The Support-EAM Project: Status and Prospects?
- Why is Web Accessibility an Issue?
- Impact of the Web on People with Disabilities
- Guidelines for Accessibility
- WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint Priorities
- An aesthetic aside...
- WCAG 1.0 Statistics
- WCAG 1.0 Conformance Levels (1)
- WCAG 1.0 Conformance Levels (2)
- WCAG 1.0 Conformance Claims
- The view from Brussels? (1)
- The view from Brussels? (2)
- The view from Brussels? (3)
- The view from Brussels? (4)
- The view from Brussels? (5)
- Reality Bites: Large Scale Surveying
- Key Results: WCAG-A Failure Rates
- Key Results: WCAG-AA Failure Rates
- Pervasive Defects
- Tower of Accessibility Babel?
- Where does S-EAM fit in?
- UWEM (1)
- UWEM (2)
- Framework for Accreditation and Certification
- So Finally: Who cares...
- Use of the Web is spreading rapidly into all areas of society.
- There are barriers on the Web for many types of disabilities.
- Millions of people have disabilities that affect access to the Web.
- Some Web sites and services are required to be accessible.
- Web accessibility also has carry-over benefits for other users.
- The Web is becoming a key resource for:
- news, information, commerce, entertainment,
- classroom education, distance learning,
- job searching, workplace interaction,
- civic participation, public services.
- It is complementing or even displacing traditional
sources of information and interaction:
- schools, libraries, print materials, discourse of the workplace;
- some of these traditional resources were accessible; some not.
- An accessible Web (would) mean unprecedented access to information for people with disabilities.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG 1.0);
- Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (ATAG 1.0);
- User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (UAAG 1.0);
- XML Accessibility Guidelines (XAG).
- Priority 1:
- A Web content developer must satisfy this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it impossible to access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint is a basic requirement for some groups to be able to use Web documents.
- Priority 2:
- A Web content developer should satisfy this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it difficult to access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint will remove significant barriers to accessing Web documents.
- Priority 3:
- A Web content developer may address this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it somewhat difficult to access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint will improve access to Web documents.
- As technical prose, these priority definitions are things of beauty.
- They are exquisitely crafted--and deceptive in their
- Violating the guidelines definitely leads to in-accessibility (albeit this is still highly context dependent).
- Conforming to the guidelines does not definitely lead to accessibility.
- 14 Guidelines, organised as:
- 65 Checkpoints, classified as:
- Priority 1: 17
- Priority 2: 29
- Priority 3: 20
- (Spot the minor inconsistency...)
- WCAG 1.0 Level A is a minimum standard which a site must meet to be considered accessible for any significant disability groups;
- WCAG 1.0 Level Double-A is a "professional practice" standard, which all sites should meet to be accessible to a broad range of disability groups;
- WCAG 1.0 Level Triple-A is a "gold standard" of maximum accessibility which some sites may choose to aim for--for example, sites with a particular remit to serve communities of people with disabilities.
- Conformance Level "A": all Priority 1 checkpoints are satisfied.
- Conformance Level "Double-A": all Priority 1 and 2 checkpoints are satisfied.
- Conformance Level "Triple-A": all Priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints are satisfied.
- Note: No "ifs" "buts" or "maybes"...
- (Form 2:) Include, on each page claiming conformance, one of three icons provided by W3C and link the icon to the appropriate W3C explanation of the claim.
December 1999: The eEurope initiative was
launched by the European Commission to bring the
benefits of the Information Society to all Europeans.
By the end of 2001: The European Commission and Member States should commit themselves to making the design and content of all public Web sites accessible to people with disabilities.
June 2000: The eEurope 2002 Action
Plan was agreed by Heads of State and Government in
Feira; sets out a roadmap to achieve eEurope's targets:
Public sector web sites and their content in Member States and in the European Institutions must be designed to be accessible to ensure that citizens with disabilities can access information and take full advantage of the potential for e-government.
September 2001: Communication from the
Commission - eEurope 2002: Accessibility of Public Web
Sites and their Content.
There should be a major initiative devoted to achieving overall accessibility of both public and private Web sites during the year 2003, the European Year of Disabled People...
June 2002: European Parliament
Resolution (2002) 0325 - Accessibility of Public Web
... Stresses the fact that, for websites to be accessible, it is essential that they are double-A compliant, that priority 2 of the WAI guidelines must be fully implemented;
January 2003: European Council Resolution
on "eAccessibility"--improving the access of people with
disabilities to the Knowledge Based Society (doc.
5165/03), inviting the Commission and the member
- ... With regard to the utilisation of the WAI guidelines, to promote common methodologies and comparable data in relation to public web sites in the Member States and the European Institutions and to coordinate a monitoring process considering the separate Member States' activities and cooperate with them;
- ... to consider the provision of an "eAccessibility mark" for goods and services which comply with relevant standards for eAccessibility;
- Automated (severe limitation!)
- P2: Bad HTML (99%+)
- P2: Rigid display coding (98%).
- P1: Missing ALT (93%).
- P2: Poor link text (70%).
- P2: Device restrictions (66%).
- P2: Inaccessible forms (62%).
- P1: HTML frames (37.0%).
- France: AccessiWeb (Braillenet)
- UK: See it Right (Royal National Institute of the Blind)
- Netherlands: drempelvrij.nl
- Belgium: Blindsurfer
- Ireland: Excellence through Accessibility
- Unified Web (Accessibility) Evaluation Methodology (UWEM)
- Europe-wide framework for accreditation and certification
- Co-ordinated evaluation methodology based on WCAG 1.0 (with migration plan for WCAG 2.0).
- To serve multiple purposes (not just certification).
- Being developed by the
Web Accessibility Benchmarking cluster
- EIAO: European Internet Accessibility Observatory
- BenToWeb: Benchmarking Tools and Methods for the Web
- Co-ordination with W3C WAI
- Auspices: European Committee for Standardization (CEN)
- Process: CEN Workshop Agreement
- Specific action: CEN/ISSS WS/WAC Workshop Web Accessibility Cerification
- Timeframe: Completion March 2006
- John Kelly, Head of Business Banking, AIB PLC.
- Researchers: Carmen Marincu, Esmond Walshe, Johanna Bolton, Elaine McGlynn
- Support-EAM Project
- RINCE, HEA.
If anybody asks me what the Internet means to me, I will tell him without hesitation: To me (a quadriplegic) the Internet occupies the most important part in my life. It is my feet that can take me to any part of the world; it is my hands which help me to accomplish my work; it is my best friend--it gives my life meaning.