E-mail List Archives
Thread: Legacy content recommendation
Number of posts in this thread: 11 (In chronological order)
From: Jordan Wilson
Date: Tue, Aug 26 2014 11:57AM
Subject: Legacy content recommendation
No previous message | Next message →
Our agency has a web client we¹re currently working with who is starting a
large-scale (10k+ page) website redesign and they¹ve chosen to build to
WCAG 2.0 A and AA.
This particular client has a significant amount of legacy content from an
existing non-compliant site. That content is not current, but outdated
such as 2009 financial summaries or archived monthly staff newsletters.
The content is in the form of flash, PDFs, videos, non-accessible HTML etc
and goes back 7+ years.
Any content which would be current or vital they are rebuilding as part of
the new accessible site.
While they have committed to making their new site and current content
accessible, making that old content accessible represents a considerable
financial burden for limited utility and they¹re unable to commit to doing
so financially at this point.
For the sake of brevity, let¹s assume that they can¹t make that legacy
content accessible. Are there any recommended techniques or acceptable
practices for indicating or labeling that content as not-accessible?
The same client is also interested in having their new site certified by a
third party as compliant to demonstrate their commitment to accessibility.
They¹re undergoing a significant redesign and content creation effort to
make their web presence accessible.
My worry is whether leaving this legacy content on the site would make
accessibility certification a non-starter. Has anyone had any similar
experiences? Are there any recommendations to handle it properly? Is
leaving legacy content inaccessible ever acceptable?
One idea we discussed was to provide a form or contact option which would
allow users to request an accessible version of a specific inaccessible
asset as necessary.
Thanks for your help/insight,
Jordan Wilson
From: Angela French
Date: Tue, Aug 26 2014 12:07PM
Subject: Re: Legacy content recommendation
← Previous message | Next message →
We are in a similar situation, so very much interested in answers and suggestions
Angela French
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jordan Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:57 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: [WebAIM] Legacy content recommendation
Our agency has a web client we¹re currently working with who is starting a large-scale (10k+ page) website redesign and they¹ve chosen to build to WCAG 2.0 A and AA.
This particular client has a significant amount of legacy content from an existing non-compliant site. That content is not current, but outdated such as 2009 financial summaries or archived monthly staff newsletters.
The content is in the form of flash, PDFs, videos, non-accessible HTML etc and goes back 7+ years.
Any content which would be current or vital they are rebuilding as part of the new accessible site.
While they have committed to making their new site and current content accessible, making that old content accessible represents a considerable financial burden for limited utility and they¹re unable to commit to doing so financially at this point.
For the sake of brevity, let¹s assume that they can¹t make that legacy content accessible. Are there any recommended techniques or acceptable practices for indicating or labeling that content as not-accessible?
The same client is also interested in having their new site certified by a third party as compliant to demonstrate their commitment to accessibility.
They¹re undergoing a significant redesign and content creation effort to make their web presence accessible.
My worry is whether leaving this legacy content on the site would make accessibility certification a non-starter. Has anyone had any similar experiences? Are there any recommendations to handle it properly? Is leaving legacy content inaccessible ever acceptable?
One idea we discussed was to provide a form or contact option which would allow users to request an accessible version of a specific inaccessible asset as necessary.
Thanks for your help/insight,
Jordan Wilson
From: Jared Smith
Date: Tue, Aug 26 2014 12:11PM
Subject: Re: Legacy content recommendation
← Previous message | Next message →
You're asking the right questions. We run into this situation often in
WebAIM's evaluation and certification work.
If you (or a 3rd party) were to make a WCAG 2.0 conformance claim, you
could only claim conformance on the content that is actually
conformant, not the archival content. There's no requirement to label
or identify the other content itself as being inaccessible or
non-conformant. Your suggestion that users could request accessible
versions of this content is a great approach for content that is not
feasible or logical to make accessible, and in a way identifies it as
being archival and not optimized for accessibility.
Much of accessibility is about fighting the right battles and getting
the best bang for your buck. From what you have described, it makes
much more sense to put your efforts into ensuring accessibility of the
new site and new content moving forward than to put significant time
and money toward remediating archival content. There may, however, be
some site-wide or minor changes you can make to remove significant
accessibility barriers for that content.
Jared
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Jordan Wilson
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Our agency has a web client we¹re currently working with who is starting a
> large-scale (10k+ page) website redesign and they¹ve chosen to build to
> WCAG 2.0 A and AA.
>
> This particular client has a significant amount of legacy content from an
> existing non-compliant site. That content is not current, but outdated
> such as 2009 financial summaries or archived monthly staff newsletters.
> The content is in the form of flash, PDFs, videos, non-accessible HTML etc
> and goes back 7+ years.
>
> Any content which would be current or vital they are rebuilding as part of
> the new accessible site.
>
> While they have committed to making their new site and current content
> accessible, making that old content accessible represents a considerable
> financial burden for limited utility and they¹re unable to commit to doing
> so financially at this point.
>
> For the sake of brevity, let¹s assume that they can¹t make that legacy
> content accessible. Are there any recommended techniques or acceptable
> practices for indicating or labeling that content as not-accessible?
>
> The same client is also interested in having their new site certified by a
> third party as compliant to demonstrate their commitment to accessibility.
> They¹re undergoing a significant redesign and content creation effort to
> make their web presence accessible.
>
> My worry is whether leaving this legacy content on the site would make
> accessibility certification a non-starter. Has anyone had any similar
> experiences? Are there any recommendations to handle it properly? Is
> leaving legacy content inaccessible ever acceptable?
>
> One idea we discussed was to provide a form or contact option which would
> allow users to request an accessible version of a specific inaccessible
> asset as necessary.
>
> Thanks for your help/insight,
>
> Jordan Wilson
>
>
> > >
From: Lucy Greco
Date: Tue, Aug 26 2014 12:15PM
Subject: Re: Legacy content recommendation
← Previous message | Next message →
hello:
my first instinct is to not put it on the site if you can't make it
accessible. and see how many requests they get for it.
there is also a part of me that says getting a certification when you have
a lot of inaccessible content just seems like a marketing move what stops
them from getting the certification and then adding content after that is
inaccessible again. the real way to commit to access is do it, not certify
it. Lucy
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jordan Wilson <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Our agency has a web client we¹re currently working with who is starting a
> large-scale (10k+ page) website redesign and they¹ve chosen to build to
> WCAG 2.0 A and AA.
>
> This particular client has a significant amount of legacy content from an
> existing non-compliant site. That content is not current, but outdated
> such as 2009 financial summaries or archived monthly staff newsletters.
> The content is in the form of flash, PDFs, videos, non-accessible HTML etc
> and goes back 7+ years.
>
> Any content which would be current or vital they are rebuilding as part of
> the new accessible site.
>
> While they have committed to making their new site and current content
> accessible, making that old content accessible represents a considerable
> financial burden for limited utility and they¹re unable to commit to doing
> so financially at this point.
>
> For the sake of brevity, let¹s assume that they can¹t make that legacy
> content accessible. Are there any recommended techniques or acceptable
> practices for indicating or labeling that content as not-accessible?
>
> The same client is also interested in having their new site certified by a
> third party as compliant to demonstrate their commitment to accessibility.
> They¹re undergoing a significant redesign and content creation effort to
> make their web presence accessible.
>
> My worry is whether leaving this legacy content on the site would make
> accessibility certification a non-starter. Has anyone had any similar
> experiences? Are there any recommendations to handle it properly? Is
> leaving legacy content inaccessible ever acceptable?
>
> One idea we discussed was to provide a form or contact option which would
> allow users to request an accessible version of a specific inaccessible
> asset as necessary.
>
> Thanks for your help/insight,
>
> Jordan Wilson
>
>
> > > >
--
Lucia Greco
Web Accessibility Evangelist
IST - Architecture, Platforms, and Integration
University of California, Berkeley
(510) 289-6008 skype: lucia1-greco
http://webaccess.berkeley.edu
Follow me on twitter @accessaces
From: Angela French
Date: Tue, Aug 26 2014 12:16PM
Subject: Re: Legacy content recommendation
← Previous message | Next message →
Our possibly non-accessible content would be linked to documents such as PDFs and Word docs. What would be the best way to alert users to this ? Do you have any URLs that you could direct me to where this has successfully been done?
Angela French
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:12 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Legacy content recommendation
You're asking the right questions. We run into this situation often in WebAIM's evaluation and certification work.
If you (or a 3rd party) were to make a WCAG 2.0 conformance claim, you could only claim conformance on the content that is actually conformant, not the archival content. There's no requirement to label or identify the other content itself as being inaccessible or non-conformant. Your suggestion that users could request accessible versions of this content is a great approach for content that is not feasible or logical to make accessible, and in a way identifies it as being archival and not optimized for accessibility.
Much of accessibility is about fighting the right battles and getting the best bang for your buck. From what you have described, it makes much more sense to put your efforts into ensuring accessibility of the new site and new content moving forward than to put significant time and money toward remediating archival content. There may, however, be some site-wide or minor changes you can make to remove significant accessibility barriers for that content.
Jared
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Jordan Wilson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Our agency has a web client we¹re currently working with who is
> starting a large-scale (10k+ page) website redesign and they¹ve chosen
> to build to WCAG 2.0 A and AA.
>
> This particular client has a significant amount of legacy content from
> an existing non-compliant site. That content is not current, but
> outdated such as 2009 financial summaries or archived monthly staff newsletters.
> The content is in the form of flash, PDFs, videos, non-accessible HTML
> etc and goes back 7+ years.
>
> Any content which would be current or vital they are rebuilding as
> part of the new accessible site.
>
> While they have committed to making their new site and current content
> accessible, making that old content accessible represents a
> considerable financial burden for limited utility and they¹re unable
> to commit to doing so financially at this point.
>
> For the sake of brevity, let¹s assume that they can¹t make that legacy
> content accessible. Are there any recommended techniques or acceptable
> practices for indicating or labeling that content as not-accessible?
>
> The same client is also interested in having their new site certified
> by a third party as compliant to demonstrate their commitment to accessibility.
> They¹re undergoing a significant redesign and content creation effort
> to make their web presence accessible.
>
> My worry is whether leaving this legacy content on the site would make
> accessibility certification a non-starter. Has anyone had any similar
> experiences? Are there any recommendations to handle it properly? Is
> leaving legacy content inaccessible ever acceptable?
>
> One idea we discussed was to provide a form or contact option which
> would allow users to request an accessible version of a specific
> inaccessible asset as necessary.
>
> Thanks for your help/insight,
>
> Jordan Wilson
>
>
> > > list messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: John E Brandt
Date: Tue, Aug 26 2014 12:20PM
Subject: Re: Legacy content recommendation
← Previous message | Next message →
My advice has been/would be to plan forward and ensure all current and
future content is accessible. I would then have them put notations around
the site that if someone is having an issue accessing legacy content they
should contact a specific office who will retrofit that content and send it
directly to the person requesting or post for download.
The client could use language that the Library of Congress uses. We know
that they have tons of legacy content that is not accessible.
http://www.loc.gov/accessibility/web-site-accessibility/
~j
John E. Brandt
jebswebs: accessible and universal web design,
development and consultation
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
207-622-7937
Augusta, Maine, USA
@jebswebs
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jordan Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:57 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: [WebAIM] Legacy content recommendation
Our agency has a web client we¹re currently working with who is starting a
large-scale (10k+ page) website redesign and they¹ve chosen to build to WCAG
2.0 A and AA.
This particular client has a significant amount of legacy content from an
existing non-compliant site. That content is not current, but outdated such
as 2009 financial summaries or archived monthly staff newsletters.
The content is in the form of flash, PDFs, videos, non-accessible HTML etc
and goes back 7+ years.
Any content which would be current or vital they are rebuilding as part of
the new accessible site.
While they have committed to making their new site and current content
accessible, making that old content accessible represents a considerable
financial burden for limited utility and they¹re unable to commit to doing
so financially at this point.
For the sake of brevity, let¹s assume that they can¹t make that legacy
content accessible. Are there any recommended techniques or acceptable
practices for indicating or labeling that content as not-accessible?
The same client is also interested in having their new site certified by a
third party as compliant to demonstrate their commitment to accessibility.
They¹re undergoing a significant redesign and content creation effort to
make their web presence accessible.
My worry is whether leaving this legacy content on the site would make
accessibility certification a non-starter. Has anyone had any similar
experiences? Are there any recommendations to handle it properly? Is leaving
legacy content inaccessible ever acceptable?
One idea we discussed was to provide a form or contact option which would
allow users to request an accessible version of a specific inaccessible
asset as necessary.
Thanks for your help/insight,
Jordan Wilson
messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Angela French
Date: Tue, Aug 26 2014 12:56PM
Subject: Re: Legacy content recommendation
← Previous message | Next message →
Excellent!
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of John E Brandt
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:20 AM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Legacy content recommendation
My advice has been/would be to plan forward and ensure all current and future content is accessible. I would then have them put notations around the site that if someone is having an issue accessing legacy content they should contact a specific office who will retrofit that content and send it directly to the person requesting or post for download.
The client could use language that the Library of Congress uses. We know that they have tons of legacy content that is not accessible.
http://www.loc.gov/accessibility/web-site-accessibility/
~j
John E. Brandt
jebswebs: accessible and universal web design, development and consultation = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
207-622-7937
Augusta, Maine, USA
@jebswebs
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jordan Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:57 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: [WebAIM] Legacy content recommendation
Our agency has a web client we¹re currently working with who is starting a large-scale (10k+ page) website redesign and they¹ve chosen to build to WCAG
2.0 A and AA.
This particular client has a significant amount of legacy content from an existing non-compliant site. That content is not current, but outdated such as 2009 financial summaries or archived monthly staff newsletters.
The content is in the form of flash, PDFs, videos, non-accessible HTML etc and goes back 7+ years.
Any content which would be current or vital they are rebuilding as part of the new accessible site.
While they have committed to making their new site and current content accessible, making that old content accessible represents a considerable financial burden for limited utility and they¹re unable to commit to doing so financially at this point.
For the sake of brevity, let¹s assume that they can¹t make that legacy content accessible. Are there any recommended techniques or acceptable practices for indicating or labeling that content as not-accessible?
The same client is also interested in having their new site certified by a third party as compliant to demonstrate their commitment to accessibility.
They¹re undergoing a significant redesign and content creation effort to make their web presence accessible.
My worry is whether leaving this legacy content on the site would make accessibility certification a non-starter. Has anyone had any similar experiences? Are there any recommendations to handle it properly? Is leaving legacy content inaccessible ever acceptable?
One idea we discussed was to provide a form or contact option which would allow users to request an accessible version of a specific inaccessible asset as necessary.
Thanks for your help/insight,
Jordan Wilson
From: Jordan Wilson
Date: Tue, Aug 26 2014 1:28PM
Subject: Re: Legacy content recommendation
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks all, very helpful
On 8/26/14, 2:56 PM, "Angela French" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>Excellent!
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of John E Brandt
>Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:20 AM
>To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Legacy content recommendation
>
>My advice has been/would be to plan forward and ensure all current and
>future content is accessible. I would then have them put notations around
>the site that if someone is having an issue accessing legacy content they
>should contact a specific office who will retrofit that content and send
>it directly to the person requesting or post for download.
>
>The client could use language that the Library of Congress uses. We know
>that they have tons of legacy content that is not accessible.
>http://www.loc.gov/accessibility/web-site-accessibility/
>
>~j
>
>John E. Brandt
>jebswebs: accessible and universal web design, development and
>consultation = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>207-622-7937
>Augusta, Maine, USA
>
>@jebswebs
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jordan Wilson
>Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:57 PM
>To: WebAIM Discussion List
>Subject: [WebAIM] Legacy content recommendation
>
>Our agency has a web client we©öre currently working with who is starting
>a large-scale (10k+ page) website redesign and they©öve chosen to build to
>WCAG
>2.0 A and AA.
>
>This particular client has a significant amount of legacy content from an
>existing non-compliant site. That content is not current, but outdated
>such as 2009 financial summaries or archived monthly staff newsletters.
>The content is in the form of flash, PDFs, videos, non-accessible HTML
>etc and goes back 7+ years.
>
>Any content which would be current or vital they are rebuilding as part
>of the new accessible site.
>
>While they have committed to making their new site and current content
>accessible, making that old content accessible represents a considerable
>financial burden for limited utility and they©öre unable to commit to
>doing so financially at this point.
>
>For the sake of brevity, let©ös assume that they can©öt make that legacy
>content accessible. Are there any recommended techniques or acceptable
>practices for indicating or labeling that content as not-accessible?
>
>The same client is also interested in having their new site certified by
>a third party as compliant to demonstrate their commitment to
>accessibility.
>They©öre undergoing a significant redesign and content creation effort to
>make their web presence accessible.
>
>My worry is whether leaving this legacy content on the site would make
>accessibility certification a non-starter. Has anyone had any similar
>experiences? Are there any recommendations to handle it properly? Is
>leaving legacy content inaccessible ever acceptable?
>
>One idea we discussed was to provide a form or contact option which would
>allow users to request an accessible version of a specific inaccessible
>asset as necessary.
>
>Thanks for your help/insight,
>
>Jordan Wilson
>
>
>>>messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>>>messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>
From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Tue, Aug 26 2014 12:28PM
Subject: Re: Legacy content recommendation
← Previous message | Next message →
There are some examples I've seen over the years.
I agree with Jared: put the time and money into your current content.
I remember that Microsoft had their older content labeled "archive" in the
top banner area, which had several benefits including telling everyone that
the information could be out of date, plus signaling that it might not be
fully accessible.
Depending upon the system used to create the soon-to-be-legacy website, it
might be possible to drop its content into a new page template that is
accessible. At least the navigation would be accessible. But again, that
depends on what you have now.
Bevi Chagnon
PubCom.com Trainers, Consultants, Designers, and Developers.
Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
Accessibility.
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Lucy Greco
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:15 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Legacy content recommendation
hello:
my first instinct is to not put it on the site if you can't make it
accessible. and see how many requests they get for it.
there is also a part of me that says getting a certification when you have a
lot of inaccessible content just seems like a marketing move what stops them
from getting the certification and then adding content after that is
inaccessible again. the real way to commit to access is do it, not certify
it. Lucy
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jordan Wilson <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Our agency has a web client we¹re currently working with who is
> starting a large-scale (10k+ page) website redesign and they¹ve chosen
> to build to WCAG 2.0 A and AA.
>
> This particular client has a significant amount of legacy content from
> an existing non-compliant site. That content is not current, but
> outdated such as 2009 financial summaries or archived monthly staff
newsletters.
> The content is in the form of flash, PDFs, videos, non-accessible HTML
> etc and goes back 7+ years.
>
> Any content which would be current or vital they are rebuilding as
> part of the new accessible site.
>
> While they have committed to making their new site and current content
> accessible, making that old content accessible represents a
> considerable financial burden for limited utility and they¹re unable
> to commit to doing so financially at this point.
>
> For the sake of brevity, let¹s assume that they can¹t make that legacy
> content accessible. Are there any recommended techniques or acceptable
> practices for indicating or labeling that content as not-accessible?
>
> The same client is also interested in having their new site certified
> by a third party as compliant to demonstrate their commitment to
accessibility.
> They¹re undergoing a significant redesign and content creation effort
> to make their web presence accessible.
>
> My worry is whether leaving this legacy content on the site would make
> accessibility certification a non-starter. Has anyone had any similar
> experiences? Are there any recommendations to handle it properly? Is
> leaving legacy content inaccessible ever acceptable?
>
> One idea we discussed was to provide a form or contact option which
> would allow users to request an accessible version of a specific
> inaccessible asset as necessary.
>
> Thanks for your help/insight,
>
> Jordan Wilson
>
>
> > > list messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
--
Lucia Greco
Web Accessibility Evangelist
IST - Architecture, Platforms, and Integration University of California,
Berkeley
(510) 289-6008 skype: lucia1-greco
http://webaccess.berkeley.edu
Follow me on twitter @accessaces
messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Wed, Aug 27 2014 6:09AM
Subject: Re: Legacy content recommendation
← Previous message | Next message →
Just for the sake of choice, I'll offer a couple other approaches.
1. Remove all the old content. If it is important enough to add back, then make it accessible. With as large as the site sounds, I'm guessing that there isn't just one small group responsible for creating all the content out there. So, remove the old content and have the other content creators recreate it if it is really needed. The side benefit is that it would motivate them to update their content if it is needed.
2. Update only the frequently used old content. Chances are that, if they can't get rid of all the old content, their users are probably still using some of it. So instead of taking an all or nothing approach, fix some of the frequently used content.
3. This approach is probably implied by the suggestions others have made. If old content is updated at all, then it is made accessible when it is next updated. As long as it is left alone, no work is required.
I definitely would suggest you familiarize yourself with the conformance criteria in WCAG 2.0 if you are looking to make a conformance claim or you are considering having someone certify the site. Familiarity with the conformance criteria as well as the way people use the site might give you additional ideas for how to handle this situation.
Thanks!
Tim
From: Bourne, Sarah (ITD)
Date: Wed, Aug 27 2014 6:24AM
Subject: Re: Legacy content recommendation
← Previous message | No next message
In addition to the great advice others have provided, I recommend using care in defining "current or vital". Even if something is old, if it's still getting a lot of use, then it should meet that definition and is a candidate for remediation or replacement. This kind of web stats analysis is usually an important part of a project like this, so I suspect that it's probably part of your plan already. But perhaps it can be used as part of an on-going maintenance plan where the most-used content gets fixed, and content that isn't used should be considered for removal.
sb
Sarah E. Bourne
Director of Assistive Technology
Massachusetts Office of Information Technology
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
1 Ashburton Pl. rm 1601 Boston MA 02108
617-626-4502
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.mass.gov/itd