1

Web Accessibility: Will WCAG 2.0 Better Meet Today’s Challenges?

Brian KellyUK Web FocusUKOLNUniversity of BathUKB.Kelly@ukoln.ac.uk

Jenny CravenCERLIMManchester Metropolitan

UniversityUKJ.Craven@mmu.ac.uk

2

About Us

Brian Kelly:• Adviser on Web issues to UK Universities • Active in Web since January 1993• Attended opening WAI meeting

Jenny Craven:• Researcher in CERLIM, Manchester Met. University• Project work includes:

• NoVa (Non-Visual Access to the digital library) project to investigate usability of \Web-based resources by people witn visual impairments

• REVIEL (REsources for Visually Impaired users of the Electronic Library) project which explored the accessibility of library OPACs & other electronic library services

• Supporting study for DISinHE which investigated awareness and use of accessibility design standards in UK higher education

3

Our Aims

We are:• Supporters of WAI and its activities• Acknowledge the work WAI has done in raising

the importance of Web accessibility worldwide• Informed by our user communities of challenges

and issues faced in implementing WAI guidelinesIn this panel session we will:

• Report on experiences of our user communities• Highlight concerns which have been expressed

Our aim is to:• Share these concerns • See if WCAG 2.0 addresses our concerns • Facilitate open discussion

Note – we may mention common misconceptions about WAINote – we may mention common misconceptions about WAI

4

Contents

Brian Kelly:• Introduction• What's Happening?

• Survey of UK University Home Pages• Reports From Other Sectors

• Typical ProblemsJenny Craven:

• Accessibility / Usability conflicts• Design issues• User issues• What makes a Web site accessible and usable?• Conclusions: thinking about accessibility and

usability

5

UK University Home Pages

In Sept 2003 survey of accessibility of 160+ UK University entry points carried out

• Used Bobby (to report on problems which an automated tool could spot)

• How many WAI AA pages were found?

The survey found:• Only four entry points complied with AA• One was a JavaScripted page so isn't accessible

The UK HE community is generally aware of and supportive of WAI issues, uses email lists to discuss issues and share solutions (esp. in light of legislation introduced in Sept 2002). So why this low figure?

Wh

at's

Hap

pen

ing

?

See <http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue33/web-watch/>See <http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue33/web-watch/>

6

Scottish Political Parties

Survey of the accessibility of 8 parties standing in May 2003 Scottish Parliamentary elections carried out (by David & Martin Sloan)Four parties' home page failed Cynthia Says test and manual testing found that all have accessibility problems across the Web sites:

• missing ALT tags, contrasts, graphical navigation, poorly implemented frames, non-compliant HTML, PDF files, …

A number of political parties pledged support for accessibility, the Web sites had been developed for the election and had a high profile. So why the poor findings?

Wh

at's

Hap

pen

ing

?

See <http://www.dmag.org.uk/election/>See <http://www.dmag.org.uk/election/>

7

RNIB Web Site

Bobby was used on 7 May 2003 to test the RNIB home page at <http://www.rnib.org.uk/>Two priority 2 errors were foundIs the RNIB home page really inaccessible?

Wh

at's

Hap

pen

ing

?

Similar findings have been reported for other high-profile accessibility organisations

8

The Context

One University Web manager, following survey publication, said:"I too have been struggling with just how rigorously the WAI guidelines should be implemented … I certainly aspire to comply as full as I can with the WAI guidelines but …"

• Some guidelines are too theoretical• I will have a pragmatic approach:

• Will use tables for positioning• Will not associate form controls for search

boxes• Will not necessarily nest headers correctly• …

Co

nce

rns

These are seen as WAI requirements. Are they?

9

Specific Problems

Typical problems reported by Bobby's automated testing:

• Missing ALT text• Missing DOCTYPEs• Use of absolute positioning• Repeated link phrases

The justifications for these requirements is well-known

They could be fixed easily for an entry point

But:• What about workflow issues• What about tools used today• Are there usability issues?

Co

nce

rns

10

MS Office Case Study

A typical organisation (including universities):• Has significant investment in Microsoft Office

products• Has conservative users who typically won't

appreciate new tools being forced on them

In MS Word / PowerPoint:• How many users will know how to add ALT text to

images?• How many would use this option if they knew

about it?

Typ

ical

Pro

ble

ms

If PowerPoint presentations are held on the Web primarily for file delivery with little expectation of use by others should (a) effort be spend on ALT tags, (b) do as at present or (c) remove files from Web site?

If PowerPoint presentations are held on the Web primarily for file delivery with little expectation of use by others should (a) effort be spend on ALT tags, (b) do as at present or (c) remove files from Web site?

11

Using A Text Editor

Many experienced Web authors / software developers may use a text editor in preference to a HTML authoring tool (I use HTML-kit)

This should be more usable these days (just create simple HTML elements, and leave formatting to a CSS file)

But:• Isn't it too difficult to maintain ids for cell elements

in complex tables• Isn't it worse to get ids wrong than not have

them?

Should the WAI guidelines be explicit on this point?How will users of text editors react?

Should the WAI guidelines be explicit on this point?How will users of text editors react?

Typ

ical

Pro

ble

ms

12

Large Web Sites

A typical university Web site:• Has devolved authorship• Uses a wide range of technologies, applications,

etc.)• Has hundreds of thousands of Web resources

Differing perceptions:• Web teams would like to install centralised

Content Management Systems to help apply consistent best practices

• Users typically don't like central service departments and want to manage their own resources, use their own favourite applications, etc.

Typ

ical

Pro

ble

ms

13

WAI Compliance Levels

Is it unreasonable to regard:• WAI A = Good effort• WAI AA = Even better• WAI AAA = Top of the class

But:• Is this really the case?• Aren't some of the AA and AAA requirements

based on assumptions of how the Web will be in the future?

Typ

ical

Pro

ble

ms

14

Too Theoretical?

Are some WAI guidelines too theoretical?

Typ

ical

Pro

ble

ms

13.2 Provide metadata to add semantic information to pages and sites. [Priority 2]For example, use RDF ([RDF]) to indicate the document's author, the type of content, etc.

Some questions• How many use RDF today?• Isn't RDF an unproven technology which is

currently of research interest?• Isn't this using WAI as a mechanism to promote

a favoured W3C format?• If I can't / won't do this, will other

Priority 2 requirements be ignored?

15

Too Theoretical?

Have some WAI techniques not being used sufficiently to expect widespread use?

But• longdescr not supported in widely used browsers• There is little implementation experience:

• Should the file be text, HTML, … (it's not defined)• How will the information be rendered?• Should I provide navigation to the original document?• What about the management of the content?• If it's not widely used, can we implement a better

solution (e.g. based on XLink)

1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or …T

ypic

al P

rob

lem

s

16

Best Practices Or Today's Practices?

Does/should WAI:• Act as an evangelist for emerging W3C

technologies?• Assume that the W3C philosophy is true ("by

following these guidelines content developers can create pages that degrade gracefully …")

• Address real world concerns in an environment of broken browsers, commercially driven interests, proprietary formats, …

XML

CSS SMIL SVG RDF

XML

CSS SMIL SVG RDF

G6 Ensure that pages are accessible even when newer technologies .. not supported

G6 Ensure that pages are accessible even when newer technologies .. not supported

If I use SMIL, how do I dumb things down to HTML?

Typ

ical

Pro

ble

ms

17

Cost Of Web Accessibility

But doesn't:• #2 ignores the workflow issues• #2 ignores the documented costs of providing and

maintaining metadata (an ALT tag is metadata)• #3 ignores the real world difficulties of, say,

deploying CSS

MYTH #2: Accessible Web authoring is expensive and time-consumingMYTH #3: Web accessibility is too difficult for the average Web designer

http://aware.hwg.org/why/myths.html#m2

Wouldn't it be better to be open about the costs in order to gain acceptance? We don't pretend that safety in cars, providing fire safety in building, etc. is cheap.

Wouldn't it be better to be open about the costs in order to gain acceptance? We don't pretend that safety in cars, providing fire safety in building, etc. is cheap.

Typ

ical

Pro

ble

ms

It is acknowledged that this is not from WAI

18

Cost Of Web AccessibilityDiveintoaccessibility.org provides valuable advice on making Web sites accessible.

But look at what it describes:

1. First, we're defining an absolute size (12px) for every <p>. All browsers apply this style …

2. Then we include the odd-looking comment "/*/*/". Due to bugs in Netscape 4, everything between this comment and the following one will be ignored. That's right, all the following styles will only be applied in non-Netscape-4 browsers.

3. Immediately after the odd-looking comment, we include an empty rule "a {}". Opera 5 for Mac is buggy and ignores this rule (and only this rule). It applies everything else.

p {font-size: 12px;}/*/*/a{}body p {font-size: x-small;voice-family: "\"}\"";voice-family: inherit;font-size: small;}html>body p {font-size: small;}/* */…

19

Conclusions

To conclude:• Public sector bodies who want to provide

accessible Web sites seem to find it difficult to do so, even on individual high-profile pages

• The WCAG 1.0 guidelines appear to promote little-deployed and emerging W3C technologies in additon to mature & well-supported features

• It appears to be difficult / expensive to produce richly functional & accessible e-learning resources

Or is this taking the WAI WCAG guidelines too literally? Don't the guidelines do a good enough job in the majority of cases, and to highlight exceptional cases or esoteric aspects is to undermine the valuable work that WAI is doing (and provide a loophole for avoidance)?

Or is this taking the WAI WCAG guidelines too literally? Don't the guidelines do a good enough job in the majority of cases, and to highlight exceptional cases or esoteric aspects is to undermine the valuable work that WAI is doing (and provide a loophole for avoidance)?

20

Web Accessibility: Will WCAG 2.0 Better Meet Today’s Challenges?Accessibility and UsabilityJenny Craven, Research Associate, CERLIMWith acknowledgements to David Sloan, DMAG and Neil Witts, TechDis for their input

Contents• Introduction• Accessibility / Usability conflicts• Design issues• User issues• What makes a Web site

accessible and usable?• Conclusions: thinking about

accessibility and usability

Contents• Introduction• Accessibility / Usability conflicts• Design issues• User issues• What makes a Web site

accessible and usable?• Conclusions: thinking about

accessibility and usability

21

Quotes about Web usability:

“you sighted people just go click click click and there’s the answer – while I’m still looking for the first …. link!”

“It tells me that there is a text-only version, I tend to steer clear of them because they are often not as up to date as the graphical version”

“I could tell it was a link, but I wasn’t sure where I was going”

“I often just click on text because I think it will be a link”

22

Accessibility/usability conflicts

Design Issues:• Inappropriate or unhelpful alternative text for

graphics, images etc – is ‘photo’ enough? Is a literal description of every image always helpful?

• Inappropriate or unhelpful text for hypertext links – to ‘click here’ or not to ‘click here’

• Language – accessibility and understanding: are they really the same thing?

• Interactive elements e.g. e-learning packages, quizzes – people behave in different ways.

23

To ‘Click here’ or not to ‘Click here’

24

E-Learning Concerns

I could use a real world alternative which provides an equivalent learning experience. This seems acceptable under UK SENDA legislation – but is it OK for the Web site to be inaccessible (to 3 rd parties) but to have an accessible course? If not, should I password protect the Web site (so it's equally inaccessible to everyone!)?

I could use a real world alternative which provides an equivalent learning experience. This seems acceptable under UK SENDA legislation – but is it OK for the Web site to be inaccessible (to 3 rd parties) but to have an accessible course? If not, should I password protect the Web site (so it's equally inaccessible to everyone!)?

Visualisation"I use a Flash animation of the HIV virus in my course. I've been told that it must be usable in a speaking / text browser. I've also been told that I must use open W3C technologies. What should I do?"

Quizzes"I have online quizzes in which users must describe features in common in two photos. I've been told I must provide meaningful information in ALT tags. But this would give the answer away! What should I do?"

25

E-Learning Concerns

How do we make this interactive exercise interactive?

Can we design a single system which is accessible and as usable as this one?

Won't it be difficult and expensive to do this?

26

Accessibility / usability conflicts

User Issues:• Parallel design vs Linear navigation…

200 links on one page. Does not follow a logical order

• Intelligibility of information in audio, e.g….‘eResources’ – ‘error sources’,‘British Journal’ – ‘British Hournal’

• Different levels of user expertise.• Different assistive technologies.• Is it possible to design a web interface

that suits the needs of everybody?

27

So, what makes a Web site ‘accessible’ and ‘usable’?

• Meeting basic accessibility requirements, e.g. ALT Text? Appropriate language for links?

• Offer Text-Only sites e.g. Tesco Access?• Bobby (or similar) approved?• Meeting legal requirements? e.g. DDA,

SENDA, 508?• WAI compliance?

28

Text-Only issues

• Automatically generated Text-Only sites are only as accessible as the original.

• The same applies to hand coded Text-Only sites, but also have to be updated alongside the original – worries that they may not be kept up-to-date.

• Text-Only may conflict with the ethos of universal design.

29

Accessibility checker issues

• Automated Web accessibility checkers such as Bobby DO NOT guarantee accessibility.

• Belief that because an automated checker says it’s ok, then it’s accessible.

• Accessibility does not equal usability.

30

Logo issues

31

Logo issues

• Automated testing does not provide a comprehensive solution to accessibility.

• Changes to the website and/or to person responsible for the site my impact on accessibility – but the logo may remain.

• How do logos relate to legal issues? Is it safe to assume a site is DDA/SENDA (or equivalent) compliant because it displays a logo?

32

Legal Issues

• Who takes responsibility for implementing Web accessibility?

• From a legal perspective, how does WCAG 1.0 fit in with WCAG 2.0?

• If Governments adopt WCAG will they have to adjust their policies to fit in with changes?

• Will the legal systems of different countries come into conflict with WCAG?

e.g. privacy laws differ, what about disability and web accessibility?

33

WAI issues• WAI compliance does not guarantee accessibility for

an individual.• WAI are ‘guidelines’ and therefore may be open to

interpretation.• Focussing on guidelines and checklists alone is not

enough.• If Plug-Ins etc need installing, will this conflict with

WAI guidelines?• Attempting to comply with AAA WAI

recommendations may be too ambitious.• How do the WAI guidelines help people understand

further about accessibility and usabililty? i.e how and why

34

Thinking about Accessibility and Usability

• A Web site can comply with open standards.• A Web site can pass all the automated accessibility

checks.• A Web site can appear to be accessible BUT• An accessible Web site is not necessarily usable.• The best way to test for usability is by involving the

users themselves.• Accessibility and usability is an evolving process, not a

static one.• This should be reflected in policies.So, how will WCAG meet today’s challenges?

35

Unresolved Issues (1)

Issues for general discussion: • Policy issues – ‘My institution’s accessibility policy

does not comply fully with the WAI guidelines’, ‘WCAG reflects US culture which is not appropriate for my organisation’.

• User issues – ‘I know it is possible to change the browser settings, but I don’t know how to’, ‘my screen reader is an old version – but I can’t afford to upgrade’

• Awareness issues – not just how, but also why.• Implementation issues - who is responsible for

implementing the WAI guidelines?• From a legal perspective, how does WCAG 1.0 fit in

with WCAG 2.0?• How will cultural and legal differences be resolved?• Political issues – uncertainty, changing alliances etc.

36

Unresolved Issues (2)

Issues for general discussion:• Cost of implementing Web accessibility• Tackling "low-hanging fruit" versus

everything• Accessibility of proprietary formats• Too theoretical?• Usability issues• Value of logos• …