AccessU 2013 - Section 508 Refresh

  • 292 views
Uploaded on

It is never too early to prepare and test our sites for the more comprehensive inclusions of WCAG 2.0. During this session we will review interim approaches for the Government Agencies to use as we …

It is never too early to prepare and test our sites for the more comprehensive inclusions of WCAG 2.0. During this session we will review interim approaches for the Government Agencies to use as we prepare for testing web pages and web applications against WCAG 2.0 and the approaching Section 508 refresh.

For the past decade we have all been working to ensure our websites are Section 508 compliant. Now, as the 508 refresh approaches, we are going to be faced with some new challenges as some of the features we have been "passing" on our tests are not acceptable under the 2.0 Guidelines. We (Accessibility Testers) can finally fail sites for those annoying “More” links and we won’t have to rely on software standards to require full keyboard accessibility. Developers are going to have to do a better job of helping users get form information correct with Error Identification, Error Suggestion and Error Prevention. The original Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 required that Federal agencies create, procure and maintain accessible electronic information, since technology changed so rapidly there were holes in the standards that needed a plug. With the coming of the 508 Refresh and the mapping to WCAG 2.0 some of the missing requirements will be filled in.

The challenge for the US Federal Government Agencies as the new standards are released is going to be changing the way they validate compliance. Specifically for web accessibility they will need to re-train their accessibility testers, edit their testing methodologies, update their testing tools, and retrain their developers. That is why this discussion needs to happen now before the standards are released.

This session will discuss the different layers of guidance and the various Success Criteria and how we can test for them; the difference between “A”, “AA” and “AAA” and what it means to our test approach. Participants will learn about the WCAG 2.0 additional requirements and how these will affect our users and developers. We will also explore how enforcing WCAG 2.0 will result in a much more accessible product and a much improved experience for our users. Participants will see that WCAG 2.0 techniques can be used to unambiguously meet every one of the Section 508 guidelines and that by mapping the 2.0 Guidelines and the 508 Standards we can all be ready for the coming Refresh. We are making the assumption that the new standards will harmonize with WCAG 2.0 because that is where the trends have shown us.

“Section 508 to WCAG 2.0 – How will Compliance Testing Change?” is a one hour session which will discuss how accessibility testing will change when compliance to 508 aligns with WCAG 2.0. The session will discuss testing methodologies and how they will change and provide a more accessible result. In addition the 508 standards that are currently almost obsolete will be discussed.

More in: Education , Design , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
292
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Also worked at Homeland Security in the Office of Accessible Systems and Technology were I started looking into how WCAG 2.0 and the refresh will affect how we (government accessibility SME’s) do business.I am currently working at the Department of Education in the Accessible Technology Office testing not just ed.gov websites, but all software that is brought into the ED network as well as a variety of non-governmental websites that impact education in the US.
  • For the past decade we have all been working to ensure our websites are Section 508 compliant. Now, as the 508 refresh approaches, we are going to be faced with some new challenges as some of the features we have been "passing" on our tests are not acceptable under the 2.0 Guidelines. We (Accessibility Testers) can finally fail sites for those annoying “More” links and we won’t have to rely on software standards to require full keyboard accessibility. Developers are going to have to do a better job of helping users get form information correct with Error Identification, Error Suggestion and Error Prevention. The original Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 required that Federal agencies create, procure and maintain accessible electronic information, since technology changed so rapidly there were holes in the standards that needed a plug. With the coming of the 508 Refresh and the mapping to WCAG 2.0 some of the missing requirements will be filled in. Of course yesterday, William also talked about “The Rest of 508” 1194.23 Telecommunications products.1194.24 Video and multimedia products.1194.25 Self contained, closed products.1194.26 Desktop and portable computers.1194.31 Functional performance criteria.1194.41 Information, documentation, and support.
  • This is a section from the draft rule Put simply – Section 508 is headed straight for WCAG 2.0.While this doesn’t pose much of a stumbling block for some of us – those of us luck enough to work on both Government & Commercial projects it could be more difficult for others who have spent the last 10 years looking at 1194.21 & .22.AbstractISO/IEC 40500:2012 [Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0] covers a wide range of recommendations for making Web content more accessible. Following these guidelines will make content accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech disabilities, photo-sensitivity and combinations of these. Following these guidelines will also often make your Web content more usable to users in general.WCAG 2.0 success criteria are written as testable statements that are not technology-specific. Guidance about satisfying the success criteria in specific technologies, as well as general information about interpreting the success criteria, is provided in separate documents.
  • The challenge for the US Federal Government Agencies as the new standards are released is going to be changing the way they validate compliance.  Specifically for web accessibility they will need to re-train their accessibility testers, edit their testing methodologies, update their testing tools, and retrain their developers. That is why this discussion needs to happen now before the standards are released.  As Government Testers we re going to have to separate the “Guidelines” from the “Techniques” and ensure that there may be more than one way to skin a cat.Note that all techniques are informative. The "sufficient techniques" are considered sufficient by the WCAG Working Group to meet the success criteria. However, it is not necessary to use these particular techniques. If techniques are used other than those listed by the Working Group, then some other method for establishing the technique's ability to meet the Success Criteria would be needed.Most Success Criteria have multiple sufficient techniques listed. Any of the listed sufficient techniques can be used to meet the Success Criterion. There may be other techniques which are not documented by the working group that could also meet the Success Criterion. As new sufficient techniques are identified they will be added to the listing.
  • Proposed subsections E207.2 and C203.1 incorporate WCAG 2.0 by reference, so there is no paraphrasing. WCAG 2.0 is written to be technology neutral, so it is straightforward to apply the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria and Conformance Requirements to electronic documents and applications, regardless if those documents and applications are rendered within a web browser or within a native application outside the web browser environment.So I think our testing approach needs to look to testing “web products” as they are so brilliantly referred to in BS8878----- Meeting Notes (3/2/12 10:59) -----These do not really map to the WCAG 1.0 Priorities so A = Priority 1Now we have 38 Principles & Guidelines – Just to get to AA
  • We (Accessibility Testers) can finally fail sites for those annoying “More” links and we won’t have to rely on software standards to require full keyboard accessibility. Developers are going to have to do a better job of helping users get form information correct with Error Identification, Error Suggestion and Error Prevention. The original Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 required that Federal agencies create, procure and maintain accessible electronic information, since technology changed so rapidly there were holes in the standards that needed a plug. With the coming of the 508 Refresh and the mapping to WCAG 2.0 some of the missing requirements will be filled in.
  • 1) Perceivable - Information and user interface components must be presentable to users in ways they can perceive.This means that users must be able to perceive the information being presented (it can't be invisible to all of their senses)2) User interface components and navigation must be operable.This means that users must be able to operate the interface (the interface cannot require interaction that a user cannot perform)3) Information and the operation of user interface must be understandable.This means that users must be able to understand the information as well as the operation of the user interface (the content or operation cannot be beyond their understanding)4) Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.This means that users must be able to access the content as technologies advance (as technologies and user agents evolve, the content should remain accessible)
  • Note that all techniques are informative - you don't have to follow them. The "sufficient techniques” are considered sufficient to meet the success criteria; however, it is not necessary to use these particular techniques. Anyone can submit new techniques at any time. If techniques are used other than those listed by the Working Group, then some other method for establishing the technique's ability to meet the success criteria would be needed.In addition to the 'sufficient techniques', there are also advisory techniques that go beyond WCAG 2.0's requirements. Authors are encouraged to apply all techniques that they are able to, including the advisory techniques, in order to best address the needs of the widest possible range of users.It is very helpful to have a set of trusted colleagues to
  • Layers of GuidanceThe GuidelinesUnder each principle there is a list of guidelines that address the principle. There are a total of 12 guidelines. A convenient list of just the guidelines can be found in the WCAG 2.0 table of contents. One of the key objectives of the guidelines is to ensure that content is directly accessible to as many people as possible, and capable of being re-presented in different forms to match different peoples' sensory, physical and cognitive abilities.Success CriteriaUnder each guideline, there are Success Criteria that describe specifically what must be achieved in order to conform to this standard. They are similar to the "checkpoints" in WCAG 1.0. Each Success Criterion is written as a statement that will be either true or false when specific Web content is tested against it. The Success Criteria are written to be technology neutral.All WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are written as testable criteria for objectively determining if content satisfies the Success Criteria. While some of the testing can be automated using software evaluation programs, others require human testers for part or all of the test.Although content may satisfy the Success Criteria, the content may not always be usable by people with a wide variety of disabilities. Professional reviews utilizing recognized qualitative heuristics are important in achieving accessibility for some audiences. In addition, usability testing is recommended. Usability testing aims to determine how well people can use the content for its intended purpose.The content should be tested by those who understand how people with different types of disabilities use the Web. It is recommended that users with disabilities be included in test groups when performing human testing.Each Success Criterion for a guideline has a link to the section of the How to Meet document that provides:sufficient techniques for meeting the Success Criterion,optional advisory techniques, anddescriptions of the intent of the Success Criteria, including benefits, and examples.Sufficient and Advisory TechniquesRather than having technology specific techniques in WCAG 2.0, the guidelines and Success Criteria themselves have been written in a technology neutral fashion. In order to provide guidance and examples for meeting the guidelines using specific technologies (for example HTML) the working group has identified sufficient techniques for each Success Criterion that are sufficient to meet that Success Criterion. Sufficient techniques are provided in a numbered list where each list item provides the technique or combination of techniques that can be used to meet the Success Criterion. When there are multiple techniques on a numbered list item connected by "AND" then all of the techniques must be used. For example, Situation B in Understanding Success Criterion 2.2.1 lists as the third sufficient technique: SCR16: Providing a script that warns the user a time limit is about to expire (Scripting) AND SCR1: Allowing the user to extend the default time limit (Scripting).The list of sufficient techniques is maintained in the "Understanding WCAG 2.0" (and mirrored in How to Meet WCAG 2.0). The Introduction to Techniques for WCAG 2.0 lists technologies for which there are currently any sufficient techniques. By separating the WCAG 2 normative guidelines document from the techniques used to meet the success criteria in those guidelines it is possible to update the list as new techniques are discovered, and as Web Technologies and Assistive Technologies progress.Note that all techniques are informative. The "sufficient techniques" are considered sufficient by the WCAG Working Group to meet the success criteria. However, it is not necessary to use these particular techniques. If techniques are used other than those listed by the Working Group, then some other method for establishing the technique's ability to meet the Success Criteria would be needed.Most Success Criteria have multiple sufficient techniques listed. Any of the listed sufficient techniques can be used to meet the Success Criterion. There may be other techniques which are not documented by the working group that could also meet the Success Criterion. As new sufficient techniques are identified they will be added to the listing.In addition to the sufficient techniques, there are a number of advisory techniques that can enhance accessibility, but did not qualify as sufficient techniques because they are not sufficient to meet the full requirements of the Success Criteria, they are not testable, and/or because they are good and effective techniques in some circumstances but not effective or helpful in others. These are listed as advisory techniques and are right below the sufficient techniques. Authors are encouraged to use these techniques wherever appropriate to increase accessibility of their Web pages.Note: Code examples found in the sufficient techniques are intended to demonstrate the principle discussed in the description of the technique. The code is not intended to demonstrate other aspects of accessibility, usability or best coding practices not related to the technique.
  • Under each guideline, there are Success Criteria that describe specifically what must be achieved in order to conform to this standard. They are similar to the "checkpoints" in WCAG 1.0. Each Success Criterion is written as a statement that will be either true or false when specific Web content is tested against it. The Success Criteria are written to be technology neutral.All WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are written as testable criteria for objectively determining if content satisfies the Success Criteria. While some of the testing can be automated using software evaluation programs, others require human testers for part or all of the test.Although content may satisfy the Success Criteria, the content may not always be usable by people with a wide variety of disabilities. Professional reviews utilizing recognized qualitative heuristics are important in achieving accessibility for some audiences. In addition, usability testing is recommended. Usability testing aims to determine how well people can use the content for its intended purpose.The content should be tested by those who understand how people with different types of disabilities use the Web. It is recommended that users with disabilities be included in test groups when performing human testing.
  • Sufficient and Advisory TechniquesRather than having technology specific techniques in WCAG 2.0, the guidelines and Success Criteria themselves have been written in a technology neutral fashion. In order to provide guidance and examples for meeting the guidelines using specific technologies (for example HTML) the working group has identified sufficient techniques for each Success Criterion that are sufficient to meet that Success Criterion. Sufficient techniques are provided in a numbered list where each list item provides the technique or combination of techniques that can be used to meet the Success Criterion. When there are multiple techniques on a numbered list item connected by "AND" then all of the techniques must be used.
  • Danger Will Robinson!Although content may satisfy the Success Criteria, the content may not always be usable by people with a wide variety of disabilities. Professional reviews utilizing recognized qualitative heuristics are important in achieving accessibility for some audiences. In addition, usability testing is recommended. Usability testing aims to determine how well people can use the content for its intended purpose.
  • 4. Comments by Guideline and Success CriterionThe sections that follow are organized according to the principles, guidelines, and success criteria from WCAG 2.0. The text of the item from WCAG 2.0 is copied as quoted text. Following that, the “intent” from Understanding WCAG 2.0 is copied as quoted text. Finally, the guidance of this document is provided. In visual presentations this is set out in a box with a blue bar to the left, to highlight that this is the content specific to this document.So let’s take a look at this and at …
  • You will notice they dropped a few – and added MANY:(e) Redundant text links shall be provided for each active region of a server-side image map.(f) Client-side image maps shall be provided instead of server-side image maps except where the regions cannot be defined with an available geometric shape.(k) A text-only page, with equivalent information or functionality, shall be provided to make a web site comply with the provisions of this part, when compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way. The content of the text-only page shall be updated whenever the primary page changes.
  • A11y -Representing "accessibility" as "a" followed by 11 more letters, followed by "y". NumeronymGlenda Sims @goodwitchJennison Asuncion @JennisonKarl Groves @karlgrovesElle Waters @NethermindAccessibility Events @a11yeventsIBM Accessibility @IBMAccessPaul J Adam @pauljadamSteve Faulkner @stevefaulknerJohn F Croston III @jfc3Terrill Thompson @terrillthompsonAndrew Kirkpatrick @awkawkMike Paciello@mpaciello

Transcript

  • 1. SECTION 508 > WCAG 2.0HOW WILL COMPLIANCETESTING CHANGE?Barry JohnsonSenior Accessibility ConsultantDeque SystemsWednesday May 15, 2012 – 9:00 am
  • 2. Listening is an Art We Should AllStrive to Learn
  • 3. Learning Objectives: Participants will learn about testing techniquesto comply with WCAG 2.0. Participants will understand how the change in508 standards will affect them. Participants will explore how WCAG 2.0 willprovide a more accessible result than thecurrent 508 standards. Participants will discuss and compare notes onapproaches to testing for the refresh.
  • 4. What do I know? Programmer/Developer for 20 years Working on web & software accessibilitysince 1990 Worked at FAA & DoT, HHS, DHS and nowED Assisted DoT in implementing A11y policiesas well as AccVerify/Repair across all dot.govproperties Worked with William at HHS ASPA/WCD ontheir Compliance and RemediationGuidelines.
  • 5. Where Are We? For the past decade we have all been workingto ensure our websites are Section 508compliant to the current 1194.22 & .21standards. Now, as the 508 refreshapproaches, we are going to be faced withsome new challenges as some of the featureswe have been "passing" on our tests are notacceptable under the 2.0 Guidelines.
  • 6. Where are we Headed E207.2 WCAG Conformance. User interfacecomponents and content of platforms andapplications shall conform to Level A and LevelAA Success Criteria and ConformanceRequirements specified for web pages inWCAG 2.0 (incorporated by reference inChapter 1). http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/draft-rule.htm#_Toc310327562 ISO/IEC 40500:2012
  • 7. The Challenge The challenge for the US Federal GovernmentAgencies as the new standards are released isgoing to be changing the way they validatecompliance. Specifically for web accessibilitythey will need to re-train their accessibilitytesters, edit their testing methodologies,update their testing tools, and retrain theirdevelopers.
  • 8. Current Section 508 Guide to the Section 508 Standards forElectronic and Information Technology http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.22.htm
  • 9. What should we be getting ready todo? The “refresh” and WCAG 2.0 What is added / What are the differences What is the difference between “A”, “AA” &“AAA”? Easy Harder Hardest Refresh is mapping to “A” & “AA” How should this change our testing approach?
  • 10. Change in Focus An a11y friend recent said:“We are changing from a product type focus to aproduct features focus”
  • 11. WCAG 2.0 - POUR 1 Perceivable 2 Operable 3 Understandable 4 Robust
  • 12. How to Meet WCAG 2.0 Sufficient Techniques Links to examples Advisory Techniques Examples – some with links, some not Failures Examples – some with links, some nothttp://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/
  • 13. Layers of GuidanceThe Guidelines Under each principle there is a list ofguidelines that address the principle. Thereare a total of 12 guidelines. Card Deck
  • 14. Success CriteriaUnder each guideline, there are Success Criteriathat describe specifically what must be achievedin order to conform to this standard. They aresimilar to the "checkpoints" in WCAG 1.0.The Success Criteria are written to betechnology neutral.
  • 15. Sufficient and AdvisoryTechniques Technology Neutral Guidance & Examples Multiple Techniques are provided
  • 16. Warning!Although content maysatisfy the SuccessCriteria, the content maynot always be usable bypeople with a wide varietyof disabilities.Professional reviewsutilizing recognizedqualitative heuristics areimportant in achievingaccessibility for someaudiences.
  • 17. Changes in Testing Tools Upgrade all of your tools Latest WAT 2011 Latest WAVE Toolbar Latest Web DeveloperToolbar Latest Firebug Add-in Updated Fireeyes /Worldspace
  • 18. Guidance on Applying WCAG2.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ 4. Comments by Guideline and SuccessCriterion http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#wcag2ict_comments_principles-guidelines-sc
  • 19. Comparison Chart/Roadmap
  • 20. Discussion Time Let’s talk and compare notes…
  • 21. Thank you Thank you for coming today. Stay tuned for changes – uh, I mean “Updates”- as the government moves to the refresh andWCAG 2.0 Guidelines. Follow the A11y “Tribe” on Twitter Search #a11y Follow the speakers here at AccessU
  • 22. Connecting with DequeTwitter LinkedIn WebEmail@dequesystems Deque Systems deque.cominfo@deque.com