WCAG-AAA
yeah, as it happens, and I'm sure Bill will be pleased to note, I have taken to using code. 
Depending on whether inline code or a big block I set a class, but it's the code element I use in either case.
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share: 
| JackP wrote: |
| All I'm claiming is that Triple-A. |
If you can pass AAA in WCAG 2, and not in WCAG 1, on what points do you fail the latter?
How is WCAG 2 "better" (indeed, how does it encourage you to make your pages more accessible) by allowing you to pass on things that formerly caused you to fail?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
Birmingham, England
Share:
| pigsonthewing wrote: |
| How is WCAG 2 "better" (indeed, how does it encourage you to make your pages more accessible) by allowing you to pass on things that formerly caused you to fail? |
That's not to say that I don't think there are some good aspects to it: I personally like the triple AAA requiring only 50% of priority 3 checkpoints as I believe this makes it more achievable (although I appreciate not everyone will agree), because in practice WCAG 1.0 AA was the highest achievable level and I don't see the point in having a level no-one gets to.
I also like the idea of technological neutrality, although I think it's causing problems in practice. I think the way the document is structured with principles, then guidelines then success criteria is a very logical and understandable structure and makes a lot of sense (unlike much of the terminology).
| pigsonthewing wrote: |
| If you can pass AAA in WCAG 2, and not in WCAG 1, on what points do you fail the latter? |
In answer to your question, I believe I would have achieved WCAG 1.0 AA (although like everyone there's been occassional mishaps causing invalid pages). As for failing to achieve WCAG 1.0 AAA, well I:
- don't provide accesskeys (9.5)
- don't offer different types of searches (13.7)
- don't supplement text with graphics or sound to make it more understandable (14.2) - although I would argue that it's not hard to understand in the first place, but this checkpoint makes no allowance for this
- don't put place-holding characters in text controls, although I would say that the 'until user agents' clause has now been met (10.4)
- don't offer different language and/or content type versions of the site (some interpretations of 11.3)
I would argue that WCAG 2.0 could be better by being more up-to-date; by not including outdated checkpoints such as 10.4; by changing the priorities so that better understanding of technology and disability means that checkpoints are now better focussed; that some of the things such as different types of search come under usability and a one-size-fits-all search box in no way provides a barrier to accessibility.
In short, passing on things that were previously a fail doesn't necessarily mean its worse. Bear in mind WCAG 2.0 also requires things that were never required by WCAG 1.0.
That said, I'll reiterate that as it stands I don't think WCAG 2.0 is better than WCAG 1.0. But it's not fair to treat the document as "all bad"; there's a lot of good stuff and improvements in there that deserves to be saved, which is why I fervently hope that Joe Clark is wrong and that the working group can turn it around.
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
| JackP wrote: | ||
|
An I *know* I haven't said you did! I've taken the liberty, though, of assuming that someone - not least the W3C - thinks it is.
| JackP wrote: |
| in fact, normally I've raised criticisms of it - I believe you were at the PSF conference last week when I ran through the problems myself, Bruce Lawson, Joe Clark, Lisa Seeman and others had found with it. |
Indeed - and very good your talk was, too.
| JackP wrote: | ||
|
No, but your site is currently (you cliam
) WCAG 2 compliant, yet fails (I'll refrain from using quotes every time I write "pass" or "fail") WCAG 1. Logically, that suggests that WCAG 2 is less strict than WCAG1 - which might imply less accessibility.
| JackP wrote: |
| Nor in fact did I really set out to achieve it in WCAG 2.0; it was more that I was evaluating WCAG 2.0, thought it would be a useful exercise to test my site against it and found I made the grade. I'm aware that I've put myself up here to be shot down, but that's deliberate: I've done it not because I want to try and claim kudos for WCAG 2.0 AAA but because I wanted to give people the opportunity to investigate, to try and shoot me down and hopefully to stimulate debate about WCAG 2.0. |
Bang!
| JackP wrote: |
In answer to your question, I believe I would have achieved WCAG 1.0 AA (although like everyone there's been occassional mishaps causing invalid pages). As for failing to achieve WCAG 1.0 AAA, well I:
|
Fair enough - none of those seem that important, except, I could argue, 13.7, but that depends on the nature of the site concerned.
[other points noted]
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
Birmingham, England
Share:
| pigsonthewing wrote: | ||
|
| pigsonthewing wrote: |
| Bang! |
It's a serious point you make though: as has been noted, WCAG 2.0 doesn't ask for the same things as WCAG 1.0. While I would argue this doesn't necessarily make it less accessible-friendly (as you can add new criteria as well as dropping old ones, change priorities and so on), I think you're right to suggest that at the moment someone adhering to WCAG 2.0 at a given conformance level may well be less accessible than someone adhering to WCAG 1.0 at the equivalent level.
Devil's Apricot Moment
Also, my site fails some WCAG 2.0 Level 3 criteria: for example I don't achieve a 10:1 luminosity contrast for all text/background colours. In this case the very nature of WCAG 2.0 AAA compliance is less stringent than the WCAG 1.0 equivalent, but if I only had to achieve half the WCAG 1.0 Priority 3 criteria to get a Triple-A pass in WCAG 1.0, I might achieve that too (I've not counted up, so I don't know, but I certainly achieve some of them). If that's the case it could be said that it's not the criteria themselves that are less stringent, but the fact you only need to meet half of them at level 3 that's the difference.
end moment
Of course, like I've said before, I do think the success criteria are less stringent, but they don't necessarily have to be.
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
There's also the point that WCAG 1.0 may have been impractically over-stringent in some regards? Also, it maybe contains some checkpoints which don't apply now because user agents and assisstive technologies have moved on?
Share:
| JackP wrote: |
| Devil's Apricot Moment
Also, my site fails some WCAG 2.0 Level 3 criteria: for example I don't achieve a 10:1 luminosity contrast for all text/background colours. In this case the very nature of WCAG 2.0 AAA compliance is less stringent than the WCAG 1.0 equivalent, but if I only had to achieve half the WCAG 1.0 Priority 3 criteria to get a Triple-A pass in WCAG 1.0, I might achieve that too (I've not counted up, so I don't know, but I certainly achieve some of them). If that's the case it could be said that it's not the criteria themselves that are less stringent, but the fact you only need to meet half of them at level 3 that's the difference. end moment |
Allow me to pick up the moment and run with it.
Submitting an empty comment on your site, or an erroneous comment, leads to a doctype-less, plain text message with no navigation, styling or mark-up. Is this acceptable under WCAG 2.0?
(And yes, I know this is default Wordpress behaviour.)
Dan Champion, Champion IS, Mooch Marketing, Revish
Share:
| danchamp wrote: |
| Submitting an empty comment on your site, or an erroneous comment, leads to a doctype-less, plain text message with no navigation, styling or mark-up. Is this acceptable under WCAG 2.0?
(And yes, I know this is default Wordpress behaviour.) |
It wouldn't be acceptable under WCAG 2.0, no, which is why I exclude them from my conformance claim:
| Quote: |
| This conformance claim is made for all pages on this website except those accessed through the Projects section —which includes archive material that was designed to comply with WCAG 1.0 level AA, and may also include various test cases — and any error messages made when posting |
Now you could, like Joe Clark, see this ability to exclude part of your sites from a conformance claim as a weakness in WCAG 2.0. I'd agree, kinda, even though you could quite happily also exclude stuff under WCAG 1.0:
| WCAG 1 wrote: |
| Claims of conformance to this document must use one of the following two forms.
Form 1: Specify: The guidelines title: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" The guidelines URI: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505 The conformance level satisfied: "A", "Double-A", or "Triple-A". The scope covered by the claim (e.g., page, site, or defined portion of a site.). |
So, despite me thinking it was, and Joe hinting that it was, this scoping part is not new to WCAG 2.0.
So after all that waffle, I'd say:
1) those error posts don't conform to WCAG 2.0
2) that doesn't invalidate my claim as I exclude them anyway*
3) this is no different from how it would be handled under wcag 1
*although I'd be delighted for wordpress to fix this behaviour
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
| JackP wrote: |
| Now you could, like Joe Clark, see this ability to exclude part of your sites from a conformance claim as a weakness in WCAG 2.0. I'd agree, kinda, even though you could quite happily also exclude stuff under WCAG 1.0 |
That's what I thought, and personally I think it's a weakness in WCAG 1.0 and 2.0.
The ability to exclude critical functions like interaction error messages is a big problem IMHO. In effect the W3C are saying that you can opt out of the hard-to-do bits, which isn't right.
Dan Champion, Champion IS, Mooch Marketing, Revish
Share:
Yes; the legislation and/or mandatory requirements (such as for local government sites) should be explicitly clear that the entire site is expected to comply. Alternatively, I think it's perfectly reasonable for developers to have a test-case area of their site where they are playing with things which may not be compliant. It's really up to the individual legislation of countries to enforce this though, because without that neither WCAG 1.0 or 2.0 have any enforceable bite anyway.
Similarly, you might wish to say that some parts of your site (i.e. the newer bits) are compliant with a higher conformance level (or with WCAG 2 rather than 1), so I don't think scoping is necessarily a bad thing provided it's not used in an "cop out" manner, as Joe Clark suggests:
| Joe Clark wrote: |
| You’ll be able to define entire directories of your site as off-limits to accessibility (including, in WCAG 2’s own example, all your freestanding videos). |
Of course, unless you specifically ban it, people will use it to cop out. I'm admitting I've copped out here by not rewriting the wordpress error posts, but the purpose of the exercise here was to test WCAG 2.0 compliance. (Maybe I will re-write them as I learn more PHP? Heh. If I knew enough I'd look at rewriting them to use the template and offer the pages back to WP, but I think I'm some way off that).
I do also ask that if anyone encounters a problem to let me know, so if it genuinely causes accessibility problems for any of my visitors, I'll do my best to try and fix it.
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
Hi Jack
Just noticed this thread.
In
http://www.thepickards.co.uk/index.php/accessibility/
you have the line:
<img src="http://www.thepickards.co.uk/wp-content/themes/seabeast/images/sb_accesspatch.gif" width="1" height="1" alt="Blog Home Link" /></a></strong>
This infringes:
11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when supported. [Priority 2]
as you are using the proprietary GIF format rather than the W3C PNG format.
This may be a draft requirement (I think it is) but you say that you've fully complied with the guidelines.
It would be possible to use "appropriate for a task" as an escape clause - but I would argue that PNG is available and appropriate for the task.
Brian
Brian Kelly
UKOLN
University of Bath
BATH
UK
BA2 7AY
Share:
IIRC, you can get basic transparency (not alpha-mapped) using 8-bit PNG and this is well supported. Alternatively, if the background colour isn't going to change you could remove any transparency and use that. This would allow anti-aliasing to be done to the edges, which isn't possible when simple transparency is used.
If you aren't using transparency in this image then it should be a simple change. I hadn't thought of this checkpoint as applying to image formats before, but I suppose it could do.
Share:
Good site just one issue... The "Read" gif's can not be enlarged enough for my colleague at Uni to read. If he uses IE7 Zoom it "pixelates" (is that actually a word?).Johan De Silva / Portfolio
Share:
[ot]Better not mention PNG versus GIF to Joe Clark, let us just say I wound him up about two weeks ago about suggesting the merits of PNG.[/ot]
I'd agree you should nearly always user PNG over GIF even though the main patents on GIF have expired. Theoretically you could also add annotation to a PNG image though few programs support that.
};-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/
WVYFC chose the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as the main charity to fund raise for in 2006
Share: