DDA - the bottom line
Would I be right in thinking that if a site complies to WAI 'A' standard
it meets the minimum requirements of the DDA
Share: 
I'd go along with that thinking 
Share:
Well, it would be an equivalent level in my books obviously part of it would also depend upon the service itself.};-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/
WVYFC chose the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as the main charity to fund raise for in 2006
Share:
It's worth considering how the WAI define the impact of the priorities, and compare that with the requirements of the DDA:
| Quote: |
|
[Priority 1] A Web content developer must satisfy this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it impossible to access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint is a basic requirement for some groups to be able to use Web documents. [Priority 2] A Web content developer should satisfy this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it difficult to access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint will remove significant barriers to accessing Web documents. [Priority 3] A Web content developer may address this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it somewhat difficult to access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint will improve access to Web documents. |
Priority 1 is essential for a site to be considered accessible, but there are a few priority 2 issues that apply to the DDA.
Personally, I would like to see the DDA explicitly recommend that sites aim for level "AA" to be considered accessible.
Share:
In Government we thought we had to meet Priority 2 as per EU guidance but even that guidance isn't specific.
| Quote: |
| "European institutes and member state governments are asked to fulfill priority 1 as well as priority 2 of the W3C/WCAG guidelines.
However, the resolution is not binding. The member states are still free to do whatever they please but the resolution shows everybody the position the European Parliament has taken in this issue. " |
http://www.disabilityworld.org/09-10_02/access/internetaccess.shtml
Share:
it will be fun once WCAG 2.0 hits the street, because that goes off with a completely different system for categorising level of accessibility...so maybe it's not such a bad thing that the law isn't too specific...Patrick H. Lauke / webmaster / University of Salford
co-lead: WaSP Accesibility Task Force
take it to the streets ... WaSP Street Team
personal: splintered | photographia | redux
co-author: Web Accessibility - Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance
Share:
Share:
| najman wrote: | ||
|
!
Patrick H. Lauke / webmaster / University of Salford
co-lead: WaSP Accesibility Task Force
take it to the streets ... WaSP Street Team
personal: splintered | photographia | redux
co-author: Web Accessibility - Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance
Share:
Surely the WCAG 2.0 spec won't be completely different?
... will it?
Share:
Yes it will, it will be more modular.};-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/
WVYFC chose the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as the main charity to fund raise for in 2006
Share:
Do you know when it's coming into effect?
Got any good links on the subject?
Share:
Actually - cancel those last two questions
just put WCAG 2.0 into google and got lots of links
Share:
and for those to tired to search, http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-WCAG20-20030624/Patrick H. Lauke / webmaster / University of Salford
co-lead: WaSP Accesibility Task Force
take it to the streets ... WaSP Street Team
personal: splintered | photographia | redux
co-author: Web Accessibility - Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance
Share:
The government seem to have had a bash at their own checklist - it's an oldie but a goodie... - even mentions WCAG priority 1
http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/Resources/WebHandbookIndex1Article/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4000092&chk=XHiT3L
Share:
Gez wrote:
| Quote: |
| Personally, I would like to see the DDA explicitly recommend that sites aim for level "AA" to be considered accessible. |
I'd agree except that except:
AA standard is set to change in the near future (WCAG 2.0) , plus there are still some nightmare issues such as captioning, that are nearly impossible to implement properly on a tight budget, and issues that don't affect accessibility in a big way, such as tabular layout, which, doesn't neccessarily constitute a barrier to accessibility.
Also it would mean that some priority 3 recommendations such as providing a means to skip navigation, would be left out. Terrible news when you consider the huge list of links that some webmasters still use.
But, if we all had to pick and choose only the checkpoints that we believed were crucial to accessibility, I wonder how different our list of checkpoints would be?
G.
Share: