Notes: Please add your name, if you contribute, to the 'Authors' section at the bottom of this file. DO NOT COPY AND PASTE THIS FILE WHOLESALE. IT MAKES IT SLOW. Export it or save it as text. 15/06/2006 14:00 - 15:00 The New Accessibility Guidelines: WCAG 2.0 by Andy Clarke, Patrick Lauke, Gez Lemon, and Ian Lloyd IL: WCAG 2.0 is quite lively, as dry a topic as it isÉ What's happening in the Graveyard Shift? * Not covering everything in WCAG2.0 * Focusing on - Some of the good points - É and some of the bad! * Looking at - Whats new in 2.0 Who's who? Andy Clarke * The Modfather "It's amazing to see this room full. Accessibility tends, to me, to be one of those topics that's referred to as 'something that needs to be done'. I'm going to talk about where we are as designers." Patrick H Lauke * Salford's finest accessibility-aware webmaster working for a University * Co author on "Web Acessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance" http://tinyurl.com/egpfr Gez Lemon * "When life deals you a lemon, make a lemon meringue pie" (JuicyStudio.com) Ian Lloyd * Founded Accessify.com * Has worked for Nationwide since time began * Author of Sitepoint beginners HTML WaSP ATF * Either by chance or design, we are all ATF members Not the ATF * Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Hands up if you haveÉ * Read about WCAG 2.0 but not the document (Lots of people) * Read part of WCAG2.0 draft (Quite a lot of people) * Read all of WCAG 2.0 (A handful) * Read all of WCAG 2.0 plus all the associated documents on offer (One guy called Thomas) WCAG - A brief history Web Content Accessibility Guidelines = WCAG (or wuh-cag) Version 1.0 released in 1999 * Ancient in Internet years * Much of it is out of date/irrelevant Other accessibility 'standards' (e.g. section 508) * PAS 78 *not* an accessibility 'standard'. WCAG 2.0: Philosophy behind the change * Technology agnostic - not HTML dos and don'ts - non tech-specific terminology = generic * P.O.U.R.: web site/page should be: - Perceivable (cater for sense deficiencies) - Operable (how you control items) - Understandable (language, jargon, etc.) - Robust (compatibility with current/future tech) WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 compared * WCAG 1.0 - 2.1: "Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color * WCAG 2.0 - 1.3.2 "Any information WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 * WCAG 1.0 - 13.1: * WCAG 2.0 - 2.4.4: "Each link is programmatically associaed with the text from which it's purpose can be determined" 1.0/3.6: 2.0/1.3.1 Translation: "Oh crap, I've given up the will to live. Pass me a beer, I'm gonna watch telly instead" What else is new/different in WCAG 2.0? * New features - Baselines - Scoping - Conformance claims (replacing ÔPriority LevelsÕ from WCAG 1) WCAG 2.0 - normative * Core WCAG 2.0 defines: - The 4 principles (POUR) - New terminology used (Rosetta stone?) - Conformance (levls, baseline, scoping) - Principles > Guidelines > Success Criteria - Appendices (including comparison between WCAG1 checkpoints and WCAG2) * The only normative document WCAG 2 - informative * Supporting documents: - Understanding WCAG 2.0 - Techniques for WCAG 2.0 - About Baselines for WCAG 2.0 - Application notes * Liable to change (hence not normative) Understanding WCAG 2.0 * For each guideline: - Intent of the guideline (what's the problem, why do we need to address it?) - Advisory techniques (nice to have, but no SC covers them) - How to meet the success criteria: * Key terms (newspeak cheat sheet?) * Intent of SC * Techniques for addressing SC (links to "TechniquesÉ" document) * Benefits (so if we address this, why is it better?) * Examples Techniques for WCAG 2.0 * Big unwieldy document at this point - Common failures (just to start on positive noteÉ) - Client-side scripting techniques - CSS techniques - General techniques (however you want to implement them) - HTML techniques - Server-side techniques - SMIL techniques - Plain text techniques * Confusingly, WAI has link to old "General TechniquesÉ" in navigation About baselines for WCAG 2.0 * What are baselines (with annotated examples) * Who sets the baseline * How can developers choose a baseline * Examples of conformace claims * And the ever-popular: "vertical and horizontal scoping in conformance statements" Application notes * "In the future [É] Application Notes would provide detailed guideance for a specific topic [É]. For example, an Application Note on forms would include WCAG 2.0 success criteria, techniques, and strategies for developing accessible forms * Will be produced by Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Other WAI guidelines * Of cource other parts if the accessibility equation * UAAG * ATAG Significant new features of WCAG 2.0 * Baselines - "As WCAG 2 is tech-agnostic, it's not reasonable to assume that new tech will be able to adhere straight off. Even when a tech emerges and starts to be supported, it may take time for different countries for economic or lingual reasons. A baseline, then, is a set of web technologies." - A method for combatting 'document rot' Can't make assumptions about the user. Technologies in the baseline mean that you can meet success criteria, depending on that technology. If you want to use a technology that's not in the baseline, you'd have to use some way of gracefully degrading. - Flexibility to suit known environments (eg. Intranet, public library technology) WAI were hoping governments would set baselines. There will probably be countries that don't do that. This could be set at a high level. What technologies work with what assistive technologies, and in what languages. Looking for help (useful research) to set sensible baselines. Will possibly list a bunch of tech, and how well supported in areas of the world. Significant new features of WCAG 2.0 * Scoping Conformance claims can be made based on the baseline. Certain things you need to include. - The baseline tech that's agreed - The sections of the site that are included - Opt parts out of the site. - Not an excuse (no "This part of the iste is not accessible, we're not claiming it is..." - If there is a need for it to be accessible, it should be What's wrong with WCAG2.0 Language of WCAG 2.0 WCAG 2.0 deliverables must address the needs of a variety of readers including people who wish to: - create accessible innovative web sites - create policis related to web accessibility - assess whether a web WCAG 2.0 Itself - Why are the guidelines and documents currently so difficulr to understand? - To remain tech-agnostic, invented a whole new language (full of sound and clatter, signifying nothing) - Even seasoned experts cant understand it - Programmatically determined? Authored unit? Authored content? Even - mechanism? - "process or technique for achieveing a result" - SC2.4.1 A mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web units - On first reading: do I need to now add skip links to everything? - No, even just marking a navigation up as a list counts as a "mechanism" Implementing WCAG 2.0 - Study WCAG 2.0 support docs, consult friends on WAI WG and some things may become clearer - University setup - central web team and devolved web authors - How can I expect web authors (not just professionals, but part-time lecturers, technicians, enthusiasts) to implement WCAG 2.0? - "Here, read thisÉÊand thisÉ see you in a few months when you master the dark arts of the Wuh-Cag ClanÕ - How I implemented WCAG 1.0 - never claim complaince - Own interpretation (removed most "Until user agents") - And for WCAG 2.0? - Writing own interpretation of WCAG 2.0 making it tech specific to our own baseline Will baselines work? * Understand the rationale * Is it just too confusing? * is it providing a perfect opt-out clause? Does WCAG 2.0 support or hinder design? * Philosophy vs practicality * Andy Clarke is "Guideline agnostic" * What I believe is that content/product should be the best we can make it, and that people have a pleasureable experience with it, and that should be the fundamental reason for doing things. * Accessibility - "Irrelevant unless it becomes an issue for users" * Web 2.0 Accessibility - "might be their in a future release?" Mighty Joe Clarke (the 800lb Gorilla) To Hell with WCAG 2.0 - Has alerted many issues with WCAG 2.0 (a good thing) - Was it a catalyst for 'last call' extension? * WCAG Samurai - Closed group - A good or bad thing? - Could it derail WCAG 2.0? (Consensus seems No) Summing upÉ * WCAG 2.0 not yet a done deal - But only if you have your say on tinyurl.com/hmtus (WCAG 2.0 comment form) or email public-comments-wcag20@w3.org * Big difference between WCAG 1 and 2, technology agnostic, so no explicit references to things like using lists or similar markup devices. Good starting point - the quick reference, 23 pages of guidelines (with a basic baseline - markup, css, applets, multimedia) -------------------------------- Authors: Steve Marshall: http://nascentguruism.com/ Gareth Rusgrove: http://morethanseven.net/ Ben Ward: http://ben-ward.co.uk/