Comments for AGIMO Blog http://agimo.govspace.gov.au Effective and efficient use of ICT Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:16:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on Gov 2.0 Taskforce Report as an ePub by Steve Pike http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/2010/07/13/gov-2-0-taskforce-report-as-an-epub/comment-page-1/#comment-661 Steve Pike Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:16:53 +0000 http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/?p=770#comment-661 Downloaded the epub document on my Android phone and opened it in Laputa book reader without problem. I haven't read much of it yet but the text portion is very readable on the small phone screen. Great to be able to read up on Gov 2.0 in my occasional downtime. Downloaded the epub document on my Android phone and opened it in Laputa book reader without problem. I haven’t read much of it yet but the text portion is very readable on the small phone screen. Great to be able to read up on Gov 2.0 in my occasional downtime.

]]> Comment on Welcome to the WCAG 2.0 Community of Expertise (CoE) by Jacqui - Accessibility & Style http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/2010/08/17/welcome-to-the-wcag-2-0-community-of-expertise-coe/comment-page-1/#comment-655 Jacqui - Accessibility & Style Fri, 03 Sep 2010 05:15:39 +0000 http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/?p=899#comment-655 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. 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.

]]> Comment on Welcome to the WCAG 2.0 Community of Expertise (CoE) by Raven - Accessibility & Style http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/2010/08/17/welcome-to-the-wcag-2-0-community-of-expertise-coe/comment-page-1/#comment-654 Raven - Accessibility & Style Fri, 03 Sep 2010 04:48:57 +0000 http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/?p=899#comment-654 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. 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.

]]> Comment on Welcome to the WCAG 2.0 Community of Expertise (CoE) by Shannon Garner http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/2010/08/17/welcome-to-the-wcag-2-0-community-of-expertise-coe/comment-page-1/#comment-653 Shannon Garner Fri, 03 Sep 2010 04:40:44 +0000 http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/?p=899#comment-653 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. 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.

]]> Comment on Welcome to the WCAG 2.0 Community of Expertise (CoE) by Kym Dusting http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/2010/08/17/welcome-to-the-wcag-2-0-community-of-expertise-coe/comment-page-1/#comment-652 Kym Dusting Fri, 03 Sep 2010 02:41:19 +0000 http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/?p=899#comment-652 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. 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.

]]> Comment on Welcome to the WCAG 2.0 Community of Expertise (CoE) by Cassandra Hawkins http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/2010/08/17/welcome-to-the-wcag-2-0-community-of-expertise-coe/comment-page-1/#comment-651 Cassandra Hawkins Fri, 03 Sep 2010 02:21:21 +0000 http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/?p=899#comment-651 Yes, thank you. It's great that you can provide such a speedy response. Much appreciated. Yes, thank you. It’s great that you can provide such a speedy response. Much appreciated.

]]> Comment on Welcome to the WCAG 2.0 Community of Expertise (CoE) by Jennifer Bruce http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/2010/08/17/welcome-to-the-wcag-2-0-community-of-expertise-coe/comment-page-1/#comment-650 Jennifer Bruce Fri, 03 Sep 2010 02:17:30 +0000 http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/?p=899#comment-650 Raven Thanks for the clarification Raven

Thanks for the clarification

]]> Comment on Welcome to the WCAG 2.0 Community of Expertise (CoE) by Raven - Accessibility & Style http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/2010/08/17/welcome-to-the-wcag-2-0-community-of-expertise-coe/comment-page-1/#comment-649 Raven - Accessibility & Style Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:50:43 +0000 http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/?p=899#comment-649 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. 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.

]]> Comment on Welcome to the WCAG 2.0 Community of Expertise (CoE) by Raven - Accessibility & Style http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/2010/08/17/welcome-to-the-wcag-2-0-community-of-expertise-coe/comment-page-1/#comment-648 Raven - Accessibility & Style Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:41:23 +0000 http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/?p=899#comment-648 We're developing guidance on web apps - but it's a complicated issue that we'll address in its own post... We’re developing guidance on web apps – but it’s a complicated issue that we’ll address in its own post…

]]> Comment on Welcome to the WCAG 2.0 Community of Expertise (CoE) by Raven - Accessibility & Style http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/2010/08/17/welcome-to-the-wcag-2-0-community-of-expertise-coe/comment-page-1/#comment-647 Raven - Accessibility & Style Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:34:56 +0000 http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/?p=899#comment-647 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 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

]]>