Welcome to the WCAG 2.0 Community of Expertise (CoE)
It has been a busy few months for the Accessibility and Style team. We are a small team of two – Jacqui & Raven – who endeavour to bring you all you need to know about accessibility of government websites. Since the endorsement of Version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) for government websites in late 2009, we’ve been working very hard in planning the implementation to the new web standard, developing the National Transition Strategy (NTS) and working one-on-one with agencies to find solutions to common (and sometimes uncommon) accessibility issues.
So, we’re here at last…and we’re blogging, or blegging as it may be, and we’d like to invite you to participate in the Community of Expertise. That means sharing your knowledge by writing a blog post, commenting on others, or nominating a topic for discussion.
What it’s all about
The NTS discussed the creation of a Community of Expertise (CoE) to encourage collaboration in developing advice, techniques and resources to implement WCAG 2.0. For government, this means we share the cost and resource burdens of conformance, we get consistency in the application of web standards, we can centralise some training and education, and we get the benefit of sharing our common issues. For the private sector, it means they can be involved in discussions on policies and procedures, and through this, may gain a better understanding of the issues facing government agencies. For accessibility experts, disability service organisations and peak bodies, the CoE provides an opportunity to promote understanding of the varied needs of all people using government websites and services.
How it works
Over the next few weeks we’ll be publishing a range of information on WCAG 2.0, how to implement the standard and general accessibility advice. Some of the discussion will begin in the CoE, and once formalised and agreed, will move to the Web Guide (previously named Web Publishing Guide). This process will give web managers and accessibility experts opportunity to comment on the advice and guidance they will be asked to implement; and will help ensure everyone is interpreting accessibility guidance in a similar manner.
Within the Community of Expertise, government web managers and accessibility experts work toward creating content to be approved and published on the Web Guide. To facilitate this, AGIMO and invited experts will raise issues for debate and comment by CoE Members, which will form the basis of future accessibility guidance. Working Groups will also be established by AGIMO to solve complex whole of government technical issues and Mitigation Projects. CoE Members will create and or contribute to Tools, Techniques and Templates, before accessibility advice is amalgamated and published. Overseeing this work, the WCAG 2.0 Reference Group representatives will monitor progress to WCAG 2.0 and discuss collaborative policy frameworks.
How to get involved
This is where “begging” meets “blogging”: we want to hear from people (organisations can’t speak – people can) with an interest in accessibility matters. We all know a blog is only as good is its last post, and without involvement from CoE members, we won’t get very far. There are many ways to contribute:
- Comment on blog posts and provide your expertise to assist one another;
- Nominate a topic for the CoE to commence discussing (this might be something that you need help with);
- Nominate to write a ‘Guest Post’ on the blog if you have specific expertise that you want to share (an example might be on ‘closed captioning’).
Topics of discussion might include a particular accessibility issue you are experiencing or have recently overcome; questions or comments on web technologies (e.g. HTML, Flash, and JavaScript); WCAG 2.0 techniques or success criterion; or even principles of accessibility in general.
Guest posts can be from anyone, about anything (so long as it’s about accessibility). We’ll invite some members to post, but don’t be shy in raising your hand too. The only real condition of guest posts (or comments) is that we will not allow commercial endorsements. Feel free to promote your good work, but leave the business of selling goods or services to your website. Any posts should observe the AGIMO blog guidelines. For all the other advice about belonging to the CoE, see our Terms of Reference (RTF 100KB).
Down the track, we will look at more ways to foster discussion and debate through online collaboration tools. We are also planning in-person information sessions so stay tuned for those details.
In the meantime, send your nominations for blog topic or to wcag2@finance.gov.au or comment on the blog.
loading...
Subscribe via RSS
Hi all. I am a new blogger. This site looks excellent.
Quick question. How are other agencies planning to address WCAG 2.0 1.1 for attachment PDFs at this time?. Specifically are all looking to create double documents or to making existing pdfs as reader compliant as possible? We have thousands of attachments on our website would require accessibility compliance here.
I hope you dont mind me noting that with the best of intentions , the potential amount of resource needed to make all complaint by making double documents is huge.
It would help our planning processes to understand what others in Australia are scoping for.
Beverley
loading...
Hi Beverley
In a nutshell, our view is that all formats should be made accessible from the outset, but currently there are no agreed testable processes to ensure the PDF (or for that matter, Word or RTF and similar) formats are WCAG 2.0 compliant. That’s not to say those files cant be accessible, to some people, if created correctly. To ensure non-discrimination, if you are not meeting WCAG 2.0, agencies need to provide multiple accessible formats.
You might benefit from having a look at the discussion on PDFs and alternative formats on another blog post: http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/2010/11/30/good-document-design-is-the-key-to-accessibility/
Really, its about looking at the whole business process in creating and publishing information online. If files are made without accessibility in mind, then creating an accessible alternative after the fact is indeed more resource intensive. But it doesn’t need to be, and it shouldn’t be.
Let us know what you think of ...
... the advice on the other post.
loading...
Why do people always assume RTF is an alternative accessible? It’s a nightmare for screenreaders. I use a screen reader, I get further with an untagged PDF file than I do with any RTF.
Also what should one look for when employing an accessibility specialist? Obviously experience with real disabled users would be a good start?
loading...
Caddiak – that’s a really interesting point. Many people I’ve spoken to in this space within their own organisations assume that RTF is an appropriate alternative. We’ll need to rethink this approach.
loading...
Hi again
Is there a discussion board to compliment this blog?
Obviously there is linkedin groups for the WSG, and I’m sure agimo have mailing lists… but a discussion board like phpBB would be so useful.
Also is there anyone out there who has succesfully made various CMS’s meet WCAG 2 requirements. eg. sharepoint 2010, confluence… I’ve had a lot of luck with drupal, wordpress and mysource matrix but I’m curious about others.
loading...
Caddiak – im interest in this one too. Did you ever find an answer to whether Sharepoint 2010 is meets WCAG 2.0 compliance?
loading...
Hi all – just a point of clarification, content management systems can’t meet WCAG, depending on their capability they can contribute to the production of more accessible web content, or limit inaccessible content. That is, only “web content” can meet WCAG 2.0. The W3C have developed another technical standard for web content authoring tools, called ATAG (Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines). Version 2.0 is still in draft, but hopefully more authoring tools and CMSs will conform once it is finalised.
There is a lot of advice available about improving the accessibility of CMS tools – in the first instance you may like to talk to your developers or look to join some interest groups on the specific tool. Ask your vendor whether their tool is ATAG compliant, or produces WCAG 2.0-compliant content (then ask for evidence and supporting documentation).
In the meantime, please don’t mention specific pros or cons of ...
... any tools on this blog, as it will constitute a breach of the Community of Expertise Terms of Reference (no commercial endorsements).
loading...
I get further with an untagged PDF file than I do with any RTF.
Can you elaborate on this? Does the screen reader not process the text in an RTF file?
And, as you can see, this blog can function as a discussion board.
loading...
I downloaded a duty statement in RTF format off a government site. It didn’t even read out the page title. It felt equivalent to looking at a blank piece of paper.
They didn’t have a PDF equivalent, and the only other way of getting the information was through their recruitment system (NGA.net) which was full of ‘click here’ links etc.
Thanks for the response…
loading...
Hi All – been lurking for a while.
@caddiak
All lot of the assumptions around RTF, or indeed any other technology, is nothing simpler than a lack of education. That being said – the statement that “RTF’s are a nightmare for screen readers” is an extremely general statement, and potentially as damaging as a statement such as “RTF is more accessible than PDF”.
It should be remembered that the level of accessibility isn’t in fact based on the technology being used (excepting where a technology simply is not accessible within the constraints of current technology – for instance many online virtual worlds (technically online content)), it simply comes down to how the content is written.
A 1 page RTF which consists of only text, without forms fields, wih only a single heading and no images etc, is certainly no-less accessible and screen reader friendly as its PDF equivalent. That being said, a HTML 4.0 ...
... document that is badly coded, doesn’t validate and doesn’t parse correctly is certainly not accessible even if it is only text. WCAG is extremely technology agnostic in that sense.
Re: Accessibility specialists: Firstly – I’m sure there are few individuals who could do everything required of an accessibility specialist. It would be of more use to take on an accessibility project team with specialists in different areas who could work together eg: Manager/Advisor, BA, Technical Specialists, Developers, Designers, Editors, Testers etc.
However I was only going to employ a single individual, I would not actually consider experience with disabled users to be a starting point – the range of people affected by accessibility issues spans the whole gamut of society. For instance, an abled executive on a laptop in an airport lounge who has a broken mouse and access to a keyboard only is affected by accessibility issues. As is a person with English as a second language on an Australian government website (Understandable). The ultimate aim of accessibility is to make the web equally accessible to all people, regardless of circumstance.
The biggest ticket item I’d be looking for in an accessibility specialist would be a holistic understanding of web technology and how all of the different technologies work and interact, how to test them, and how to write them. Essentially I think I’d want someone with practical web development, document authoring, web design and publishing experience. Experience with key groups such as disabled users would be a bonus. Proven experience in transitioning a commercial or enterprise site to WCAG 2 AA would be far more useful.
IMO of course
loading...
In my opinion too, Chris! Great points about accessibility being for everyone.
loading...
Thanks for your response. I can see you are very passionate about the topic which is great. Keep it up!
Is there anything special you need to do when it comes to making an RTF more friendly?
A common situation for me is I’ll make sure any headings in a word document is semantic in order. From there, I’ll convert into other formats, such as PDF and RTF. I have my adobe settings customised, and usually no clean up is required for a really basic file (just headings and paragraph text). I then used jaws to see how they both compared. And this is where the PDF (tagged) was fine but the RTF wasn’t.
Thanks for educating us all!
loading...
And another question…
If you had something that had been tested and had 100% compliancy, whether it’s rtf, pdf, xhtml 1 strict – does an alternative format still have to be supplied?
loading...
That’s an interesting question and I believe it is pretty well addressed in the WCAG 2.0 Conformance Requirements. In particular requirements 4 and 5 which relate to the use of technologies. Requirement 4 specifically addresses the issue of using Accessibility Supported technologies. Quote:
“Only accessibility-supported ways of using technologies are relied upon to satisfy the success criteria. Any information or functionality that is provided in a way that is not accessibility supported is also available in a way that is accessibility supported.”
To me, this suggests that if you use a technology that is considered Accessibility Supported and you use it in a way that complies, then an alternative does not need to be provided. However, where ever possible I believe a HTML alternative should be provided for non-html content.
loading...
Hi Caddiak
Great comments. I am concerned to hear about the use of any non-WCAG conforming format without alternative on a government site, if you want to chat to me about that further contact me on wcag2@finance.gov.au.
To the other issue, the Australian Government requires the use of Sufficient Techniques for technologies claiming WCAG conformance. While a document, in any format, that is marked-up well can be highly accessible to some people in some conditions, we cannot be satisfied that it will be sufficiently accessible to others in other conditions. This is because for formats that don’t have agreed techniques, there is no 100% compliancy.
That is why we require repeatable, measurable tests and processes to ensure developers create accessible content to an agreed specification.
The WCAG 2.0 Quick Reference Guide talks about how Sufficient Techniques are informative, but goes on to add: “If techniques are used other than those listed by ...
... the Working Group, then some other method for establishing the technique’s ability to meet the success criteria would be needed.”
Within the Australian Government, we require use of Sufficient Techniques, no other methods for testing are deemed sufficient.
That is not to say other document formats cant be made (at least partially) accessible. Of course they can be, and they should be, but they cannot (currently) be “relied upon”.
Does that clarify?
Thanks
Raven
loading...
ANAO only provides one format with their reports. Are they excempt from the guidelines?
loading...
Agencies are required to meet the National Transition Strategy (NTS) within the required timeframes, where agencies are not currently meeting this standard, they should upgrade in line with the NTS.
Find out more about the timeframes of the NTS on the Finance website.
loading...
There’s been lots of talk about pdfs, but has anyone got any ideas about how to make maps more accessible? Can we provide a Google map for those who are visual, and simply a text alternative that says ‘we are located at…catch bus number x etc’? No techo answers please! I’m a content person – text and pics, and am trying to keep things simple but effective. Looking forward to hearing how your agencies are working through this.Mel Harwood
loading...
People use maps for many purposes. Perhaps we can identify use cases and provide a text alternative for each of these, eg “To get to our office from Civic, catch a Route Number 2 bus”, “To get here from Woden it’s best to catch a number 77″, and so on.
loading...
Hi Mel
A map in its most simple sense, is just content presented visually (i.e an image) and as such, under WCAG 2.0, should be described, presented, in text.
The trick of it is in determining what is the intent of the map? Are you providing directions, or indicating a locations placement in reference to other locations? Are you demonstrating a planning proposal or is it a visual depiction of content that is already available in text?
Once you know what you are trying to achieve visually, you can understand what needs to be done to make that information available in a different modality (not just visually).
If you are just providing your building location, providing the address in text should be considered sufficient. If particularly tricky to find, you might like to add more detail or helpful text. I would then consider the map accompanying the content supplementary and not “relied upon”. ...
...
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Raven
loading...
Dey Alexander provides a good article on accessible maps with a example of an accessible version of the Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne map
loading...
Thanks everyone! Great information. Mel
loading...
I have a question, in fact a challenge, the community may be able to assist with.
Say I have to test their compliance to WCAG 2.0, AA level. The web pages use modern html/css/javascript and a little flash. They have been manually maintained by multiple people over a year or two, so the code is only partially standardised across pages.
a) How long should it take a relative newbie to test, by manual inspection, a single web page meets all 25 WCAG criteria? (I have to admit my first attempt took me several days, it will get quicker, but how much?)
b) How long if I use some of the popular tools (like aChecker and aDesigner)
So you can see here I am wondering whether its best to invest in selecting and learning to use tools, or just get stuck in and test manually.
loading...
Hmmm good questions Stevo. In my experience, accessibility testing has taken anywhere between a few hours to a few days… but so much depends on the skill of the tester, number / type of tools used, and how robust the testing is.
Did you see the advice on the Web Guide about Conformance Testing?
I personally think that accessibility testing skills are essential for anyone who works on any website… what does the CoE think?
loading...
I am being asked questions around supplementary tools such as Browse Aloud and Web Anywhere I’m not asking for anyone to endorse either or but I would like some opinions on whether people in the community think these kind of tools are worthwhile to incorporate on websites.
loading...
Hi Di,
We are doing a lot of work around these Text to Speech tools now and will shortly have some advice available. Browse Aloud, Read Speaker and ReciteMe are all products we have recently reviewed and we found that many agencies are interested in these solutions, some are using them to great advantage already.
As for the Web Anywhere screen reader we have not specifically reviewed that but are likely to gain good insight about that tool when we meet with Vision Australia shortly. I will ensure we share what we can.
In fact if anyone has used these tools or are interested in deploying them on your website, we’d be pleased if you let us know about it.
loading...
What about an information session or fact sheets or even recommendations on testing tools? What one agency is doing might not be what another is or may not be to the standard required (even though they might think it is).
loading...
Great ideas Di. Fact sheets would be an excellent way to get some of this info out.
We’ve also been doing a lot of work on testing tools and methods and other interesting tools like those that batch convert PDF documents and some redaction tools (to help our FOI colleagues). So it is a practical solution to pull together an Accessibility update session for government so we can share some of these concepts and discuss the practicalities of using the various tools.
We were planning on doing a COE event soon, so it seems one that incorporates all these topics would be especially welcome.
I will seek some info shortly on what other things COE members are interested in and we will progress an info session from there.
Stay tuned….
loading...
Hello! Would anyone in this forum be able to advise me if MHTML files address accessibility in the same ways that HTML are?
Rational:
I have been recommended the use of this format as an alternate and expedient means of presenting attachment PDFs in an alternate (html) format. However cannot find any info on whether they can be as accessible as html pages. MHTML files hold all source files in one document.. thus ease complex document creation process.
Please advise.
..
Thanks
Beverlely
loading...
Beverly, I am unfamiliar with the pros and cons of this format, nor the complexity or accessibility of its delivery mechanism.
We’ll need to do some more investigations and will advise further (after the information session – we’re a bit swamped!)
Open to the CoE though, has anyone else used MHTML and would like to share their experiences?
loading...
Hi again,
Would you kindly confirm the exact WCAG 2.0 compliance requirements on our website for documents which come into our organisation from external parties?
Is my memory correct that non compliance in this area would push an organisational site in a “Partial Compliance category”?
Please advise
Kind regards
BB from APRA
loading...
Hi Beverley
There are some circumstances where content is outside the control of the website owner. In such cases, content may fall within the category for WCAG 2.0 Statements of Partial Conformance. This is allowed under WCAG 2.0 for conformance, but agencies should still try to minimise potential discrimination by helping to improve the accessibility of all content published on your website. You might like to try:
* using HTML submission forms (for author contributions)
* seeking content in multiple formats, or a format that can be easily saved in new format
* provide quick tips about how to improve accessibility for authors (headings and no alt text are most common errors)
* provide accessible templates for authors to complete
* improve the accessibility of the platform hosting contributions
Look to improve the processes wherever you can to make it easy for both the web team and people engaging with government online. In the ...
... end, you can choose to publish a Partial Conformance statement for the uncontrolled content, to help users know how the website performs.
Please remember this conformance allowance is intended for uncontrolled content – this will not mean content you have procured written by a third party, or designed/type-set by a third party, as in those cases your agency still has control over the content.
Does this help?
loading...
Hi all,
Thankyou for this great resource, I’ve found some really useful information on here! This is my first post on this site, hoping someone can please provide some insight.
I look after my department’s intranet, and a lot of our pages include links to Word documents supplied by other business areas. The documents occasionally contain complex diagrams and are sometimes formatted without using Word styles (leading to poor document structure).
My questions are:
* Should the document owner(s) summarise all diagram images (including the really complex ones) either as a list, or a paragraph?
* Is the description/summary required if the diagram’s information is explained elsewhere in the document, or if the diagram itself is not introducing any new information?
What do you recommend to make sure other business areas format and write their web/intranet published documents in the most accessible way?
* Does your publishing unit review and amend each document (as necessary) ...
... before release, or have you taken steps to educate business areas on good document design?
* Have you created Word templates with restricted formatting, to force business areas into using Word styles for document design?
* For intranet purposes, is it OK to link to just one format (e.g .doc), since we know that all staff have this software installed? Or must we still provide an alternative? We only have one office.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Aaron
loading...