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...
AGIMO Blog latest posts
I think this is a good initiative. I’m an accessibility evangelist after having spent a couple of hours observing a blind person navigate her way through a website we were testing at the National Library of Australia. I was in awe of her ability to understand the reader – my ears were certainly not attuned to the speed with which the reader was transcribing the site. I was also embarrassed when she stumbled over certain points of inaccessibility in the website. If ever there was any proof of the need for web standard accessibility, that was it.
loading...
Hi Jacqui & Raven,
Great blog and a great idea.
The provision of a centralised point and service that advises government on WCAG 2.0 obligations, as-well as creating a resource for the Web Managers of government to help navigate their way through the complex framework and 100s of pages that is WCAG2.0 will be a great resource.
I look forward to following it and hopefully picking up some new ideas/information and pitching in where I can.
Cheers,
De-leon
Department of Innovation
loading...
Great .. but what does acronym WCAG stand for???????????????????????????????
loading...
Thanks Basil!
It’s the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (version 2.0 in this case). I’ll update the post to reflect this too.
See the Guidelines here…
Cheers
Raven
loading...
Great blog! Thanks.
I am currently going through the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) and noticed that all recommendations are mainly for the web sites. In my organisation we develop a lot of web applications for internal and external clients. I do believe that the web applications have to be accessible and WCAG should apply to complex online systems as well as static web sites.
Regards,
Maria
loading...
This is a really good point. In addition to our website and intranet we also develop web apps for internal and external stakeholders. Given that the functionality of these apps are often reliant upon interactive components and non-text elements how do we begin? Does the NTS timeline apply to web apps as well?
loading...
We’re developing guidance on web apps – but it’s a complicated issue that we’ll address in its own post…
loading...
Is there a timeframe around the guidance to be provided re: web apps?
A clear, consistent understanding of the scope of WCAG 2.0 as well as a consistent approach IMO is vital.
The Understanding “Web Page” section http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-web-page-head is used to clarify what the W3C deems to be in scope for WCAG 2.0.
My understanding would be, and I’ve based this on the W3C definition, is that if it can be improved by applying WCAG 2.0 to the content OR website OR web application then it should be assessed in this way. For me this typically means if it is HTML rendered in a browser (User Agent) then it can be WCAG’d (although I understand that there will be other technologies that may be included).
Hopefully my understanding meets that of AGIMO especially regarding web applications. Good to see loads of people engaged in these discussions.
loading...
Great to see the blog up and running, good stuff Jacqui and Raven. Please note that all my comments are my own and don’t represent WA Government.
Maria, a good point, I agree that it is appropriate for applications about to be developed to meet accessibility standards, the issue is with existing applications…do you mandate that existsing online apps be retrofitted (timely, costly, who pays, do they do this immediately or over time, all at once or in stages, etc etc) or do you have to put up with the in-accessible apps until you can replace them or their contract is up for renewal? This is an issue we have discussed within WA Government and it doesn’t have an easy or quick to implement solution.
De-leon, yep, I hope this blog takes off and I can use it (and contribute when I can) to discuss accessibility issues with peers in ...
... Government and Industry alike.
loading...
Basil
WCAG – Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
Accessibility has come a long way over the years both in its recognition for existence and as a mandatory test requirement prior to a website deployment. I eagerly await the day application developers produce a product which doesn’t need major manipulation either through pure coding or CSS before a reasonable level of compliance is achieved.
loading...
Great to see the CoE beginning to take shape. I’m a part of the Accessibility Team @ DIAC and we are so pleased to know there will be some support out there when we hit the tough issues of which there are many.
A bit like Maria (comment above) we are heavily involved in trying to increase the accessibility of some very rich, complex web applications and have plenty of questions that will be great to have a community to bounce off.
Will there be an open forum we can use to post and discuss topics rather than waiting for a particular topic to arise on the blog?
Thanks to Raven & Jacqui.
Regards,
Kym Dusting
@kymdusting
loading...
Comments to Maria, Stewart and Kym:
Excellent points – applications are an interesting and complex component of the upgrade to improved accessibility conformance. We’re working on developing guidance on this topic, but we’d be very interested to hear more about the determining factors agencies are employing to decide what applications, or web applications, are considered “within scope” for upgrade to WCAG 2.0.
For example, are you considering the following: how the content is delivered (via web browser, public or private), owner or developer of products (COTS, GOTS, hybrid, bespoke), what technologies the products are built in (is the UI design HTML-driven?) and if web technologies are not employed, how will you determine conformance to WCAG 2.0 (i.e. without Sufficient Techniques)?
Similarly, is anyone looking at the W3C drafts for ARIA and ATAG?
Kym: no forum at this stage, but we do want to make the blog dynamic and cater to our audience (you!) so happy to create any accessibility topics that people wish to discuss. We might move these comments to a new blog post on “Applications” shortly.
Thanks all
Raven
loading...
Our approach to the “does it / doesn’t it fall under WCAGs domain” question has typically been – if its HTML rendered in the browser we will apply WCAG to it.
We tend not to consider the internal versus external argument i.e. does the content sit inside or outside of the departments firewall, because we haven’t seen that as having any relevance to how web content / websites / web applications should be designed and built.
For non web-based content or desktop applications we have used other, ISO standards to perform evaluations which generally focus on the effect on users which is quite a shift in thinking from WCAG.
ARIA is something we have been investing more time in recently but the difficulty is finding good, working examples of it in use but that will come when more developers adopt the standard.
I would really like to hear about more areas of Government ...
... and their approach to applying WCAG, where it gets applied, what distinctions or exceptions are made, what are the roadblocks people face? Perhaps this is a blog post topic for the future or perhaps even a survey?
Cheers,
Kym
loading...
Basically yes, our view is in line with that, in order to claim conformance the technologies need to have Sufficient Techniques available for testing conformance. But it is complicated by issues around owners vs. developers (where responsibility lies), hybrid applications that utilise HTML or other web technology user-interface designs, use and intent of applications (including expected extended lifecycles of apps over websites). We also have to balance the issue of minimising risk of accessibility complaint and consider the benefits of other accessibility standards (like ATAG or ARIA) that may be more appropriate in some cases.
What we are hoping then to achieve is providing some policy and a set of questions and answers agencies can use to help determine whether a web app might be considered within scope. Timeframe? The draft policy is out for comment now, then it will be posted here for your comments too.
Our view is that there is not necessarily a “wrong” approach, but we are looking to be consistent and help agencies be more accessible when providing goods and services, or providing information online.
loading...
Hi, I’ve found that WCAG 2.0 is still quite misunderstood…
We are in the process of re-educating ICT and business owners about the Accessibility requirements and the Web Accessibility Transition Strategy, and a common thought amongst Business Owners (non IT related) is that accessibility is an assumption they can make.
That is – if they require a website or application to be created, then the assumption is that it will conform…
It baffled them to think that we haven’t yet got our heads around WCAG 1.0, never mind 2.0…
And some in IT are of the opinion that Accessibility is covered in User Acceptance Testing…
We do have a way to go, but we are engaging all the stakeholders, so we are on the right track.
I wonder if anyone would be interested in the test process (and applications used) that I have recently put together?
If anyone has any comments regarding my choices ...
... – i’d appreciater the feedback.
Accessibility test process
Step 1: Select representative sample pages
Step 2: Validate code: (both XHTML & CSS validation)
Validation is a process which ensures that web pages match the grammar and syntax of the language it claims to be using. Validation can be considered somewhat like a spell check for code.
Step 3: Colour Contrast Analysis
This is a tool used for checking the foreground and background colour combinations on web pages to determine if they provide good colour visibility. It also contains functionality to create simulations of certain visual conditions such as colour blindness.
Step 4: Evaluate Accessibility with at least two automated tools
For example: Webaim Wave, deque Worldspace (and Fireeyes in Firefox)
Automated WCAG2.0 analysis tools assist in determining the conformance of websites to accessibility checks which can be executed automatically. The results are used to focus the manual evaluation of the web pages.
Step 5: Manually evaluate pages against applicable WCAG 2.0 Level A
Automated testing alone cannot determine conformance – a manual evaluation of the pages is necessary as human judgement is required.
Step 6: Read content to establish language level
i.e.: Pages are written using the clearest and simplest language appropriate for the content
The intent of this test is to discover whether text content on a webpage can be read by users and by assistive technologies, and to ensure that information necessary for understanding it is also available.
Step 7: Examine pages in multiple browsers
For example: IE6, IE7, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari
Different browsers render web pages in different ways. It is important to discover if there are any serious rendering issues present on browsers other than Medicare Australia’s standard Internet Explorer 6 (which is only used by 5.5% of Australian computer users)
Step 8: Examine pages using alternate browsers
For example: Lynx for text: using Opera’s Lynx emulator; Jaws or NVDA for audio browsers
Assistive technologies can be used to read out text content to users. This test will determine whether the functionality present when navigating the website normally is also present when using a text based browser.
Step 9: Examine pages of different platforms
For example: PC, Apple and mobile
This test will determine whether there are issues present when trying to access web pages using methods other than a traditional computer/web-browser combination.
loading...
Peter,
When in the application development process would you do the accessibility testing? Should it be split in parts? For example, you can use Step 3 (colour analysis) during the design stage.
Who is going to do the testing?
loading...
Maria,
That’s a great point – and an issue I’m working on at the moment.
Ideally (and unfortunately I do not work in an ideal situation), accessibility would be understood to be the responsibility of everyone involved in the development process.
…And as such, it should be a part of a graphic designer’s thinking when a colour scheme is being developed.
As we know, designing and developing to be accessible is far less expensive than retrofitting accessibility – but I think this is also the case within the development/release process itself.
For example: Leaving accessibility testing until after ICT have produced a test version of the product may be too late to realise the full benefits of early engagement…
By providing our peers with the tools and knowledge they need to embed accessibility into their work practices will assist us all in the long run.
Maybe, as part of this CoE, we can discuss how ...
... best to assist non-professionals in this area?
Peter
loading...
Peter,
A very late reply regarding your testing process.
The WC3 Web Accessibility Initiative website has a suggested approach for doing conformance evaluations, see:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/conformance.html
Plus a whole bunch of other resources that I’m sure someone else has already highligted on this blog.
Cheers
J
loading...
Thanks for the reply Jennifer.
I used the W3C resource as a reference to fine tune our Accessibility Test Process, but I also reviewed other gov and non-gov implementations – and I feel we have a pretty comprehensive test regime because of that.
btw – I highly recommend having a look at the NZ government Accessibility Guide, as NZ have a good handle on the integration of accessibility with web development:
http://webstandards.govt.nz/new-zealand-government-web-standards-2/
We will be adding to/refining the test process as we start to deal with video & transcripts and semantic web practices.
Regards,
Peter
loading...
Hello folk,
I’ve recently come across another WCAG 2.0 testing tool
TAW
http://www.tawdis.net/ingles.html?lang=en
I have only been able to use the online option, as I have already downloaded the Worldspace FireEyes add-on for FireBug in FireFox.
TAW is also available as a FireFox add-on, but I didn’t want to download that incase it caused conflicts with the other.
I’d be interested to hear if anyone else has used this tool.
Cheers
Jenn
loading...
This is really good. A thought might be to break up the accessibility into manageable chunks, eg audio visual, images, providing multiple formats of the same content, portable devices, training material etc
Then those with expertise in a particular area don’t get their message caught up in the general discussion.
Good luck with it all.
loading...
I would like to address another issue here – accessibility of desktop applications. It is always seen as a poor cousin, never enough time, budget or resources to make desktop applications accessible. Most of those applications are for internal users so the pressure to make it accessible is not that high.
Yes, it is controlled environment and the department will provide a person with special needs with all necessary assistive technology products – keyboards, screen enlargers, etc.
But really, even a simple thing like a keyboard access can make your life and life of the person sitting next to you so much easier.
loading...
“Yes, it is controlled environment and the department will provide a person with special needs with all necessary assistive technology products – keyboards, screen enlargers, etc.”
This is, of course, dependent on a person identifying to their organisation that they have a disability and are in need of some specialist equipment or services, which is not always the case (nor should it be).
loading...
Raven: It’s great to see so much progress and active participation towards the NTS, especially at this early stage. The CoE is an excellent initative to share ideas through the process.
RE: people involved with ATAG and WAI-ARIA: we’re involved in these processes as a W3C member and I’d be happy to provide information on this. I’ll be starting a regular posted in the ‘new media’ section of the Media Access Australia website soon to try and simplify some of the important access implications of the upcoming ATAG 2.0 standard, WAI-ARIA and HTML 5 which may also be useful to the NTS.
Again, great to see things off to such a good start.
Scott Hollier
Media Access Australia
http://www.mediaaccess.org.au
loading...
Congrats on a well overdue and exciting initiative – both NTS and the CoE. Good to see stakeholders like the MAA getting involved as well as Agency take up of the CoE offer already! If nothing else it highlights how active and impassioned this community is going to be.
Being on the front line of Web Accessibility in an Australian Government agency, its something you can never stop thinking about. I’d love to see, (and putting my money where my mouth is, being involved with and driving) discussions around anything and everything – even topics which don’t usually come up such as the potential ROI and flow on benefits for any eGov / Gov2.0 adoption of WCAG, specialised WCAG applications such as SharePoint how-tos’ (how many of us face those bug bears), Intranets, mobile access, remote community issues, archive / non-compliant material, Web 3.0 issues, tips and tricks, writing accessible friendly ...
... content and dare I say it, standards development around WCAG implementations for WoG in Australia.
(Standard Aust. Govt print or braille CSS anyone? 
) And that despite it looking daunting, accessibility is often a case of KISS and common sense.
Not to mention sharing lessons learned, challenges, and knowing that those of us who have to work with WCAG daily in Government aren’t alone.
Can’t wait!
loading...
This might be a place to start re a Standard Print CSS. Here is the Print CSS requirements we list in the Common Website Elements (CWE) Web Standard for WA Government.
Any comments about the Print CSS would be welcome, we hope to revise and update the CWE doco soon.
Raven, should this be another topic stream? We might be able to use this list as the baseline to create a list of all the things we think are required, then see who can create a CSS template for all jurisdictions to use?
Some considerations for the Print CSS:
· change colours to black text on white background
· change the font to sans serif
· minimum print font size is 12 point
· underline all links
· remove nonessential images
· remove navigation
· remove all JavaScript, Flash and animated images
· include the State Coat of Arms in the top left corner of the page
· include ...
... the URL of the printed page in the footer of the page.
WA Gov CWE Web Standard can be found via this link: http://www.publicsector.wa.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/WebStandards_CommonWebsiteElements_v1.2_May09.pdf
Stewart
http://twitter.com/Stewart_Luxton
loading...
Absolutely Stuart.
In fact I challenge I would make to the CoE would be to have it drive the serious development of standards of all levels of Government, not only for Accessibility but for anything it touches upon such as CSS.
I’ll be taking a look at your Web Standard today and will get back to you shortly with comments – what’s the best way to contact you?
That aside – who else in the community has standards such as these that the group could review?
Chris
loading...
(Ack – Sorry Stewart *egg on face* – didn’t mean to get your name wrong.)
loading...
Print CSS (continued)…
====================
Stewart’s considerations are a good start. We’ve attempted to adopt those for [content pages on] australia.gov.au, and expanded them further:
- Avoid creating separate ‘printer friendly’ HTML – reuse existing markup wherever possible
- Optimise for A4-size output
- Embed a print-friendly version of the site brand at the bottom of the DOM, positioned absolutely at print-time
And, for those users with JS enabled:
- Underline links, but add footnotes references to the links’ href values
- Extract all inline links and create a series of footnotes at the bottom
(This ensures that the link information inherent in the medium is not lost when outputting to screen. Simply outputting a link’s href value immediately after the link quickly makes many document less readable)
Observable at:
http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/the-australian-continent
loading...
Wow Chris! That’s a lot of potential discussions, but all great ideas. Good point too Stewart, I agree some of these discussion should be on a new blog post.
To that end, I reiterate the invitation to write a guest blog post – everyone is welcome to write them. They can be in the form of a short discussion, or point of view, or a series of questions for debate and review. Get in touch with me via wcag2@finance.gov.au to discuss how you can be involved.
loading...
I’ve been mulling over what a standard aural CSS file might be aiming to achieve.
At first glance, it would appear fairly straightforward:
- Different voices / azimuth for navigation vs. content vs. blockquotes vs. tables
- Handling for abbreviations / acronyms
- Handling for numbers within tables vs. ordered lists
This will all fall into the ‘nice to do’ basket, until I’m able to discern the level of support and demand for aural stylesheets by the devices currently used by our target audience.
loading...
Many congratulations to Jacqui and Raven,
This a great way to raise awareness of the importance of accessibility and provide information that will help people understand what is needed to make sites more accessible.
I have been recently looking at the accessibility of navigation drop down menus for keyboard and screen reader users. Information about the research and discussion available at http://www.dingoaccess.com/accessibility/accessing-nav-drop-downs/
It seems to me we need to find practical and acceptable methods that can be generally agreed on. I would love to hear more from developers and non-mouse web users.
loading...
Maria and Chris have both posted comments about applications that strike a chord with me.
Applications that provide spatial data are of particular interest as I will need to be advising our mapping specialists what WCAG 2.0 means for them.
It’s great that the Strategy has included spatial data as a ‘special case’, but I was wondering how things were progressing with the establishment of the working group/technical project?
loading...
I’d be interested in finding out who is taking the lead on managing this in each agency and why?
For example:
Is it your Communications/Branding group because they own your website?;
Your IT Architecture/Infrastructure group because they control your IT?;
Your Human Resources group because they would deal with any action in the Human Rights Commission?
loading...
This is what I am trying to find out as well – who, where and when…
At this point, I am reading WCAG 2.0, creating examples for each guideline/sub-guideline, conducting peer reviews and hoping for the best
loading...
I’m doing the same thing for ACT Government Web Managers. Perhaps we could work together on this, in a Wiki or in a GovDex community?
loading...
Don’t forget your Legals and/or Audit area because it’s now legislation based
loading...
Actually, the legislative basis was there for WCAG 1.0 too – through the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 – we’ve just tried to make that clearer this time.
loading...
I am coordinating FaHCSIA’s approach to the NTS from within Communications, however we have set up a working group that includes IT and Disability Policy (being the portfolio responsible for Disabilities).
We plan on inviting other areas such as procurement, legal and HR to participate in the working group at various stages.
I think close collaboration is going to be the key to managing such a large body of work.
loading...
It’s great to see these discussions taking place and also that accessibility is finally being taken seriously in Government. As well as the high level policy talk and deciding on ways forward I would also like to see some more basic discussions and help taking place as Chris has also pointed out, sometimes you just want to know the best approach or what everyone else is doing.
I’m really looking forward to the talk.
loading...
Raven,
When will the PDF guidelines be available? According to the AGIMO website “The PDF Accessibility Review report is being finalised and is due for release mid-2010.” http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au/PDF_Accessibility_Review.html
loading...
Re comment by Gordon about aural css. The aural media type is now deprecated in CSS 2, presumably because of a lack of support. It’s been a while since I researched it, but last time I did, no assistive technologies supported it. The speech media type is reserved in CSS 2.1but there are no properties or values defined for it.
loading...
CSS 3 implements the speech media type as a module (utilising SSML). Opera already supports it. The aural media type module is still listed as being part of the developement track – together they would form a powerful combo.
Immediate use for audio based CSS in the gov.au sphere could be in the delivery of program, policy or service information (esp. fact sheets to the public) in spoken Indigenous languages where there is no written language to transcribe information into.
Whether there is a need or audience for this is another matter, but it would certainly be a cool addition to the .gov.au sphere if nothing else. IMO of course…
loading...
Reporting related question – The NTS says
‘AGIMO will provide a reporting system similar to that used to report progress of implementation under the Internet Protocol version 6.’
Is it possible to get an example of a submission to this reporting system? Or a more detailed description of what we will be expected to report on at the end of Phase 1, than that already provided?
Sourcing information from business owners will chew up a lot of my time so it would be good to know what format I need to supply it to AGIMO in.
Thanks
loading...
We’re working on the reporting requirements at present. The intention is to invite agencies to report, via an online reporting tool, on their progress of the Preparation Phase in line with the NTS Work Plan. For example, agencies will be asked to report the number of websites to be conformance tested, how many conform and to what level, any infrastructure issues identified, plus their training needs. We have not yet determined the best reporting approach (spreadsheet upload etc.), but we are trying to make it as least-burdensome as possible. It might be a case of asking agencies to update information already provided under previous surveys on websites.
The purpose of the reporting is for agencies to communicate any issues they have and where we (AGIMO) can identify, through the consolidation process, common issues across government, or across clusters of agencies, then we will be in a better position to develop solutions for agencies. It is intended that we will do this at the centre and so all agencies will benefit from the solution rather than have individual agencies working on the same issues.
We intend to post some worksheets on the Web Publishing Guide shortly. These may assist agencies in completing and documenting the first few Work Plan items in the Preparation Phase. If we find a number of agencies have used these spreadsheets then it would be worthwhile using these as the basis of our initial reporting.
As soon as we are able to provide some more information about the reporting process, we will publish here.
loading...
Hi all
Just wondering how othter departments are addressing the issue of funded org WCAG 2.0 compliance.
FaHCSIA funds thousands of NGOs that may or may not have ‘government information’ on their websites. The scope is too big to manage for Phase 1, so will possibly have to be addressed later via contract and funding agreement processes.
Thoughts?
loading...
In the ACT Government, I’ve started running awareness sessions leading up to the 1.5 Risk Assessment task. The question of funding has been raised and I’ve had to say that no extra funding is available for Phase 1 tasks – but then we don’t see them as particularly onerous.
Quite a few of our Web Managers anticipate refresh/redevelopment over the next two years, so WCAG 2.0 compliance will just be an important component in that activity.
The most significant task identified so far is the need to publish accessible equivalents to PDF documents. That will require a fair bit of effort, especially finding where the source documents used to create the PDFs have been archived.
loading...
I agree with Cassandra that this could well be a major challenge.
For example, what about a Conference website where the department is a major sponsor.
Our logo might sit in a prime location on the site, and some users may then assume this is a ‘government’ website.
Perhaps some further definition around what is in scope and what is out for ‘funded organisations’ would be beneficial.
loading...
The purpose of this issue in the NTS was to help agencies understand that risk of an accessibility complaint may go beyond what is placed on their own website. As such, the Preparation Phase encourages agencies to review websites that they fund or participate in to ensure that the information, if it may be perceived as ‘government’ information, is accessible. Given the multiple and complex funding arrangements that agencies may use, we considered it more appropriate to allow agencies to determine the scope of these issues within their agency or portfolio.
All websites, be they public or private, should be accessible. Organisations using government funding, especially for the purpose of disseminating government information, should be subject to the same accessibility requirements as the agency who ‘owns’ the information or the website. A good measure of the concept of ‘ownership’ , in the context of the NTS, is use of a .gov.au domain, use of the Government crest, or responsibilities within the agency to clear or approve content, site changes or direction of the website.
Where an agency owns or partially owns a website or web content, they should encourage conformance to the highest appropriate standard, helping to ensure services provided by government meet the mandated accessibility standards.
Where an agency is providing content to be put on another organisations website it should be provided in an accessible manner. That way, while the whole site may not be accessible, the content controlled by government at least is.
Looking at future contract negotiations for long term improved accessibility is a good idea too.
See the chapter on Scope in the NTS for more advice: http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/wcag-2-implementation/scope.html
loading...
Raven
Thanks for the clarification
loading...
Yes, thank you. It’s great that you can provide such a speedy response. Much appreciated.
loading...
To my knowledge/advice given to me (and I’m no legal eagle mind you):
If you fund a website, then you are responsible for the content on it, including how that content meets any legal requirements including DDA / WCAG. So a Dept. would be at risk of exposure/non-compliance if funded sites are considered out of scope for phase 1?
loading...
I took the lead in my org simply because it needed to be done and as web coordinator I wanted to have an integral part in the development of the accessibility framework for our web/intranet environment. I am in the Information Services team but our approach to web content accessibility is influenced by a variety of areas within the organisation; IT for infrastructure implications & technology, Communications for branding and style and Company Secretary for compliance being the main ones. Like Maria, I’ve reviewed WCAG 2.0 and assessed our current online environments against those guidelines. At the moment I am developing a draft accessibility framework for the organisation that will sit under the overarching organisational online governance frameworks. If there are other organisations out there that have completed this process or are in the midst of it too, I’d like to hear your experiences.
loading...
It would be really good for agencies to share these drafts with us. Somewhere down the track we hope to be able to provide a showcase of how different agenices are approaching the various work plans under the NTS. Taking a look at how others have approached the same issues is often very helpful, especially for agencies with smaller web teams.
If you are prepared to share your approaches to the NTS and your draft plans with us, please let us know.
loading...
I agree, sharing this information makes sense. Even the just the bare bones of a framework and am happy to share the strategy, approach and draft framework within this community once I’ve finished it.
loading...
Hi all
How are agencies approaching the funding challenges of the strategy?
It’s becoming very clear that implementation of WCAG 2.0 will have a financial impact on the entire Department – not just Comms and ICT.
loading...
Just to keep people in the mood…
This is the theme song for WCAG 2.0. Accessibility consultant David MacDonald wrote it during a Face to Face WCAG meeting in Los Angeles. He did the instruments, programming, vocals and mixing in his home studio. I don’t imply any endorsement of David’s business here – it’s just for fun while we’re all thinking serious here. It’s also a little inspiring
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IWBT4Tk3t0&feature=player_embedded
loading...
This is very reminiscent of conversations I was having with NOIE in the early 90′s, advocating that they consider how to address Web App (not just brochureware pages) compliance for accessibility. The work done in the US on S508 compliance is also a useful reference point for people to consider with regard to accessibility requirements (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_508_Amendment_to_the_Rehabilitation_Act_of_1973). S508 works in much the same was as the Disability Discrimination Act by allowing legal remedy to persons unable to access site contents because of poor accessibility standards compliance. Yes, Agencies can be sued if accessibility barriers exist.
Good to see this COE up and running, but where is the real collaboration meant to be taking place beyond a single blog post? See Kerry Webbs request above also for a defined collab space, that is OPEN (not on a closed Govdex space).
loading...
Can anyone recommend web accessibility checking tools? I’ve used http://www.achecker.ca/checker/index.php which is the public checker and enables single page html checks. What others are out there that are being used to identify non or partial conformance (ref: NTS; chapter 5, specifically 1.2 WCAG 2.0 Conformance Check)
loading...
The AIS Web Accessibility Toolbar which hooks into Internet Explorer – it gives you access to a number of other accessibility checkers such as WAVE and Cynthia says (unfortuately those still look to be WCAG 1 on the version of the toolbar I have though)
This is available from Vision Australia
http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/ais/toolbar/
loading...
W3 maintains a list at http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/complete and provides a search page for locating tools according to different evaluation methods at http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/simple
There is also a mailing list dedicated to tools “Submissions of tool information and e-mail discussions of the tool list are publicly archived on the Evaluation Tools mailing list. To subscribe to this public mailing list, send mail to public-wai-ert-tools-request@w3.org with “subscribe” as subject”.
I don’t know how active it is.
loading...
Tools we use in WA Gov:
http://www.totalvalidator.com/validator/ValidatorForm
http://wave.webaim.org/
http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu/
Note I use these as one part of a suite of assessments for a website review. Hope this helps.
loading...
Does anyone have tips on optimising RTF format? Many documents come out as ridiculous sizes which is a problem in itself. I’ve done some searching but have not found anything particularly useful.
loading...
I’d be interested in this too.
We have many research reports given to us that contain maps, complicated graphs etc that add to the weight of the file.
Even though we compress the images, we’ve had some RTF end up a ridiculous 500MB. That’s simply not accessible to just about anyone, even if they allegedly have ‘broadband’ access.
I know the HTML purists will say these publications should be in HTML, but we simply do not have the resources to code up these publications that are often anywhere between 200 – 600 A4 pages.
loading...
Probably the biggest tip is to remember why you’re providing an alternate format. If you’re trying to produce an RTF that replicates the look and feel of a .doc or .pdf file, simply for the sake of meeting the requirements, then you’ll inevitably run in to problems around file sizes. If you produce an RTF because you know there is an audience who needs an alternate format for accessibility reasons, and sacrifice the look and feel in favour of equity and access to information, then you’re on the right track.
Generally you want to remove all images for a start – that’s where most of your size will come from.
In place of an image, either go with the kind descriptions you’d use for alt text along with an “image placeholder” (e.g: Map_01.jpg – This image has been removed in this alternate format. It was a map showing the locations of all ...
... public toilets in the ACT) or write text that gives the information that you wanted to convey in the image (e.g: The following is a list of expenditure by month for funding allocations in this program. [List foo - bar etc])
Yes it requires a little more effort, and means more text, but it will still result in reasonable file sizes.
Another tip is to make sure that you load the file into a pure text editor and strip out any style information left in by other programs such as Office – deliver the document as pure text. Remember that the RTF doesn’t need to look pretty, it needs to deliver the same information in an alternative format. For things such as forms or particularily complex documents, or documents where there is more visual content than text, HTML may well be a better delivery option in these cases.
Quite often, if it’s a recent publication, then there will be a copy that exists in an editable format that is turned into PDF – this could just as easily be saved into HTML and basic styles applied.
IMO of course.
loading...
Good points Lamont!
I think it’s important to remember what the intent of your document is too: How are people going to use it (read online, download, email, print, blog about etc)? Why are they using it (for compliance, interest or information etc)? What are you trying to achieve?
Any content that ends up on the web should have had some strategy behind it, with considerations from how it is published and/or distributed to how it will be archived or decommissioned. Then check to see you’re meeting your goals and your users are too.
Then the issue of format is just about the best fit for the content… No real point to put lots of tabular data in an RTF just because you need to have alternative to PDF. Always remember the intent of the content. Of course, such a framework usually needs cultural change prior to implementation (but that’s the point of the National Transition Strategy work item 1.3 Website Infrastructure Assessment!).
loading...
Re content on the web having a strategy behind it…
I’m talking about providing accessible versions of publications and reports.
The ‘strategy’ is driven by the Online Content Requirements (mandatory)in the present Web Publishing Guide.
http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au/Online_Content_Requirements.html
To quote-
“Additionally, for organisational websites, the following public accountability information must be available:…
…New non-commercial agency publications, including reports released in print or other formats”
My understanding is that any reports that are produced as a result of research commissioned by our agency are considered ‘new non-commercial agency publications’.
Perhaps not an impost for the agencies that don’t commission much research, but we have many, many highly scientific reports given that one of our portfolio responsibilities is Environmental research.
In reality the audience for most of these publications is quite small given their scientific nature (e.g. academics, policy makers etc), but we cannot claim that they have no special accessibility needs.
Therefore we must apply the same accessibility standards as ...
... any other piece of online content.
The problem is that making scientific publications accessible is particularly challenging. This is especially due to the fact that the people providing the reports have little understanding that the department must make what they have provided available in an accessible format.
Happy to take further suggestions
J
loading...
“The problem is that making scientific publications accessible is particularly challenging. This is especially due to the fact that the people providing the reports have little understanding that the department must make what they have provided available in an accessible format.”
Given that scenario, I’d suggest looking at revising your publishing processes – having those providing the reports (internal or external) in the simplest format possible (text, plus images supplied seperately) so that the PDF/accessible formats and/or (Ravens’ comments in mind) print/online formats can be developed in-house by the delivery/comms area ready for delivery to your own (and the Governments) standards – generally speaking, the reduced time in conversions versus the increased time in production will likely cancel out if the process is streamlined enough.
IMO.
loading...
I agree with Raven, good points Lamont.
To look at the issue of why one is providing an alternate format from a slightly different viewpoint for a moment, I’d like to take this opportunity to expound my understanding of the current position of the Australian Government re: alternative formats to (X)HTML:
(X)HTML is generally preferred, but in some situations it may not be preferred or practical. For example, it may not be preferred if it is important that a document is able to be printed onto dead trees in a very specific way. It may not be practical – as Jennifer mentions – when a document is quite long and will take considerable resources to convert to accessible (X)HTML.
PDF, RTF, DOC, XLS, CSV etc. etc. are not unambiguously proven to be Accessibility Supported as far as the Australian Government is concerned. Aside from the issue of accessibility, some formats are also proprietary ...
... and promoting the use of proprietary formats when not necessary is undesirable.
So when web content is provided in a format that is not considered to be entirely Accessibility Supported, it is recommended that a second format be provided, while also needing to take into account the reality of the current web publishing environment[1].
My personal opinion is that this situation is certainly not ideal but It’s the lesser of the current evils. I look forward to a day when more formats will be considered unambiguously Accessibility Supported and I suspect there are at least a couple that are very close to making the transition.
[1] This second format its self may or may not be considered Accessibility Supported. Preferably it would be, but currently this is not always practical. Consider the common case of a PDF with an RTF alternative. Right now, neither PDF nor RTF are actually considered unambiguously Accessibility Supported by the Australian Government. So why provide a PDF and RTF? Seems kind if crazy at first glance doesn’t it? It’s to show good faith on the part of the agency that they are doing what they can to provide content in a non-discriminatory manner. And because while neither PDF nor RTF is considered unambiguously Accessibility Supported at this time, what we do know would suggest that some users may find PDF more accessible while some users may find RTF more accessible, and for different reasons. Extrapolate this example out to other formats and hopefully this will go some way to helping clear up for other people this area of confusion that I have found myself travelling through recently.
loading...
There’s always the option of providing one format with the notice that additional formats will be provided on request. This should not be the norm, but for highly technical/graphical documents that were created without accessibility in mind (eg third party), it may suffice. A look at the web logs will show how many visitors look at the page and then a smaller number of them actually want to read the attachment on the page. A couple of hardcopy printouts or some burned cds will show that we’re trying to do our best.
But don’t misread the above for my disregard for accessible and usable content. I think all visitors should have the same opportunity to access and understand the content.
loading...
@Neil
Unfortunately the Disability Discrimination Act shares your thoughts. It states that everyone should have the same access to information, and makes the determination that it is essentially time and effort based – if a user needs to go to extra effort, and it takes make longer to obtain the same information in a different format, then basically it isn’t accessible. This certainly makes sense in terms of legal exposure if the documents in question related to tenders, contracts, jobs etc. where people will clearly be disadvantaged if they have to wait a week to get the information. This could also apply to media releases (as journalists need timely access in a competetive time based market) or even draft exposures with limited time for comment.
Unfortunately you can’t account for knowing every access need a user will have (for instance – what if a university points to your content as part of ...
... an exam or paper and one disabled student needs to wait a week to get a copy of it in an accessible format), and with that in mind, web logs will only go so far towards covering you there – it only takes 1 person to be affected and your agency will know about it the hard way – the current case before the Federal Courts in Canada being a case in point.
I hate to be cynical when it comes to accessibility (which I tend to see as an inalienable human right), but it can be another means of getting a point across. The ROI in just biting the bullet and making everything accessible is justified when you consider the potential payouts involved in having a Court find in favour of a user. And unfortunately the law won’t generally side with a “we’re doing our best” defence.
loading...
@Jennifer Bruce
We often experience the same problems when converting documents to RTF.
Have you tried applying the registry fix described at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/224663?
loading...
Video streaming… it’s not something we do currently but is a possibility in the future. What are the implications for accessibility? I’d be interested to hear from those of you that are broadcasting/publishing content via video streaming and those who have opted for a YouTube style example. How does this affect accessibility for you? This brings me to another question – publishing video content via YouTube, for example, content is hosted and delivered outside the control of the dept web environment, is the dept responsible for accessibility here too? Are there any Better Practice guidelines about this specfically?
loading...
The government agency who owns the content is still responsible for the content (and ensuring it is accessible) regardless of where it is hosted.
For multimedia, depending on the level, the common accessibility considerations include the use of captions and transcripts. If the embedded media player has keyboard control problems (Success Criteria 2.1.1 and 2.1.2) then a potential solution is to make the content available through another channel (e.g. for download from the agency website).
We’d be interested to hear about how agencies are progressing with WCAG 2.0 Guideline 1.2 in general too – any tips or traps in captions, transcripts or media alternatives that CoE members want to share around the group?
loading...
Thanks Raven. It’s another element that we’ll need build into our framework as a form of “futureproofing” our web content to manage accessibility.
loading...
No worries Shannon. Good for everyone to be thinking about their web content that is hosted externally… this should be captured in NTS work item 1.1 (Agency Website Stocktake).
loading...
I’m looking into the abilities of HTML 5 for the delivery of video and audio with captioning. An interesting approach includes browser detection, so it will even work on non HTML5 browsers like Internet Explorer 6…
Kaltura:
http://www.kaltura.org/project/HTML5_Video_Media_JavaScript_Library
As per usual – any implementation would require accessibility testing
loading...
(The great thing about the WAI is you can have your say, and this happens to be something being looked at the moment. For the technically minded, (or those interested in the direction being taken along these lines) I stumbled across this call for public comment from W3C on Media Accessibility (i.e. Video etc) on Twitter earlier in the week:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist )
loading...
For live video streaming to comply at WCAG 2 Level AA you need to provide captions for all the live audio content (Success Criteria 1.2.4 Captions Live). There are a number companies in Australia that can provide this service. if you are thinking of YouTube can I also suggest you look at dotSub – it has a relatively easy-to-use interface for captioning videos.
loading...
Hello Roger! Thank you very much for that information. You probably don’t remember that we spoke some time ago about accessibility here at APRA. I’m certainly glad to see you participating here.
loading...
While I agree with both Raven and Lamont regarding thinking about the purpose and intent of providing alternative formats I can really empathise with Jennifer because we often are faced with the same issues. We have a publishing process in place but that still does not stop people going out and commissioning reports without our knowledge and then expecting it to be published online. There are issues with changing authored/commissioned documents i.e. removing images impacts on the integrity of the document. Also isn’t the idea that not only are we providing an alternative shouldn’t we be trying to provide an equivalent product because shouldn’t those people be entitled to receive the same as everyone else?
Don’t get me wrong here, I want to provide alternatives and I want people to be able to access our websites but sometimes it isn’t always as easy as it sounds. I think we have a ...
... real opportunity to iron out some of these issues in this forum and provide a way forward for all government sites.
loading...
Good points Dianne – you’re certainly not alone either. Issues around document integrity and the like is something I’ve seen raised quite a bit, both here and in other countries.
(This will be a long post… bear with me?) I guess that this is where we have to firmly seperate WCAG from the rest of the publishing process, while at the same time recognising how it fits in to the bigger picture.
WCAG is about making the content you place online accessible. That’s something that people in the .gov.* space seem to get pretty well. The issue, as you wisely point out, comes when you start getting into the not so clear cut realm of copyright and intellectual property. It’s another instance where we, the content publishers, aren’t legal experts, and the legal frameworks (given as they are, open to interpretation) often tend to not be too precise, or succint, about where ...
... things lie.
Again, I find myself saying this with the usual ‘always seek proper legal advice, I’m not a lawyer etc’ caveat, but my (probably limited) understanding is:
Under the Copyright Act, anything, created by anyone (or entity) in Australia is automatically Copyright. They own the intellectual property rights to that work and can exercise those rights. Which is what you’d expect.
However, there are 3 key (to this discussion) ‘special exceptions’ that *might* apply to the government publishing any material online within our context here, particularily under FOI.
1) “Governments have greater rights to use copyright material than other users. The Copyright Act provides that the Commonwealth or a State does not infringe copyright by anything done ‘for the services of the Commonwealth or a
State’. This means that governments can use copyright material … for government purposes. However, this use is not necessarily free, as the copyright owner is entitled to demand payment.”
2) Archival or historical information could be published as “any collection of documents or other material of historical significance or public interest that is in the custody of, and being maintained by, a body for the purpose of conserving and preserving them, provided the body does not maintain and operate the collection for the purpose of deriving a profit”.
3) If not covered by any other special exemption, and if the Commonwealth or its agencies were considered to be ‘Print Disability Organisations’ under the Act (i.e: if a) “at least one of the organisation’s principal functions is to provide accessible copies of literary and dramatic works to people with a print disability; and b) the Attorney-General has declared the organisation to be an institution assisting people with a print disability.” Where does NTS fit in here?)
then you can essentially alter the format of a copyrighted work to provide an accessible format.
I located all of the above through the Australian Copyright Council (http://www.copyright.org.au) – and it is by no means a complete picture. Needless to say, that the frameworks appear to be there to allow any Government agency to do what ever they need to to make any document accessible. Resources allowing of course – which is really what it tends to boil down too – who will bear the cost.
I think all in all the issue of copyright and reproduction/publishing is as crucial to successfully implementing the NTS without barriers as is understanding exactly what constitutes “Web Content” or how to meet Success Criteria.
I’d love to see a guest blog from the A-G’s, the ACC, or a well regarded expert in the field of copyright and IP within the context of the Government and online activities (there are a couple out there in the Gov 2.0 space) – something succint that could clear a lot of the confusion up, or clarify what an Agencies rights are when it comes to commissioned or submitted works.
Sorry for the length of the post
loading...
I am a member of a project team as part of the Australia New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG) Executive Masters (Public Administration) program (www.anzsog.edu.au) and am seeking assistance in our project titled:
“Economic value of open access to government-held data and information”
We would greatly appreciate it if those who work in Government could either complete our short survey (link below) or provide any Australian or NZ Government reports or data that have investigated the economic value of open access information. (Email is within the survey)
The critical question is: Can you provide evidence (that can be translated to an economic benefit) of making government data/information available to the public? Or, do you have examples of where open access to government data has had an economic of flow-on benefit?
The survey can be found at this link:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/infosurvey
I look forward to your responses
loading...
Archiving and decommissioning content – NTS, chapter 4. Scope – Retrospectivity and Legacy Content.
Does Accessibility compliance apply to archived content? I’m referring to content that has been reviewed and and fits the criteria for archiving or decommissioning, clearly identified as such and remaining available online.
loading...
Hi Shannon
Excellent question – and hopefully a useful answer:
Accessibility compliance applies to archived content in so much as the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 will always apply. However, we don’t consider it necessary in most cases to upgrade this content to WCAG 2.0, if it is already WCAG 1.0.
Depending on when the content was created, it should meet the accessibility standards of that time. The Content Upgrade Flowchart (image format) in the NTS is designed to help agencies determine what to upgrade to the new standard.
It is an agency decision in the end, but we’re encouraging implementation of improved frameworks for accessibility over retrofitting compliance to older content.
loading...
Some thoughts please? Based on WCAG 2.0, are captions (open or closed) mandatory for Audio Video content? Whilst I think that captions are the preferred option, I am not sure if they are mandatory for Level A or AA.
loading...
I have an agency requesting advice on what they need to do to all their online videos to meet the new accessibility requirements. Since we are talking significant numbers of videos this is a key point in my reply. Any feedback would be welcome.
loading...
Hi Stewart
Captions are required for the audio part of Pre-Recorded synchronized media at Level A (SC 1.2.2), and Live media at Double A (SC 1.2.4).
See Guideline 1.2: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#media-equiv
synchronized media is described as “audio or video synchronized with another format for presenting information and/or with time-based interactive components, unless the media is a media alternative for text that is clearly labeled as such”
Does that make enough sense to people?
Here is another way of considering it. If you publish audio-visual content on your website, for example, a video of someone giving a press statement. To meet Level A, you will need to (at least) provide captions of all the spoken words and audio parts of the content. To meet Level AA, regarding captions, you would only need to provide captions if the content was Live (streamed).
You don’t need to provide captions on Live media at Level A, so you can progress to this more difficult and higher standard over a longer time period (hence the two milestone process in the National Transition Strategy).
See more advice on Captions on the W3C website: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#captionsdef
Ways to meet SC 1.2.2: http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/#qr-media-equiv-captions
And Understanding SC 1.2.2: http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/media-equiv-captions.html
loading...
Thanks Raven, that is great advice. Thanks for that.
loading...
I would like to comment on the definition of synchronised media. I have been scratching my head over this, not in relation to captions but to the use of audio description.
To conform to SC 1.2.3 (Level A) synchronised media must either have an audio description or be a media alternative for text.
To conform to SC 1.2.5 (Level AA) it must have an audio description.
When I first came across these success criteria I asked myself “Does this mean that all videos with an audio track must have an audio description to conform at Level AA?”
In order to answer that question I looked up the definition of synchronised media. The definition appeared to confirm, albeit in complex language, that video with an audio track does indeed constitute synchronised media.
But the bit that has me puzzled is the phrase “unless the media is a media alternative for text”. So, are they saying ...
... that if video is a media alternative for text it is no longer defined as synchronised media?
It seems strange that a definition of a term has a caveat like that. A definition should clearly define the term. It’s like saying that if synchronised media has a text alternative, then it is no longer considered synchronised media.
I raised this issue in another forum and the general consensus was that to meet Level AA conformance, video with audio must have an audio description, and that a text alternative can only conform to Level A. And some of these comments came from W3C representatives.
So, SC 1.2.5 appears to say that a text alternative is not sufficient unless there is a text alternative, in which case it doesn’t apply. Do you see the circular nature of this?
A similar situation applies with captions, but here it is in the success criterion itself rather than the definition. We are told that captions are required for pre-recorded audio to conform to Level A.
But SC 1.2.2 states that captions are required “except when the media is a media alternative for text”.
I have been advising my clients that captions are not required in cases where the video is clearly labeled as a media alternative for text and the text alternative provides equivalent information. Am I wrong?
loading...
Hi Glen
Here is my interpretation to part of that: “….But the bit that has me puzzled is the phrase “unless the media is a media alternative for text”. So, are they saying … that if video is a media alternative for text it is no longer defined as synchronised media?…”
The audio-visual content doesnt cease to be classifed as synchronised media, but just no longer requires an alternative format (audio description and such), because IT IS the alternative.
For example, a document describes, in text, how to tie a knot. All the steps are presented in text, it is the authority on the subject. But for some it would be difficult understand, so the author puts up a video of himself tying the knot. Now, if the audio-visual content doesnt present more information than the text document, but can be seen to supplement it, then it is the secondary format, and could be classified as a media alternative to text. No extras needed, it meets the standard.
Remember the W3C definition here:
media alternative for text
media that presents no more information than is already presented in text (directly or via text alternatives)
This shouldnt be considered a loop hole in WCAG, but rather attempts to close the loop of what would otherwise require content authors to provide accessible alternatives to accessible alternatives.
That’s my thoughts on the matter. What do others think?
loading...
Bang on from where I’m sitting. It simply prevents an infinate loop from occuring in meeting the guidelines. (Another classic example that springs to mind btw is an audio book produced as an alternative for vision impaired readers.)
As a sidenote, you could also programatically denote the media as an alternative, to make it clear to search engines or assistive technologies that an alternative format is available (e.g through metadata such as –
<dcterms:format>text/html; charset=UTF-8</dcterms:format>
<dcterms:hasFormat rdf:resource=”http://foobar.gov.au/audio.file” />
<dcterms:conformsTo rdf:resource=”http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG2AAA-Conformance” />
loading...
Thanks Raven and Lamont
Rather than avoiding a loop, referring to a media alternative for text in the actual definition of synchronised media is actually creating a loop. That’s the point I was trying to make.
SC 1.2.5 suggests that a media alternative for text is not enough. Yet, the definition of synchronised media suggests that it is. That is the problem.
Saying that audio-visual content that is a media alternative for text “no longer requires an alternative format because IT IS the alternative” is another way of saying that it already has an alternative.
You are correct to point out the absurdity of providing accessible alternatives to accessible alternatives. However, I disagree with the notion of primacy.
If you have two versions of content, both of which offer equivalent information, why should one version be considered primary and the other secondary? Is it the order in which they are created?
To use ...
... Raven’s example, if I create a video explaining how to tie a knot and I then create a text document that offers equivalent information, is the text equivalent then the secondary source? Do our users know or care which version came first?
In my opinion a media alternative for text is nothing more than an alternative format. If both formats offer equivalent information, it doesn’t matter which came first.
If you visit a web page about how to tie knots and the page offers a video and an HTML version, and they both convey equivalent information, is it not reasonable to consider the video as a media alternative for text and the HTML a text alternative for video?
If you stumble upon the HTML version and it has a prominent link to the video, you can easily navigate to the video if that’s what you want. And, if you stumble upon the video page and you are unable to view the video, provided that the page with the embedded video has a prominent link to the text version, you can easily navigate to the text version.
I don’t see why one version should be considered secondary. I believe that if a video has an obvious link to a text alternative that offers equivalent information it is perfectly reasonable to consider the video to be a media alternative for text.
Does that make sense?
loading...
Well thought out Glen.
The question of primacy is one that is outside of WCAG and really comes into publishing and related standards.
When you publish information in any medium, what you are actually doing is creating a derivation of a work. The work itself has the highest level of primacy. So yes – if you begin with the aim of creating a visual tutorial explaining how to tie a knot, and then you create that video, and then you create a text document that offers exactly the same information (i.e: a text transcript), then the video is of course primary and the text version is a derivation of that work. Given that is your aim, you would of course note in the video that an alternate text version is available at [link] and in the text version that this is a text alternative to [video link].
And while your users may not ...
... know or care which version comes first when they commence legal proceedings over an alternative version not being provided, your record keeping would indicate which was the primary work and which was the derivative.
Getting away from less theoretical examples and into examples that really happen in the .gov.au sphere – take a video of a Minister launching something, and take a speech of that a Minister delivers.
In the case of the video, it can easily be determined that as it is a recording of a live event, then that must be the primary version, and any text transcript is a derivative produced to support the video.
In the case of the speech, you could publish the full written speech before it is given live, however, the very fact that it is called a speech denotes that it is intended to be delivered in an audible, spoken manner. If it was in fact the other way around, a publisher would call it an essay, and any audio derivative of the Minister speaking the essay out loud would be called a “reading”.
At the end of the day, how one “stumbles” upon content is not considered in an accessibility case – the site the content is on would be looked at as a whole, and it would be determined from the context of the site which format is obviously intended to be the preferred method of delivery of the information, and which format is an alternate format of the preferred method.
Taking your last point as the final example: If you believe that a video has an obvious link to a text alternative, then it is only perfectly reasonable to consider the video to be a media alternative for the text IF the text also contains an obvious link to a video alternative, such as “You can view a video presentation of this text here”. If such was the case, then yes, they could be considered alternatives of each other. I would still argue that one could prove the publishers intent for the material to be viewed/read in a preferred method in 99% of cases.
loading...
That does make sense Glen, and I note it is often difficult to determine what comes first, and like Lamont said, for most, its unlikely people will care.
From my perspective, in terms of accesibility conformance of government websites, I would expect agencies using “media alternatives to text” to clearly mark them as such, as required in the Success Criteria. I would also expect them to be clearly an alternative to the text, and not represent more information than the text.
I am interested to hear you say “SC 1.2.5 suggests that a media alternative for text is not enough. Yet, the definition of synchronised media suggests that it is.”
I’m not sure I recognise any intent in the SC 1.2.5 wording or Understanding 1.2.5 documentation that promotes a view that a media alternative for text isnt sufficient.
Can you explore this more in detail?
I took that in order to claim Double A (for this SC), an audio-description is required for the video part of all synchonrised media, unless it was already provided in SC 1.2.3, or the synchronised media is a media alternative to text.
Does anyone else share Glen’s view or would like to add their thoughts?
loading...
Lamont, if you provide a text alternative legal proceedings don’t enter into the equation. I am in no way suggesting that you not provide a text alternative.
“When I said obvious, I meant that the text alternative is clear and obvious and accessible from the same page. And the same for the video version. They link to each other, and each alternative is obvious to the user.
If content is available in alternative formats I don’t see why primacy is an issue. A speech may have initially been presented in person and videotaped and the transcript may have been created after the event, but I don’t think that matters.
You may be right that in 99% of cases the intent of the author is obvious. But I don’t consider that an issue.
Raven, SC 1.2.5 says that to conform to Level AA you must have an audio description. This differs from SC 1.2.3 which ...
... allows either an audio description or a media alternative for text.
If the definition of synchronised media doesn’t apply when the synchronised media is a media alternative for text, then SC 1.2.5 is meaningless.
That’s the bit I have trouble with, and that’s where the loop comes in. It is caused by the definition. The difference between the two success criteria is that one accepts a media alternative and one doesn’t, but the definition negates that difference.
The definition itself is at fault.
loading...
I agree with Glen, the definition does not make sense.
loading...
Interesting debate and from Vision Australia’s perspective we can appreciate both points of view being raised.
This was an issue we previously discussed internally when WCAG 2.0 was released. Our interpretation was that the definition of synchronized media as presented by WCAG, could suggest that presenting full information in text (not linked to) – as your primary format exempts synchronized media from Success Criteria pertaining to ‘synchronized media’ (1.2.2, 1.2.3 etc). Therefore, the only requirement is for synchronized media to be labeled as “media alternative to text”.
However, we consider this to be a potential loop hole and we do not suggest that people exploit that. From Vision Australia’s perspective the end goal is to make websites accessible to everyone, and following this path would ultimately discriminate against some user groups.
Any WCAG 2.0 reviews undertaken by Vision Australia would closely consider the context and nature of the information provided, ...
... and would question conformance if the synchronized media would appear to be the primary format – even if the synchronized media is labeled “media alternative to text”.
loading...
In terms of a potential loophole, I wonder the likelihood of an organisation going to sufficient effort to ensure the text version was an equivalent to the synchronised media (if it were not the primary format)? Wouldn’t that effort be just as well placed in providing the necessary equivalents to meet Guideline 1.2 Success Criteria.
Something for us all to be aware of nonetheless, great discussion point, thanks Glen (and everyone else too!).
loading...
Loop-holes – how I hate them…
The idea that a government department can look for a loop-hole that allows them to circumvent their legal and moral responsibilities is reprehensible…
But these loop-holes are provided – not only by W3C – but also by the phased approach to implementing WCAG2.0.
Let me clarify that last bit…
Here’s a quote from the Transition Strategy:
“All websites and web content created after July 2010 must meet WCAG 2.0 to at least Single A level by December 2012.
Websites and web content created before July 2010 that will be archived or decommissioned before December 2012 are not required to meet WCAG 2.0.”
Unfortunately, this creates another loophole (that I know doesn’t technically exist) – whereas an ICT section can say “We’re not doing 2.0 until 2012, and this project will only last until 2011 anyway”.
Now this is all well and good when the Department is already meeting WCAG 1.0 – ...
... but that is not the case for a number of us…
I would love to see an external audit conducted instead of the internal audit proposed in the transiton strategy – we’ve gone there before with the response to the Bill Shorten Ministerial a couple of years ago (where department after department promised to start their transition to WCAG 2.0). Lots of departments have moved forward, but some are unwilling, and some are unable…
I’m fairly certain that AGIMO would have the support of us Accessibility practicioners…
One final thought – There are five requirements that must be met in order for content to be classified as conforming to WCAG 2.0 – and this includes that ‘only accessible-supported ways of using technologies’ are relied upon to satisfy the success criteria.
If loop-holes are used, my thinking is that they can be picked up as issues during accessibility testing…
loading...
Peter,
I don’t think departments are actively looking for loopholes.
Many departmental web staff are highly committed to creating accessible web sites.
What we’re dealing with primarily, is a lack of knowledge at the Executive level as to the importance of web accessibility.
Without their support, we’re never going to:
* get the $$ to undertake some of the necessary retrofitting,
* make sure that the latest whiz bang app that a line area says MUST go on the website complies (esp when it seems like non-gov’t web developers who create these – with no consultation with the internal web team – either don’t know or don’t care about WCAG)
* make non-web team parts of IT divisions take it seriously.
Another problem is, despite the mandate laid out in the NTS, AGIMO is unlikely to ever be in a position where it can impose punitive measures to enforce compliance.
Jacqui and Raven are doing great work with ...
... the limited resources they have been given, but I really wish some one would give them a ‘big stick’ to enforce compliance.
J
loading...
What happens when your Online Comms and Web Team are committed to Web Accessibility, but line areas will not fund or allow necessary time for accessibility work?
Web accessibility – accessibility in general (let’s not make the mistake of assuming that all government paper documents, television commercials and other materials are accessible) – needs to be lifted to a whole-of-government priority.
Currently it often becomes priority only for ‘those techie guys who know how the internet works’.
It needs to be a mandated, educated and reinforced commitment for all public servants at all levels of government for all public AND internal materials produced by agencies.
Until this happens government agencies will struggle to meet accessibility standards.
We need both carrots and sticks – web accessibility awards and the outing (with potential career and salary implications) for poor delivery.
We also need politicians to be educated to appreciate and support accessibility.
Even if an agency is totally ...
... aligned behind accessibility, the passive opposition by political leadership (by setting deadlines and budgets that exclude the potential for accessibilisation of material) can damage the outcomes.
Cheers,
Craig
loading...
Totally agree with these comments.
I’ve been to a number of internal meetings to discuss the NTS and the first question is always “Is there a big stick?”
Apparently the DDA doesn’t seem to worry people, however name drop a few executive that may be appearing on the project steering committee and suddenly it gets serious.
The priorities may be a little warped, but maybe its just a case of finding the right buttons to push.
loading...
Craig, couldn’t agree more. It will be a cultural shift for agencies with a ‘bung it on the web’ attitude. I find we are constantly educating line areas of the basic requirements and their responsibilities in assisting my Comms and Web teams publish material and to meet even the basic level of compilance.
loading...
Hi Accessibility colleagues;
For clarification, WCAG 2.0 compliance is NOT optional unless an agency seeks an opt-out.
The NTS sets out the authority for conformance, and for the first time since the Government Online Reporting round in December 2000, clear communication that agencies are expected to report their progress.
We are working on the requirements for agency reporting right now and I can assure you that the committees who have sponsored this project are extremely interested in the Australian Government progress on web accessibility.
The contributors here have ALL made very valid points and ones we are used to hearing. What is different now is that AGIMO is not only working with government agencies to help improve web accessibility and conformance to WCAG 2.0, we also have a full program of liaison with many of the disability organisations and advocacy groups who are becoming much more aware ...
... of their rights especially to government information.
The implication is that it is becoming increasingly riskier for government to be discriminatory as more people are prepared to, and do, lodge formal complaints.
Opt-out process – http://www.finance.gov.au/e-government/strategy-and-governance/Whole-of-Government-ICT-Policies.html
loading...
Jacqui,
thanks for the reminder and link to the opt-out information.
I’ll be sure to re-read it carefully and make sure I include it when I’m communicating with my internal stakeholders.
BTW – I quite like Craig’s idea of a Government Web Accessibility Awards approach! Maybe that would be something to think about for post December 2014.
J
loading...
One of my senior executives has just made the comment that we have moved beyond WCAG2.0 to WCAG3.0. Anyone have any news or comments? I would have thought since we haven’t got WCAG2.0 bedded in and correct WCAG3.0 is a wish list?
loading...
Perhaps he’s a little confused with the 2.0 thing, not understanding the difference between Web 2.0 and WCAG 2.0
loading...
Yep, Kerry hit the nail on the head I think.
There is no WCAG 3.0.
But there is Web 2.0 and Web 3.0.
2.0 is about the move from the old static websites to a participatory & dynamic environment: think social media, interaction and crowd sourcing.
3.0, its about encouraging the semantic or “intelligent” web, making information more meaningful through tagging: think micro formats.
loading...
Yes and Web 4.0 being discussed as well in a strategic sense.
loading...
or is it Web²?
It’s all too confusing – all we need to be pushing is best practice…
~~~
If we drop the WCAG “2.0″ nomenclature, and just start talking about WCAG & the NTS, we will avoid a lot of confusion.
There is NO WCAG 1.0!
(well, we know it’s still out there in the cloud, but 2.0 has superseded it.)
I recently requested Raven’s assistance to sort out an ICT misunderstanding regarding an NTS briefing they had attended. Raven’s response has been a ‘game changer’ in my portfoio (many thanks Raven!).
I encourage any Accessibility practitioner who is having a hard time getting across the WCAG message to drop Raven an email – and Raven, I think you could just copy and paste that email here – it’s wonderful!
Regards,
Peter
loading...
Well actually WCAG 1.0 still has it’s place. 1.0 is about making technology etc accessible. 2.0 is about making it practical in a user sense.
It’s a lot harder to implement 2.0 if you were never 1.0 compliant. Not impossible, but it’s not a bad thing to know and understand 1.0 and how it relates in context – it will make 2.0 a lot easier.
loading...
Hi Lamont – you are so right.. we are faced with this very situation and yes, it does add an extra dimension of complexity to our accessiblity action plan. Being aware of 1.0 requirements relative to our content has enabled us to move forward more positively than I suspect would be the case if we had no previous knowledge of 1.0 at all.
Fortunately though we happen to be developing a new internet site thus giving us the opportunity to “right” the “not-so-right” in terms of accessibility. This has also given us a perfect time to exercise more rigidity in our content publishing processes, which in the past could have been described as “relaxed” and dispersed creating a somewhat disjointed approach to content publishing.
loading...
I agree Peter. In attempting to align WCAG 2.0 with Web 2.0, 3.0 or 4.0 we risk getting bogged down in the definitions and not progressing. WCAG 2.0 appears to me to provide a best practice approach to accessibility within the organisation broadly.
loading...
I think an important thing to note whenever comparing WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 is that the web (and its content) didn’t suddenly change when WCAG 2.0 was unveiled, and neither was WCAG 2.0 produced as the result of sudden shift in how web content can be created. And as many have pointed out, if you are reasonably WCAG 1.0 compliant then the jump to WCAG 2.0 should be less of a leap.
Yes the web has, is and will always be evolving, but WCAG 2.0 is essentially a reorganization of WCAG 1.0 to ensure the standard is more future proof and robust to deal with that ongoing evolution. In my experience the majority of the content and principles of WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 are the same, just presented in a different format and structure. WCAG 2.0 is less technology specific, i.e. it does not reference specific technologies such ...
... as Javascript or Flash in its checkpoints. There are some aspects to WCAG 2.0 that weren’t present in WCAG 1.0 (video, audio, other media) and there are parts of WCAG 1.0 that have been dropped as the web has moved on and they are no longer a requirement.
I tend to agree with Peter’s comment about dropping the “2.0” and let’s just get WCAG compliant, although its still important in this discussion as it is all about the transition to the new guidelines. I think regardless of the standard of the day departments need to get to grips with where their sites and applications are at and then move forward towards a more accessible solution. I know, easier said than done!
Cheers,
Kym
loading...
Hi Everyone,
I’m researching WCAG 2.0 for SA State Government, and I’m being asked by my management to get an independent audit of our department websites.
Does anyone have any advice on how to select a reliable company to do this? Or indeed if you think this is an advisable first step in the process?
Cheers
Steve
loading...
Hi Steve (and anyone else in this boat)
Get in touch with us to have a chat about conformance testing, email is wcag2@finance.gov.au
CoE Members please be reminded our Terms of Reference state commercial endorsements are strictly prohibited on this site. If you haven’t read the Terms yet, please do so now (they are linked from the original blog post above).
loading...
Q: Will AGIMO be issuing formal guidance on a standard for testing (eg: approved tools, methods etc). Unlike WCAG 1.0, programatically testing sites is difficult, hence the absence of automated tools at the current time. Having a common conformence testing framework is logical given this is a WoG strategy, and may also assist others with sourcing appropriate 3rd party auditors and testers in terms of RFT ‘s etc.
loading...
Thanks for that excellent question, we are doing a lot in that space right now. We recognise a significant challenge in the implementation of WCAG 2.0 is how to test for conformance in a way that can be standardised and therefore compared. There is, as you rightly state, no agreed or endorsed set of tools or even test methodologies that we can employ to assist agencies with their compliance checking and accessibility evaluations of their sites. This is a common issue for all governments, not just the Australian Government.
As such, we have been working on an international collaboration project to review, assess and trial different approaches to conformance testing methodologies, tools and reporting. We have concluded that the issue is three fold and interdependent: relating to testing methodologies, the tools used for testing and the reporting of the result. We are looking at the different approaches being taken by ...
... other governments including their assessments and trials of different compliance/conformance testing tools. We have also been approached by a number of organisations locally who have compliance testing and monitoring tools that allow programmatic and automated testing of sites. We are in the process of reviewing some of these tools, however we note that an automated tool on its own is inadequate and needs to be supported by clear but detailed test methodologies, together with information and guidance on remediation of the issues found during testing.
I’m sure you can well appreciate the complexities involved in standardising these kind of approaches, its time consuming work but we are working towards a set of internationally agreed and shared testing methodologies that can be supported by a set of agreed (tried and tested) tool/s that provide standardised reports. By the end of the first quarter 2011 we should be able to share the international collaboration outcomes. By that time we will also have completed the Preparation Phase Reporting Round and for the first time we will have an understanding of the level of compliance testing occurring, or not occurring, for Australian Government websites. We also hope to have a clear idea of the challenges agencies are facing with conformance testing. The combined outcome of these two projects will then inform potential business cases for the Australian Government in relation to the centralised provision of a test methodology, tools and reporting systems for agencies.
Until then, we invite your feedback on the issues. Shortly, we intend to provide you with links into some of the work we are doing with our international colleagues so that you too can participate in the collaboration and development of the testing methodologies. We will also continue to work with local organisations to assess and review any emerging tools. If you come across a particularly good set of testing methodologies or more tools than those currently listed on the W3C website, please share them with us so that we can keep a centralised list of all these resources. We do hope to get to an outcome where we are able to publish an internationally agreed testing methodology together with an Australian Government endorsed solution for compliance testing and reporting. Of course we still recommend, where appropriate, independent testing and verification of agency websites, but we are working toward a greater level of testing competency within government by employing this approach.
loading...
Hi all…
So we are getting close to the phase 1 deadline and I’m keen to know where other agencies are up to, what they’ve interpreted as being “prepared” for transition phase..
Are any agencies aiming for Level AA conformance right off the bat?
We are migrating from a Cold Fusion platform to Sharepoint 2010 over the next 3-4 months. Our vendors have advised that accessibility compliance is assured with this new version of Sharepoint. This is exciting but at the same time I’m a little skeptical… perhaps that is unwarranted. Any comments?
We have conducted content reviews, made movements towards tagging content for decommissioning and archiving. Our biggest challenge is the provision of accessible downloadable files i.e. .pdf, .doc, .xls.
I know that there have been posts about the accessibility of PDFs in the past so I’m not proposing another round of discussions here… unless there have been changes?
loading...
From the research I have done reading posts on various forums and blogs WCAG 2.0 support in SharePoint 2010 is much improved ‘out of the box’.
However, I understand that to get as close as possible to the conformance requirements Australian Government agencies need to meet, a third party ‘add on’ is needed.
Pop the search term:
SharePoint Accessibility Compliance Management
into your favourite search engine to find out more.
Caveat – I have not yet had access to either SharePoint 2010 or the add-on compliance software.
loading...
Just updating myself on the new NTS guidance sent out yesterday by AGIMO and under 1.2 Accessibility Conformance testing it says it “might be worth considering either outsourcing testing, training staff (to complete in-house testing) or using a hybrid approach.”
I’m sure most people have significant constraints on their budgets to make outsourcing testing a bit of a dream but I do like the idea of training staff. Does anybody know if someone is considering providing this training (no names in replies please!!) or could we all get together and ask for a course to be set up by a qualified provider? Would AGIMO be the appropriate driver to organise? What do other people think?
loading...
This is a good idea.
In Canberra, I think there would be a ready market, but the major problem that I can see is getting “qualified providers”. While some aspects of accessibility are clear cut, others are subject to interpretation – for example, when does an image stop being decorative and start to become informative? Who will qualify the providers to give an opinion on this: AGIMO? AHRC?
loading...
Just updating myself on the new NTS guidance sent out yesterday by AGIMO and under 1.2 Accessibility Conformance testing it says it “might be worth considering either outsourcing testing, training staff (to complete in-house testing) or using a hybrid approach.”
Hi all – can someone point me to this guidance online?
loading...
Lamont,
just go to the web publishing guide
http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au/Accessibility.html
loading...
I think some training for internal staff is definitely required, and if it is endorsed or driven by AGIMO then that would be ideal.
Some things to consider would be the target audience: Comms, IT, Exec, etc. Each group could possibly have different training requirements, covering all bases in a single training course could be a problem i think.
Another thing that is required is a checklist that is suitable for agencies to do internally, using free online tools and some basic checks. This couldn’t be considered as a complete test, but would enable agencies to do an initial assessment quickly and easily.
The idea would be that once the checklist was complete and every item was ticked, then an external assessment could be undertaken.
loading...
I agree about tailoring the training.
In the ACT Government, we’re initially providing three sets of WCAG 2.0 documentation: for senior managers, for content providers and for Web developers / managers.
loading...
Great idea Kerry!
You (me, AGIMO, anyone!) could expand the concept to be more like a ‘show-bag’ of accessible treats:
Colour contrast Analysis tools for designers
WCAG2.0 Add-ons for Firefox for your developers
ROI info for the management!
I’m sure our CoE could think of great packages for each group that would be of benefit and assist in reinforcing the message…
(does AGIMO have a heap of spare coffee cups they want to get rid of?)…
loading...
Hi All,
We acknowledge your points about training and have identified training and education as an enabling ‘project’ under the NTS. But our difficulty lies in what kind of training agencies need and how they would like it delivered. Its obviously very sensible to provide a core and centralised set of training tools to government on specific government requirements and this is what we are working to.
The training needs will be best informed by the Preparation Phase reporting that agenices provide to us. Once we have the consolidated result we will have a very good idea of where the greatest need is and the number of people that will require training. We can then commence developing specific training programs to provide solutions for government. If you have already had a look at your survey you will know that there are several questions about training and staff numbers. Please make ...
... sure you focus on this section and tell us any other information that you think is important for us to know, so that we might provide you with the best possibe solutions.
In the meantime we are collecting your ideas and thoughts about what needs to be included, as we all know there are varying levels of knowldege required for accessiblity, depending on the role you have in the organisation. We hope to be able to provide short viedo clip style training for managers who need to understand the importance of web accessiblity, and then much more detailed guidance, instructions and checksheets for the actual docuemnt and content authors and web staff.
I like the idea of a group of accessiblity analysts / experts who may be available to help other smaller agencies. In fact in Canada their large departments all have Centres of Expertise who are used to provide this kind of support, but this is a more dispersed option, but one worth considering. Do people think this kind of dispersed expertise would work here in Australia? Raven and I have been discussing having a CoE (this group) in-person get together that might form the basis of such a dispersed group expertise for the Australian Government. We encourage your thoughts.
We look forwrad to your formal feedback on training needs via the survey. Any questions, please let us know.
Jacqui
loading...
Would AGIMO consider recruiting a team of Accessibility Analysts to outsource to struggling departments?
While there are hotbeds of highly skilled Accessibility Analysts in several larger departments, smaller departments do not have access to their expertise.
Smaller departments struggle to attract specialists as they cannot find the funding, their projects aren’t appealing enough, or they just don’t know how to find the right people; while the larger departments can lure contractors with higher rates, bigger projects, and longer contracts…
I have utilised the services of many of the commercial accessibility testing companies, and while they all provide a beautifully presented report at the end of the job, there sometimes seems a lack of understanding of the complexities faced by a department, or generic solutions based on notions of best practice better suited to the blogosphere than government departments.
By this I mean that it’s not hard to test by the numbers and offer ...
... suggestions for improvements, there are even applications to do it for you…
But it is a lot harder, and requires more time, to fully understand how a department ticks, how it’s staff produce their work, and how to help all stakeholders work towards accessibility.
and being Xmas time and all, there will be lots of eager contractors looking for work…
loading...
Peter,
At very least it would be good for AGIMO or their parent – Department of Finance – to add to the AusTender ICT MUL the following category :
Web accessibility compliance
At present, the only ‘web’ categories on the list are:
Web page creation and editing software
Web platform development software
World wide web www site design services
Web search engine providers
World wide web www site operation host services
There’s also ‘system usability services’, but as we all know, this is not the same as accessibility!
Although, I don’t know whether this would assist as I’m not sure what criterion are used to assess whether a company qualifies to go on the AusTender ICT MUL.
Jennifer
loading...
Thanks Jennifer,
That is something we had not considered. Excellent point and we will review and see how we might be able to expand.
Once we have our reporting complete there may in fact be more categories that could be considered for inclusion – like training!
Jacqui
loading...
I have been consolidating information of the last few weeks for the stocktake. We have been working off a excel spreadsheet that was provided to us by Raven for the stocktake. As I work for a portfolio of many agencies it’s turning into a huge task.
My question is the other day we got called into a meeting with IT who are saying who’s filling out the WCAG 2.0 National Transition Strategy Survey? Now can someone please tell me what do we do, the survey or the spreadsheet? I don’t particularly want to duplicate the work I’m doing, based on the sheer size of the work. I hate to admit it, but this is the first time I have seen the survey, and it looks like a much more organised method on reporting for the WCAG 2.0 Phase 1.
I have emailed Raven directly but wanted to see if anyone else ...
... out there has had similar confusions?
Thanks
loading...
Hi Nick,
I went in to the survey to try and fill it out and found a number of issues I’d like clarification about. I too work in an agency that has multiple websites so it’s going to take me a considerable amount of time to reply.The survey doesn’t seem to ask you what you may have done apart from the stocktake and you also can’t print out the agency report or at least I couldn’t. I wanted to keep records of how I replied so we can see progress with the next report.
You also mentioned a spreadsheet you got from AGIMO was it useful? did it help you with your stocktake – we’ve developed our own, but it’s only really a record of what has been done.
loading...
Hi all
The spreadsheet Nick is discussing can be found on the NTS breakdown page on the Web Publishing Guide: http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au/1.1_Agency_Website_Stocktake.html
It is a tool to help agencies classify their websites, to help determine what is in scope for the WCAG 2.0 upgrade. It is not essential, agencies may elect to fill it in if they think it is useful.
All FMA Act agencies (and CAC Act agencies that have opted into the NTS) need to complete the National Transition Strategy online survey. If you haven’t received a login or don’t know about the survey, please email me at wcag2@finance.gov.au
Di, you should be able to print the last page (Your Agency Report) which combines all results from each section of the survey. We’re also asking about applications and publishing processes – basically everything discussed in the NTS Phase 1: Preparation.
Please let me know if you have any ...
... more questions about the reporting components.
Cheers
Raven
loading...
Many thanks for organising the information sessions about PDFs. They were most informative.
loading...
We moved a comment from this post to the PDF Accessibility Education post as it was regarding this subject.
loading...
It was suggested I join the Community of Excellence, but I can’t work out how to do that from the information available on this site.
I’d like to register for email notices of comments and updates.
Since I can’t see any ‘Register’ links I’m assuming someone will de-moderate this pseudo comment and put me on a mailing list.
But you never know.
Sorry to be so awkward.
Ian
loading...
Nope – you’re here
This is it. Subscribe to comments via RSS or tick the email notifications of new comments for this and other posts and you’re done.
Welcome.
loading...
I also collect email addresses of those that wish to “subscribe” for email updates from the team. If you want to be included, email me with your contact info to: wcag2@finance.gov.au
loading...