessibilité des contenus Web
>(WCAG) 2.0, Traduction Française Agréée,
>Publication le 25 juin 2009 (http://www.w3.org/Translations/WCAG20-fr/)."
>
>Hope that helps.
>
>--
>Denis Boudreau
>www.twitter.com/dboudreau
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Geof
> > At 05:16 PM 3/30/2010, you wrote:
> >> Hi Geoff,
> >>
> >> On 2010-03-30, at 4:56 PM, Geof Collis wrote:
> >>
> >>> At this point Ontario is looking to go WCAG 2.0 Level A only so you
> >>> got us beat. :O)
> >>
> >> W00t! And here I was, thinking that I never win anything. ;p
> >>
> >> AODA is "only" WCAG lvl A? Really? That's too bad.
> >>
> >> Come to think of it, in terms of video, we only aim as high as lvl A
> >> also. Everything else is lvl AA, with a few little things from lvl
> >> AAA when they felt important.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Do you have a link, hopefully in English that refers to your standards?
> >>
> >> I do have links, yes, but only in french. I doubt it will ever get
> >> translated, at least with government funding.
> >>
> >> Someone's bound to do it eventually. I might at some point, as some
> >> people have been asking for it already. I doubt Google Translate
> >> would do a good job, but until then, this is all we got...
> >>
> >> The standard is divided in three normative documents : web sites
> >> (SGQRI 008-01), downloaded documents (SGQRI 008-02) and multimedia
> >> (SGQRI 008-03).
> >>
> >> Here they are :
> >>
> >> SGQRI 008-01:
> >>
> <http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/normalisation/standards/accessibilite/siteweb/index.html>;
> >> SGQRI 008-02:
> >>
> <http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/normalisation/standards/accessibilite/doc_telechargeable/index.html>;
> >> SGQRI 008-03:
> >>
> <http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/normalisation/standards/accessibilite/multimedia/index.html>;
> >>
> >> There is also a summary of everything if you land here:
> >> <http://msg.gouv.qc.ca/normalisation/standards/accessibilite/>;.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure the PDF versons are accessible yet, but it's part of
> >> the plan to make them accessible.
> >>
> >> This is the official verison dated october 2009. We expect to
> >> deliver the final version in the upcoming weeks. It should then be
> >> adopted by our Treasury Board sometime before the summer if all goes well.
> >>
> >> If you guys are interested, I'd be more than happy to keep you
> >> posted on the whole thing as it evolves.
> >>
> >> Take care,
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Denis Boudreau
> >> www.twitter.com/dboudreau
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> cheers
> >>>
> >>> Geof
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> At 04:43 PM 3/30/2010, you wrote:
> >>>> Hey there,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2010-03-30, at 3:55 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I find it interesting that in Canada web accessibility is being
> >> dealt with
> >>>>> on a provincial level rather than something that is uniform throughout
> >>>>> Canada. Let me know if I'm not totally understanding this.
> >>>>> Chuck
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, it's a little bit of both.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is an accessibility standard on the federal government level
> >>>> that applies to federal government websites only (CLF 2.0/WCAG 1.0,
> >>>> to be updated to CLF 3.0/WCAG 2.0 in an upcoming version).
> >>>>
> >>>> There are also accessibility standards on the provincial level that
> >>>> will apply to a variety of websites, depending on the province
> >> you look at.
> >>>>
> >>>> In Quebec for instance, we have SGQRI 008 that pretty much means
> >>>> WCAG 2.0. It applies to all government and agencies websites.
> >>>>
> >>>> In Ontario, it's AODA, but I'm not sure exactly what it aplies to
> >>>> yet, I haven't had a chance to really look into it, but I hear it
> >>>> will cover a wider spectrum than the Quebec standard.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm guessing other provinces also have something cooking, but I have
> >>>> yet to check that out.
> >>>>
> >>>> Obviously, from my answer, I guess it shows I'm from Quebec. ;p
> >>>>
> >>>> The politics are pretty special up here so it's no surprise that
> >>>> there would be different standards depending on which governement
> >>>> level you're looking at. Not sure it's actually helping the cause,
> >>>> but this is how things are usually handled up here.
> >>>>
> >>>> As far as I can tell, there isn't really anything that's actually
> >>>> uniform across the country, may it be a11y standards or whatever, as
> >>>> the french- and english-speaking communities are from pretty
> >>>> different cultural backgrounds.
> >>>>
> >>>> Appearently, we all feel special enough to want our own thing... for
> >>>> better for for worse.
> >>>>
> >>>> For instance, an unified canadian standard would allow us to speak
> >>>> on behalf of a close to 40 million people market. That amounts to a
> >>>> pretty interesting number. Like a larger state for the US I guess.
> >>>>
> >>>> In Quebec, we only represent a 7.7 million market share. We saw how
> >>>> much that "cripples" us when our government tried to put pressure on
> >>>> Adobe two years ago for a french version of Acrobat. We barely got
> >>>> their attention, let alone changed things.
> >>>>
> >>>> We may even had more effect last week at CSUN we three of us got
> >>>> down at the Adobe booth to talk difrectly to Adobe's Accessibility
> >>>> Team. Politics wouldn't help at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hope this helps,
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Denis Boudreau
> >>>> www.twitter.com/dboudreau
> >>>>
> >>>>

From: Geof Collis
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 5:39PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Dennis

Seems Google did a pretty good translation:

"The requirements of the second level of compliance with the
recommendations reflect the priority of a standard W3C WCAG 2.0."

p17.

"The requirements of the third level of compliance found to certain
recommendations of priorities AA and AAA standard W3C WCAG 2.0."

p17.

"This standard is based on the work of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI [
http://www.w3.org/WAI/]
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), whose recommendations are contained
in the document entitled Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 1.0,
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/)

and version 2.0 (WGAG 2.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/). "

p86.

"This appendix lists the recommendations (or success criteria) of the
draft standard Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0) of the W3C
were not included in the standards on the accessibility of a website
(SGQRI 008-01), the accessibility of a

Downloadable document (SGQRI 008-02) and the accessibility of
multimedia in a website (SGQRI 008-03).
Mainly recommendations
AAA level, plus a few recommendations to level AA.
They were considered too restrictive for the moment to integrate the
requirements of this standard.
These recommendations, however, can increase the level of
accessibility because they improve the usability for
persons with disabilities.
They should therefore be considered in a process of improving
accessibility for people with disabilities to a site
Web.
These recommendations can be applied to a public website, intranet or
extranet or, more narrowly, to a document, an object
multimedia or a web page designed specifically for this clientele.
The following excerpts are cited in the document entitled Web Content
Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, Rules for the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, French Translation Approved, Publication June
25, 2009 (
http://www.w3.org/Translations/WCAG20-fr/). "


cheers

Geof

From: ckrugman
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 5:48PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Thanks, I am beginning to understand the differences somewhat as I have a
friend that was originally from England, moved to canada got his Canadian
citizenship Moved to the U.S. and a couple of years ago moved to B.C.
because of the health care and acceptance of same sex marriage. He is very
happy with the health care compared to what he received here in California.
He tells me that B.C. seems to be behind in disability access legislation
however. I have been letting him know about the web accessibility issues.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Denis Boudreau" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG and various Laws


> Hey there,
>
> On 2010-03-30, at 3:55 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> I find it interesting that in Canada web accessibility is being dealt
>> with
>> on a provincial level rather than something that is uniform throughout
>> Canada. Let me know if I'm not totally understanding this.
>> Chuck
>
> Actually, it's a little bit of both.
>
> There is an accessibility standard on the federal government level that
> applies to federal government websites only (CLF 2.0/WCAG 1.0, to be
> updated to CLF 3.0/WCAG 2.0 in an upcoming version).
>
> There are also accessibility standards on the provincial level that will
> apply to a variety of websites, depending on the province you look at.
>
> In Quebec for instance, we have SGQRI 008 that pretty much means WCAG 2.0.
> It applies to all government and agencies websites.
>
> In Ontario, it's AODA, but I'm not sure exactly what it aplies to yet, I
> haven't had a chance to really look into it, but I hear it will cover a
> wider spectrum than the Quebec standard.
>
> I'm guessing other provinces also have something cooking, but I have yet
> to check that out.
>
> Obviously, from my answer, I guess it shows I'm from Quebec. ;p
>
> The politics are pretty special up here so it's no surprise that there
> would be different standards depending on which governement level you're
> looking at. Not sure it's actually helping the cause, but this is how
> things are usually handled up here.
>
> As far as I can tell, there isn't really anything that's actually uniform
> across the country, may it be a11y standards or whatever, as the french-
> and english-speaking communities are from pretty different cultural
> backgrounds.
>
> Appearently, we all feel special enough to want our own thing... for
> better for for worse.
>
> For instance, an unified canadian standard would allow us to speak on
> behalf of a close to 40 million people market. That amounts to a pretty
> interesting number. Like a larger state for the US I guess.
>
> In Quebec, we only represent a 7.7 million market share. We saw how much
> that "cripples" us when our government tried to put pressure on Adobe two
> years ago for a french version of Acrobat. We barely got their attention,
> let alone changed things.
>
> We may even had more effect last week at CSUN we three of us got down at
> the Adobe booth to talk difrectly to Adobe's Accessibility Team. Politics
> wouldn't help at all.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> --
> Denis Boudreau
> www.twitter.com/dboudreau
>
>

From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 8:21PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hey Geof,

On 2010-03-30, at 6:30 PM, Geof Collis wrote:

> Yikes!! LOL
>
> So does it it say somewhere in there Level AA? I
> got WCAG 2.0 but didn't detect the level not being bilingual myself. :O)

Lol. Basically, it says that our standard's level 2 requirements are equivalent to WCAG 2.0 lvl A and that our standard's level 3 requirements are equivalent to WCAG 2.0 lvl AA.

It also says that some success criterion were left out because they were considered too complicated or restrictive by the government committee who has the final say in what goes on or not.

Like I said, it all gets flattened out in the next version, but it still requires a conformance level equivalent to WCAG 2 lvl AA all across the board for public websites.

--
Denis Boudreau
www.twitter.com/dboudreau

From: Christophe Strobbe
Date: Thu, Apr 01 2010 2:06PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Geof,

At 19:34 30/03/2010, Geof Collis wrote:
>Hi Christophe and All
>
>Followed that link and I've pasted below
>Countries that have some mention of Guidelines,
>not sure how current some of them are though.

If you are interested in disability legislation
in general, there is another resource that I
discovered just today: the section "law and
policy" on the website of the Academic Network of
European Accessibility Experts (ANED):
<http://www.disability-europe.net/en/themes/Law and policy>.




>Austria
>
>In conformity with the e-Europe Initiative,
>Austria has committed itself to adjusting all
>public web services according to the WAI level A.
>
>http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/austria/websites/

This is probably already out of date.
See
<http://www.austria.gv.at/site/5744/default.aspx>;.
However, this page does not clearly state to
which standard Austrian e-government websites should conform now.



>Belgium
>
>AnySurfer (formerly BlindSurfer) is a collective
>organization of Belgian�s largest organizations
>for the blind and visually impaired. AnySurfer is mainly
>known for granting quality labels (guidelines are
>based on WCAG1). Both the Flemish and the Walloon
>Government have formally accepted the revised AnySurfer
>guidelines (released in July 2006) as the only
>set of guidelines for testing public websites.
>
>http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/belgium/websites/

OK, but Belgium has no law on web accessibility.
Neither do the communities or the regions (and
God knows at which level one should campaign for
such legislation
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communities,_regions_and_language_areas_of_Belgium#Competences>).



>(...)
>
>France
>
>The Law for Equal Rights and Opportunities,
>Participation and Citizenship of People with
>Disabilities (Law n� 2005-102 of 11 February 2005), Article 47,
>makes accessibility of all public online services
>mandatory. Public digital communication services
>(public websites in particular, but also phone and TV
>services) must be accessible to people with
>disabilities according to international
>standards. The law does not specify further the services that are concerned,
>nor does it refer to specific standards.
>
>There is no direct legal or regulatory obligation
>for the accessibility of private websites.
>
>http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/france/websites/

Update: the decree from 14 May 2009
<http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000020626623&;dateTexte=20091028>
requires that websites by puclic authorities
should conform within two years (starting from
the date of publication of the decree, if I understand this correctly).
This decree puts into practice article 47 from an
earlier law (from 11 February 2005):
<http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000809647&;dateTexte=>

RGAA provides guidelines for public
administrations: <http://references.modernisation.gouv.fr/rgaa-accessibilite>;.

Best regards,

Christophe


>(...)
>
>Taken from http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/


--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
---
"Better products and services through end-user
empowerment" http://www.usem-net.eu/
---
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook,
Quechup or other "social networks". You may have
agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't.

From: Geof Collis
Date: Thu, Apr 01 2010 2:48PM
Subject: Re: WCAG and various Laws
← Previous message | No next message

Hi Christophe

Appreciate the info. :O)

I sent off my letter to the Minister yesterday, I
only wanted references that would claim Level AA
so I left out any that only referred to Level A.

cheers and thanks

Geof






At 03:07 PM 4/1/2010, you wrote:
>Hi Geof,
>
>At 19:34 30/03/2010, Geof Collis wrote:
>>Hi Christophe and All
>>
>>Followed that link and I've pasted below
>>Countries that have some mention of Guidelines,
>>not sure how current some of them are though.
>
>If you are interested in disability legislation
>in general, there is another resource that I
>discovered just today: the section "law and
>policy" on the website of the Academic Network
>of European Accessibility Experts (ANED):
><http://www.disability-europe.net/en/themes/Law and policy>.
>
>
>
>
>>Austria
>>
>>In conformity with the e-Europe Initiative,
>>Austria has committed itself to adjusting all
>>public web services according to the WAI level A.
>>
>>http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/austria/websites/
>
>This is probably already out of date.
>See
><http://www.austria.gv.at/site/5744/default.aspx>;.
>However, this page does not clearly state to
>which standard Austrian e-government websites should conform now.
>
>
>
>>Belgium
>>
>>AnySurfer (formerly BlindSurfer) is a collective
>>organization of Belgian’s largest organizations
>>for the blind and visually impaired. AnySurfer is mainly
>>known for granting quality labels (guidelines are
>>based on WCAG1). Both the Flemish and the Walloon
>>Government have formally accepted the revised AnySurfer
>>guidelines (released in July 2006) as the only
>>set of guidelines for testing public websites.
>>
>>http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/belgium/websites/
>
>OK, but Belgium has no law on web accessibility.
>Neither do the communities or the regions (and
>God knows at which level one should campaign for
>such legislation
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communities,_regions_and_language_areas_of_Belgium#Competences>).
>
>
>
>>(...)
>>
>>France
>>
>>The Law for Equal Rights and Opportunities,
>>Participation and Citizenship of People with
>>Disabilities (Law n° 2005-102 of 11 February 2005), Article 47,
>>makes accessibility of all public online services
>>mandatory. Public digital communication services
>>(public websites in particular, but also phone and TV
>>services) must be accessible to people with
>>disabilities according to international
>>standards. The law does not specify further the services that are concerned,
>>nor does it refer to specific standards.
>>
>>There is no direct legal or regulatory obligation
>>for the accessibility of private websites.
>>
>>http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/france/websites/
>
>Update: the decree from 14 May 2009
><http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000020626623&;dateTexte=20091028>
>requires that websites by puclic authorities
>should conform within two years (starting from
>the date of publication of the decree, if I understand this correctly).
>This decree puts into practice article 47 from
>an earlier law (from 11 February 2005):
><http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000809647&;dateTexte=>
>
>RGAA provides guidelines for public
>administrations: <http://references.modernisation.gouv.fr/rgaa-accessibilite>;.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Christophe
>
>
>>(...)
>>
>>Taken from http://www.eaccessibility-progress.eu/country-profiles/
>
>
>--
>Christophe Strobbe
>K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
>Research Group on Document Architectures
>Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
>B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
>BELGIUM
>tel: +32 16 32 85 51
>http://www.docarch.be/
>---
>"Better products and services through end-user
>empowerment" http://www.usem-net.eu/
>---
>Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook,
>Quechup or other "social networks". You may have
>agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't.
>
>
>
>
>__________ Information from ESET NOD32
>Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4993 (20100401) __________
>
>The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
>http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>