• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Keith w4 a 2012

Keith w4 a 2012






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Riga Agreement (2006) to make public websites accessible by 2010 and call to private sector

Keith w4 a 2012 Keith w4 a 2012 Presentation Transcript

  • W4A 2012 Certification or conformance: making a successful commitment to WCAG 2.00 Suzette Keith, Nikolaos Floratos, Gill Whitney1 W4A, Lyons France 16-17 April 2012
  • Low levels of conformance to accessibilityguidelines European benchmarking studies show very low levels of conformance to accessibility guidelines: “3% passed the full range of level A automated and manual checkpoints in 2008” (MeAC 2008) 2 W4A, Lyons France 16-17 April 2012
  • Meeting accessibility guidelines WCAG 1 (1999) and 2.0 (2008)  Are internationally agreed and recognised  Are embedded into national laws, frameworks and best practice guides  Can be used to support procurement  Are referenced in national certification schemes 3 W4A, Lyons France 16-17 April 2012
  • How do you know if a website is accessible? Web accessibility certification  Most offer a directory of successful websites  All provide a certification logo  Different schemes apply different test protocols in different national contexts Voluntary declaration of conformance  WCAG 2.0 includes guidance on claiming conformance  The webpage can display a logo and link back to WCAG 2.0 conformance  Statement of web accessibility policy and action taken  No system of monitoring 4 W4A, Lyons France 16-17 April 2012
  • Does voluntary conformance meet user needs? ANEC – ‘the consumer voice in standardisation in Europe’ Question: Is there a need for greater quality control?  What is the impact of certification or voluntary declaration of conformance to web accessibility guidelines?  Given the low level of conformance by websites making a declaration of accessibility, how can we better understand the causes and indicators of progress? 5 W4A, Lyons France 16-17 April 2012
  • Finding websites claiming accessibility Selected countries  Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and UK Sources  Major websites previously identified in MeAC  Directories of certification bodies  Directory of standards compliant web developers  Backlinking search to WCAG compliance logos 6 W4A, Lyons France 16-17 April 2012
  • Inspecting conformance Selection criteria  100 websites: half were certificated and half made a voluntary declaration  5 EU countries having certification schemes  Most (76) from Government and Public body  Some (24) from Commercial sector Automatic testing (SortSite)  Over 100 test points to WCAG 2.0  25 pages  Minimal expert intervention Manual testing by expert evaluator  Only those with 10 or less failed test points  Five pages inspected 7 W4A, Lyons France 16-17 April 2012
  • Automatic test results Table 1. Results of automatic tests of government and public body websites Automatic test points Self Total % passed/failed Certified declaration n=74 Pass WCAG 2.0 A 0 3 4% Fail 10 or less test points 12 8 27% Fail 11-20 test points 15 12 36% Fail 21 or more test points 10 14 32%8 W4A, Lyons France 16-17 April 2012
  • ‹#› W4A, Lyons France 16-17 April 2012
  • Analysis of success criteria Table 2 Top 5 failed WCAG 2.0 level A criteria Number of certified Number of self WCAG 2.0 level A criteria websites failing this declared websites criteria failing this criteria Text equivalence: 1.1.1 6 7 Information and relationship: 1.3.1 4 5 Link purpose: 2.4.4 3 6 Labels: 3.3.2 4 5 Name, role, value: 4.1.2 3 510 W4A, Lyons France 16-17 April 2012
  • Discussion Certification to national standards  Lack of consistent results between certification bodies and WCAG 2.0 Voluntary conformance declaration  Indications of commitment but no monitoring process Specific success criteria  Multiple failures of level A , but all offered breadcrumb trail, AAA criteria Website complexity  Evidence of best practice in complex government information websites 11 W4A, Lyons France 16-17 April 2012
  • Conclusions Need to establish trust in accessibility declarations whether voluntary or certificated – passing at WGAG 2.0 level A should be routine! Further evidence needed to identify persistent accessibility issues could be collected by certification bodies and researchers in order to support improvements to tools and training Need learn from the commitment of developers who deliver best practice solutions at level A and higher 12 W4A, Lyons France 16-17 April 2012
  • W4A 2012 Thank-you Contact lead author: suzette.skeith@gmail.com  This research project was funded by ANEC with Nikolaos Floratos as project manager  Expert inspection was carried out by Andrea Kennedy ++ for Shaw Trust  Additional expert support from Cam Nicholl and Gavin Evans, previously from Shaw Trust and now with Digital Accessibility Centre  Automatic test tool support from Mark Douglas, SortSite  Research programme and activity carried out by Suzette Keith and Gill Whitney, Middlesex University 13 W4A, Lyons France 16-17 April 2012