In June 2008, COI published the guidance Delivering Inclusive Websites (TG102) with the aim of making government websites easier to use for everyone, including people with disabilities. This set the minimum standard of accessibility for all public sector websites at WCAG 1.0 Level AA in line with the The Riga eInclusion Declaration.
Since then WCAG 2.0 has become a recognised W3C standard and the general feeling is that it’s a better standard than version 1.0. There’s greater focus on the user and less focus on the technology. It’s not just about HTML now; it’s technology agnostic and based on user outcomes rather than technical specifications – which can only be a good thing.
There is certainly a lot of activity in the European Commission looking at adoption of WCAG 2.0, what Member States are doing and what a common approach might mean. Sadly, there doesn’t appear to be much in the way of clear direction from the Commission… so we might have to come with a plan on our own!
Having discussed this with several colleagues in government, agencies and user community representatives, it’s clear that we need a plan for transitioning from version 1.0 to version 2.0. Moreover, Government has committed to reviewing its current policy:
At such time that version 2.0 becomes a W3C Recommendation, this policy will be reviewed within six months. Consideration will be given to the adoption of version 2.0 as the minimum standard for public sector websites.
So what might a plan to transition from version 1.0 to version 2.0 look like?
Well, assuming that we want the transition to be as smooth as possible, a first step would be to update the current policy to allow conformance with version 1.0 Level AA or the version 2.0 equivalent. This is the current working position that we have been advising departments unofficially. Allowing a choice of standards for a period of time seems like a fair stance to take, particularly given that the current target for complying with version 1.0 Level AA is December 2009 for central government department websites. A sudden jump to version 2.0 would risk jeopardising a lot of the work that has already gone into reaching the current minimum standard.
The following steps also seem sensible:
- Accurately define conformance criteria for version 2.0 that are as close to the current target of version 1.0 AA as possible.
- Allow site owners the option of adopting either version for a transitional period.
- Re-assess the conformance levels for version 2.0 and put in a timetable for moving to the appropriate level of conformance (e.g. version 2.0 Level AA).
- Put deadlines in place for a move to a version 2.0-only system, allowing sufficient time for organisations to update their training, policy documents, accessibility statements etc. (e.g. December 2010 in line with Executive Agencies and NDPBs).
We need to manage the transition from version 1.0 to version 2.0 carefully, allowing sufficient time for the new standard to “bed in”.
We should also be careful not to focus solely on WCAG when addressing the accessibility debate. We should always talk about usability as well. The focus is on the user.
I welcome any views on the suggested approach, particularly on the appropriate level of WCAG 2.0 to aim for and on the length of time required to make the transition.
Posted in: Accessibility and usability
Tags: accessibility usability wcag user
Adam,
As far as I understand it the public sector is making very little progress here (review at EU level showed 5% with target of 100% next year…not to mention the rest of the web.
this despite the many good efforst in the UK (I guess we are better than 5%)
I wonder if we need a complete change of tactic..or at least to try something else.
We have an idea called Fix the Web which I will email to you!
the idea is to use web2.0 appraoches to help fix websites by an army of hactivists. the tools exist.
best wishes
Gail
Gail Bradbrook says:
September 9, 2009 at 11:54 amHi Gail, that sounds like a interesting idea. I look forward to receiving more information.
Adam Bailin says:
September 9, 2009 at 12:26 pm>> We should also be careful not to focus solely on WCAG when addressing the accessibility debate.
Very true. WCAG 2.0, as far as I understand, still doesn’t address a range of cognitive and mental impairments, so a virtually ‘perfect’ AAA-level site can still be completely inacessible to a number of users. I’d like to see less emphasis on using WCAG as a checklist and more onto broad principles of usability where it forms simply *part* of the criteria.
How you’d formalise this into a standard, though, I have no idea.
Simon Hogg says:
September 14, 2009 at 3:08 pmOne thing I would suggest for now – further thoughts to come once I’ve looked through the WCAG documentation in more detail – is that at some point prior to “everyone must be on WCAG 2.0″ you should have an “all new sites must be on WCAG 2.0″. E.g. if you were to have a two year implementation period (all on WCAG 2.0 AA by October 2011), say that all sites going live after Oct 2010 should comply with WCAG 2.0 rather than 1.0.
I’m not sure what exact timescale you’re likely to be looking at: I’d suggest two years as a compromise between allowing people time to slowly bring things up to date and encouraging people to move to a better standard.
PS when I press tab to move between fields in the ‘leave a reply’ section (FF 3.5.3) the focus jumps about all over the place here. Is this just me, or does anyone else have this problem?
JackP says:
September 21, 2009 at 11:46 pmJack, thanks for the suggestion – I think it’s a good one – and the more detailed response. Looking forward to your further thoughts.
PS I’m using FF 3.0.14 without any problems. It might be a problem with Wordpress 2.8… anyone else with issues?
Adam Bailin says:
September 24, 2009 at 11:00 amAdam
Very pleased to see that COI is moving forward with adopting WCAG 2.0. Your suggestion of accepting parallel conformance standards for a transitional period seems eminently sensible. (I am working with several departments, where conformance with WCAG 1.0, will in fact expose the department to the extent of not being able to claim conformance, whereas, if measured against WCAG 2.0, they will be able to claim conformance.)
Jack’s suggestion of new sites conforming w.e.f. October 2010 and all sites by October 2011 also seems totally sensible.
From an implementation and support point of view, this is a very welcome move and one that will definitely be supported by the various Government Agencies that i am currently working with.
Harry Loots says:
September 25, 2009 at 3:21 pmHi Adam, you may recall me asking you about this last November (I blogged about it at the time) so I’m glad to see this discussion now getting underway. In my correspondence I suggested a phased approach and this still seems to be the way forward, although using WCAG 2.0 as the target from day one for any new sites.
PS I think the tabbing issue is being caused by conflicting tabindexes – both the Name and Mail fields of the Reply form and the main Search function use a tabindex of 1 and 2.
James Coltham says:
September 25, 2009 at 5:07 pmAdam/Jack – I get the same tabbing oddness.
From the source, it looks like tabindex 1 and 2 are used twice in the markup. If you can change the tabindex on the fields on the comment form so they don’t clash, it should be OK.
Steph Gray says:
September 27, 2009 at 10:21 pmThat should be fixed now. Does anyone have thoughts about whether the checkbox for subscription should be part of the tab order? And if so, should it be numbered before the submit button even though it’s after the button visually? My argument would be that a screen-reader use may assume that the form is finished tabbing onto the submit button and not get to know about the subscription option…
Sebastian Crump says:
October 5, 2009 at 4:55 pm