You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> on 2014/01/10 02:38:49 UTC
Web accessibility guidelines -- which ones?
I've started taking a look at our website from the perspective of
accessibility. Since the website is mainly human-authored HTML, with
many authors over several years, we'll need to check individual pages
for problems. I was going to focus on the top 50 or so pages, which
account for the vast majority of website visits.
I found a number of scanning tools, both web-based and standalone,
that looked good. However, there was a confusing (to me) number of
authorities for accessibility standards. For example, one tool (Total
Validator) offered to check against the following 6 guidelines:
US Section 508
WCAG v1 A
WCAG v1 AA
WCAG 2.0 A
WCAG 2.0 AA
WCAG 2.0 AAA
Does anyone have a good sense for which one is the most
useful/appropriate for our website?
Regards,
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Web accessibility guidelines -- which ones?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Christophe Strobbe
<st...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree that WCAG 2.0 is the way to go; the current Section 508 is still
> based on a pre-final version of WCAG 1.0 and will hopefully get updated by
> the end of the year.
> I wouldn't aim higher than WCAG 2.0 AA; even WCAG 2.0 A may be a challenge
> at the start.
> With regard to tools, I currently don't know what to recommend because I
> haven't evaluated any such tools recently. WebAIM's WAVE
> <http://wave.webaim.org/> (and the Firefox toolbar
> <http://wave.webaim.org/toolbar/>) and the IDRC's AChecker
> <http://achecker.ca/checker/index.php> were developed by competent teams.
> I don't know who's behind Total Validator (meaning: I don't know the
> developers).
>
Thanks. I'll take a look at the other tools as well. The thing I
liked about Total Validator is it integrates HTML validation, CSS
validation, accessibility checking and spell checking in a single
tool. I'm seeing errors in all of these areas (though spelling
errors are most usually US versus UK inconsistencies), so it would be
good to fix them all at once.
Regards,
-Rpb
> Best regards,
>
> Christophe
>
> Am Fr, 10.01.2014, 04:35 schrieb V Stuart Foote:
>> Rob, *,
>>
>>>... However, there was a confusing (to me) number of
>>>authorities for accessibility standards.
>>
>> It is really pretty simple--WCAG 2.0 is the gold standard for Web content,
>> and is applicable to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies
>> (ICT). National and International Standards bodies are basing conformance
>> against this standard.
>>
>> WCAG 2.0 A, AA, AAA ( also published as ISO/IEC 40500:2012 ) are
>> functional levels of conformance with accessibility standards.
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag
>>
>> The reworked AOO Website should probably meet majority of WCAG v2.0 AA
>> level requirements. And Apache OpenOffice as a document preparation and
>> review program should also strive to meet WCAG level A & AA conformance
>> criteria for ICT (http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ ).
>>
>> Fortunately much of that is accomplished for the website with valid HTML
>> 5.0 and WAI-ARIA markup. While the introduction of IAccessible2 to
>> supplement MSAA, and improvements in ATK and NSAccessibility move the
>> office suite proper into a better compliance with some notable
>> shortcommings.
>>
>> In the United States, the existing Accessibility Board US Section 508
>> requirements were loosely equivalent to WCAG v1, and are being rewritten
>> to match functional levels of WCAG 2.0 A & AA. The draft proposal for
>> U.S. conformance can be found here:
>>
>> http://www.access-board.gov/attachments/article/490/draft-rule.pdf
>>
>> Also, relevant parts of the European Union EN 301 549 (
>> http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/01.00.00_20/en_301549v010000c.pdf
>> ) as work of the European Commision (EC) Mandate M 376 (
>> http://www.mandate376.eu/ ) are also based on WCAG v2.0 level A and AA.
>>
>> So running conformance validators for WCAG 2.0 A, AA, & AAA is probably
>> the correct choice in reworking the web site.
>>
>> Stuart
>
>
> --
> Christophe Strobbe
> Akademischer Mitarbeiter
> Adaptive User Interfaces Research Group
> Hochschule der Medien
> Nobelstraße 10
> 70569 Stuttgart
> Tel. +49 711 8923 2749
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Web accessibility guidelines -- which ones?
Posted by Christophe Strobbe <st...@hdm-stuttgart.de>.
Hi,
I agree that WCAG 2.0 is the way to go; the current Section 508 is still
based on a pre-final version of WCAG 1.0 and will hopefully get updated by
the end of the year.
I wouldn't aim higher than WCAG 2.0 AA; even WCAG 2.0 A may be a challenge
at the start.
With regard to tools, I currently don't know what to recommend because I
haven't evaluated any such tools recently. WebAIM's WAVE
<http://wave.webaim.org/> (and the Firefox toolbar
<http://wave.webaim.org/toolbar/>) and the IDRC's AChecker
<http://achecker.ca/checker/index.php> were developed by competent teams.
I don't know who's behind Total Validator (meaning: I don't know the
developers).
Best regards,
Christophe
Am Fr, 10.01.2014, 04:35 schrieb V Stuart Foote:
> Rob, *,
>
>>... However, there was a confusing (to me) number of
>>authorities for accessibility standards.
>
> It is really pretty simple--WCAG 2.0 is the gold standard for Web content,
> and is applicable to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies
> (ICT). National and International Standards bodies are basing conformance
> against this standard.
>
> WCAG 2.0 A, AA, AAA ( also published as ISO/IEC 40500:2012 ) are
> functional levels of conformance with accessibility standards.
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag
>
> The reworked AOO Website should probably meet majority of WCAG v2.0 AA
> level requirements. And Apache OpenOffice as a document preparation and
> review program should also strive to meet WCAG level A & AA conformance
> criteria for ICT (http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ ).
>
> Fortunately much of that is accomplished for the website with valid HTML
> 5.0 and WAI-ARIA markup. While the introduction of IAccessible2 to
> supplement MSAA, and improvements in ATK and NSAccessibility move the
> office suite proper into a better compliance with some notable
> shortcommings.
>
> In the United States, the existing Accessibility Board US Section 508
> requirements were loosely equivalent to WCAG v1, and are being rewritten
> to match functional levels of WCAG 2.0 A & AA. The draft proposal for
> U.S. conformance can be found here:
>
> http://www.access-board.gov/attachments/article/490/draft-rule.pdf
>
> Also, relevant parts of the European Union EN 301 549 (
> http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/01.00.00_20/en_301549v010000c.pdf
> ) as work of the European Commision (EC) Mandate M 376 (
> http://www.mandate376.eu/ ) are also based on WCAG v2.0 level A and AA.
>
> So running conformance validators for WCAG 2.0 A, AA, & AAA is probably
> the correct choice in reworking the web site.
>
> Stuart
--
Christophe Strobbe
Akademischer Mitarbeiter
Adaptive User Interfaces Research Group
Hochschule der Medien
Nobelstraße 10
70569 Stuttgart
Tel. +49 711 8923 2749
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Web accessibility guidelines -- which ones?
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
_____________________________________________________________
“Cats seem to go on the principle that it never does any harm
to ask for what you want."
-- Joseph Wood Crutch
On Jan 10, 2014 7:19 AM, "Christophe Strobbe" <st...@hdm-stuttgart.de>
wrote:
>
> Hi Rob, All,
>
> Level AA also encompasses all of level A, and level AAA encompasses all of
> level AA. So if a tool has radio buttons for the three levels, choosing AA
> should result in a check of all level A and all level AA criteria. Of
> course, such checks only cover aspects that can be checked automatically
> (which is definitely less than half of WCAG).
>
> Please note that level AAA is a very high level. For example, it requires
> that content should be made readable for people whose reading ability is
> at "lower secondary education level"
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#meaning-supplements>.
> Because of requirements like this one, AAA is not applicable or suitable
> to all web sites (e.g. academic journals).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Christophe
>
>
> Am Fr, 10.01.2014, 15:48 schrieb Rob Weir:
> > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:35 PM, V Stuart Foote <VS...@utsa.edu>
> > wrote:
> >> Rob, *,
> >>
> >>>... However, there was a confusing (to me) number of
> >>>authorities for accessibility standards.
> >>
> >> It is really pretty simple--WCAG 2.0 is the gold standard for Web
> >> content, and is applicable to Non-Web Information and Communications
> >> Technologies (ICT). National and International Standards bodies are
> >> basing conformance against this standard.
> >>
> >> WCAG 2.0 A, AA, AAA ( also published as ISO/IEC 40500:2012 ) are
> >> functional levels of conformance with accessibility standards.
> >> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag
> >>
> >> The reworked AOO Website should probably meet majority of WCAG v2.0 AA
> >> level requirements. And Apache OpenOffice as a document preparation and
> >> review program should also strive to meet WCAG level A & AA conformance
> >> criteria for ICT (http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ ).
> >>
> >> Fortunately much of that is accomplished for the website with valid
HTML
> >> 5.0 and WAI-ARIA markup. While the introduction of IAccessible2 to
> >> supplement MSAA, and improvements in ATK and NSAccessibility move the
> >> office suite proper into a better compliance with some notable
> >> shortcommings.
> >>
> >> In the United States, the existing Accessibility Board US Section 508
> >> requirements were loosely equivalent to WCAG v1, and are being
rewritten
> >> to match functional levels of WCAG 2.0 A & AA. The draft proposal for
> >> U.S. conformance can be found here:
> >>
> >> http://www.access-board.gov/attachments/article/490/draft-rule.pdf
> >>
> >> Also, relevant parts of the European Union EN 301 549 (
> >>
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/01.00.00_20/en_301549v010000c.pdf
> >> ) as work of the European Commision (EC) Mandate M 376 (
> >> http://www.mandate376.eu/ ) are also based on WCAG v2.0 level A and AA.
> >>
> >> So running conformance validators for WCAG 2.0 A, AA, & AAA is probably
> >> the correct choice in reworking the web site.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for the explanation,
> >
> > One question: would we need to run against each of the profiles, or
> > AAA include AA and A automatically? In other words, is AA a superset
> > of A, and AAA a superset of AA? Or are they more like incremental
> > rule sets, that need to be applied in addition to the base rule sets?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Rob
It's been quite a while since I did any work like this -- for Section 508
validation and appropriate changes -- but I liked the stand alone tools
best due to their bulk efficiency. I don't know what's available now,
however.
And, good to get some information about international standards.
Hopefully, the tools will address this requirement also.
> >
> >
> >> Stuart
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Christophe Strobbe
> Akademischer Mitarbeiter
> Adaptive User Interfaces Research Group
> Hochschule der Medien
> Nobelstraße 10
> 70569 Stuttgart
> Tel. +49 711 8923 2749
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: Web accessibility guidelines -- which ones?
Posted by Christophe Strobbe <st...@hdm-stuttgart.de>.
Hi Rob, All,
Level AA also encompasses all of level A, and level AAA encompasses all of
level AA. So if a tool has radio buttons for the three levels, choosing AA
should result in a check of all level A and all level AA criteria. Of
course, such checks only cover aspects that can be checked automatically
(which is definitely less than half of WCAG).
Please note that level AAA is a very high level. For example, it requires
that content should be made readable for people whose reading ability is
at "lower secondary education level"
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#meaning-supplements>.
Because of requirements like this one, AAA is not applicable or suitable
to all web sites (e.g. academic journals).
Best regards,
Christophe
Am Fr, 10.01.2014, 15:48 schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:35 PM, V Stuart Foote <VS...@utsa.edu>
> wrote:
>> Rob, *,
>>
>>>... However, there was a confusing (to me) number of
>>>authorities for accessibility standards.
>>
>> It is really pretty simple--WCAG 2.0 is the gold standard for Web
>> content, and is applicable to Non-Web Information and Communications
>> Technologies (ICT). National and International Standards bodies are
>> basing conformance against this standard.
>>
>> WCAG 2.0 A, AA, AAA ( also published as ISO/IEC 40500:2012 ) are
>> functional levels of conformance with accessibility standards.
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag
>>
>> The reworked AOO Website should probably meet majority of WCAG v2.0 AA
>> level requirements. And Apache OpenOffice as a document preparation and
>> review program should also strive to meet WCAG level A & AA conformance
>> criteria for ICT (http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ ).
>>
>> Fortunately much of that is accomplished for the website with valid HTML
>> 5.0 and WAI-ARIA markup. While the introduction of IAccessible2 to
>> supplement MSAA, and improvements in ATK and NSAccessibility move the
>> office suite proper into a better compliance with some notable
>> shortcommings.
>>
>> In the United States, the existing Accessibility Board US Section 508
>> requirements were loosely equivalent to WCAG v1, and are being rewritten
>> to match functional levels of WCAG 2.0 A & AA. The draft proposal for
>> U.S. conformance can be found here:
>>
>> http://www.access-board.gov/attachments/article/490/draft-rule.pdf
>>
>> Also, relevant parts of the European Union EN 301 549 (
>> http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/01.00.00_20/en_301549v010000c.pdf
>> ) as work of the European Commision (EC) Mandate M 376 (
>> http://www.mandate376.eu/ ) are also based on WCAG v2.0 level A and AA.
>>
>> So running conformance validators for WCAG 2.0 A, AA, & AAA is probably
>> the correct choice in reworking the web site.
>>
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> One question: would we need to run against each of the profiles, or
> AAA include AA and A automatically? In other words, is AA a superset
> of A, and AAA a superset of AA? Or are they more like incremental
> rule sets, that need to be applied in addition to the base rule sets?
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> Stuart
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
Christophe Strobbe
Akademischer Mitarbeiter
Adaptive User Interfaces Research Group
Hochschule der Medien
Nobelstraße 10
70569 Stuttgart
Tel. +49 711 8923 2749
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Web accessibility guidelines -- which ones?
Posted by Christophe Strobbe <st...@hdm-stuttgart.de>.
Hi Rob, All,
Level AA also encompasses all of level A, and level AAA encompasses all of
level AA. So if a tool has radio buttons for the three levels, choosing AA
should result in a check of all level A and all level AA criteria. Of
course, such checks only cover aspects that can be checked automatically
(which is definitely less than half of WCAG).
Please note that level AAA is a very high level. For example, it requires
that content should be made readable for people whose reading ability is
at "lower secondary education level"
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#meaning-supplements>.
Because of requirements like this one, AAA is not applicable or suitable
to all web sites (e.g. academic journals).
Best regards,
Christophe
Am Fr, 10.01.2014, 15:48 schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:35 PM, V Stuart Foote <VS...@utsa.edu>
> wrote:
>> Rob, *,
>>
>>>... However, there was a confusing (to me) number of
>>>authorities for accessibility standards.
>>
>> It is really pretty simple--WCAG 2.0 is the gold standard for Web
>> content, and is applicable to Non-Web Information and Communications
>> Technologies (ICT). National and International Standards bodies are
>> basing conformance against this standard.
>>
>> WCAG 2.0 A, AA, AAA ( also published as ISO/IEC 40500:2012 ) are
>> functional levels of conformance with accessibility standards.
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag
>>
>> The reworked AOO Website should probably meet majority of WCAG v2.0 AA
>> level requirements. And Apache OpenOffice as a document preparation and
>> review program should also strive to meet WCAG level A & AA conformance
>> criteria for ICT (http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ ).
>>
>> Fortunately much of that is accomplished for the website with valid HTML
>> 5.0 and WAI-ARIA markup. While the introduction of IAccessible2 to
>> supplement MSAA, and improvements in ATK and NSAccessibility move the
>> office suite proper into a better compliance with some notable
>> shortcommings.
>>
>> In the United States, the existing Accessibility Board US Section 508
>> requirements were loosely equivalent to WCAG v1, and are being rewritten
>> to match functional levels of WCAG 2.0 A & AA. The draft proposal for
>> U.S. conformance can be found here:
>>
>> http://www.access-board.gov/attachments/article/490/draft-rule.pdf
>>
>> Also, relevant parts of the European Union EN 301 549 (
>> http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/01.00.00_20/en_301549v010000c.pdf
>> ) as work of the European Commision (EC) Mandate M 376 (
>> http://www.mandate376.eu/ ) are also based on WCAG v2.0 level A and AA.
>>
>> So running conformance validators for WCAG 2.0 A, AA, & AAA is probably
>> the correct choice in reworking the web site.
>>
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> One question: would we need to run against each of the profiles, or
> AAA include AA and A automatically? In other words, is AA a superset
> of A, and AAA a superset of AA? Or are they more like incremental
> rule sets, that need to be applied in addition to the base rule sets?
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> Stuart
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
Christophe Strobbe
Akademischer Mitarbeiter
Adaptive User Interfaces Research Group
Hochschule der Medien
Nobelstraße 10
70569 Stuttgart
Tel. +49 711 8923 2749
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Web accessibility guidelines -- which ones?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:35 PM, V Stuart Foote <VS...@utsa.edu> wrote:
> Rob, *,
>
>>... However, there was a confusing (to me) number of
>>authorities for accessibility standards.
>
> It is really pretty simple--WCAG 2.0 is the gold standard for Web content, and is applicable to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (ICT). National and International Standards bodies are basing conformance against this standard.
>
> WCAG 2.0 A, AA, AAA ( also published as ISO/IEC 40500:2012 ) are functional levels of conformance with accessibility standards. http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag
>
> The reworked AOO Website should probably meet majority of WCAG v2.0 AA level requirements. And Apache OpenOffice as a document preparation and review program should also strive to meet WCAG level A & AA conformance criteria for ICT (http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ ).
>
> Fortunately much of that is accomplished for the website with valid HTML 5.0 and WAI-ARIA markup. While the introduction of IAccessible2 to supplement MSAA, and improvements in ATK and NSAccessibility move the office suite proper into a better compliance with some notable shortcommings.
>
> In the United States, the existing Accessibility Board US Section 508 requirements were loosely equivalent to WCAG v1, and are being rewritten to match functional levels of WCAG 2.0 A & AA. The draft proposal for U.S. conformance can be found here:
>
> http://www.access-board.gov/attachments/article/490/draft-rule.pdf
>
> Also, relevant parts of the European Union EN 301 549 ( http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/01.00.00_20/en_301549v010000c.pdf ) as work of the European Commision (EC) Mandate M 376 ( http://www.mandate376.eu/ ) are also based on WCAG v2.0 level A and AA.
>
> So running conformance validators for WCAG 2.0 A, AA, & AAA is probably the correct choice in reworking the web site.
>
Thanks for the explanation.
One question: would we need to run against each of the profiles, or
AAA include AA and A automatically? In other words, is AA a superset
of A, and AAA a superset of AA? Or are they more like incremental
rule sets, that need to be applied in addition to the base rule sets?
Regards,
-Rob
> Stuart
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Web accessibility guidelines -- which ones?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:35 PM, V Stuart Foote <VS...@utsa.edu> wrote:
> Rob, *,
>
>>... However, there was a confusing (to me) number of
>>authorities for accessibility standards.
>
> It is really pretty simple--WCAG 2.0 is the gold standard for Web content, and is applicable to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (ICT). National and International Standards bodies are basing conformance against this standard.
>
> WCAG 2.0 A, AA, AAA ( also published as ISO/IEC 40500:2012 ) are functional levels of conformance with accessibility standards. http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag
>
> The reworked AOO Website should probably meet majority of WCAG v2.0 AA level requirements. And Apache OpenOffice as a document preparation and review program should also strive to meet WCAG level A & AA conformance criteria for ICT (http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ ).
>
> Fortunately much of that is accomplished for the website with valid HTML 5.0 and WAI-ARIA markup. While the introduction of IAccessible2 to supplement MSAA, and improvements in ATK and NSAccessibility move the office suite proper into a better compliance with some notable shortcommings.
>
> In the United States, the existing Accessibility Board US Section 508 requirements were loosely equivalent to WCAG v1, and are being rewritten to match functional levels of WCAG 2.0 A & AA. The draft proposal for U.S. conformance can be found here:
>
> http://www.access-board.gov/attachments/article/490/draft-rule.pdf
>
> Also, relevant parts of the European Union EN 301 549 ( http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/01.00.00_20/en_301549v010000c.pdf ) as work of the European Commision (EC) Mandate M 376 ( http://www.mandate376.eu/ ) are also based on WCAG v2.0 level A and AA.
>
> So running conformance validators for WCAG 2.0 A, AA, & AAA is probably the correct choice in reworking the web site.
>
Thanks for the explanation.
One question: would we need to run against each of the profiles, or
AAA include AA and A automatically? In other words, is AA a superset
of A, and AAA a superset of AA? Or are they more like incremental
rule sets, that need to be applied in addition to the base rule sets?
Regards,
-Rob
> Stuart
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Web accessibility guidelines -- which ones?
Posted by Christophe Strobbe <st...@hdm-stuttgart.de>.
Hi,
I agree that WCAG 2.0 is the way to go; the current Section 508 is still
based on a pre-final version of WCAG 1.0 and will hopefully get updated by
the end of the year.
I wouldn't aim higher than WCAG 2.0 AA; even WCAG 2.0 A may be a challenge
at the start.
With regard to tools, I currently don't know what to recommend because I
haven't evaluated any such tools recently. WebAIM's WAVE
<http://wave.webaim.org/> (and the Firefox toolbar
<http://wave.webaim.org/toolbar/>) and the IDRC's AChecker
<http://achecker.ca/checker/index.php> were developed by competent teams.
I don't know who's behind Total Validator (meaning: I don't know the
developers).
Best regards,
Christophe
Am Fr, 10.01.2014, 04:35 schrieb V Stuart Foote:
> Rob, *,
>
>>... However, there was a confusing (to me) number of
>>authorities for accessibility standards.
>
> It is really pretty simple--WCAG 2.0 is the gold standard for Web content,
> and is applicable to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies
> (ICT). National and International Standards bodies are basing conformance
> against this standard.
>
> WCAG 2.0 A, AA, AAA ( also published as ISO/IEC 40500:2012 ) are
> functional levels of conformance with accessibility standards.
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag
>
> The reworked AOO Website should probably meet majority of WCAG v2.0 AA
> level requirements. And Apache OpenOffice as a document preparation and
> review program should also strive to meet WCAG level A & AA conformance
> criteria for ICT (http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ ).
>
> Fortunately much of that is accomplished for the website with valid HTML
> 5.0 and WAI-ARIA markup. While the introduction of IAccessible2 to
> supplement MSAA, and improvements in ATK and NSAccessibility move the
> office suite proper into a better compliance with some notable
> shortcommings.
>
> In the United States, the existing Accessibility Board US Section 508
> requirements were loosely equivalent to WCAG v1, and are being rewritten
> to match functional levels of WCAG 2.0 A & AA. The draft proposal for
> U.S. conformance can be found here:
>
> http://www.access-board.gov/attachments/article/490/draft-rule.pdf
>
> Also, relevant parts of the European Union EN 301 549 (
> http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/01.00.00_20/en_301549v010000c.pdf
> ) as work of the European Commision (EC) Mandate M 376 (
> http://www.mandate376.eu/ ) are also based on WCAG v2.0 level A and AA.
>
> So running conformance validators for WCAG 2.0 A, AA, & AAA is probably
> the correct choice in reworking the web site.
>
> Stuart
--
Christophe Strobbe
Akademischer Mitarbeiter
Adaptive User Interfaces Research Group
Hochschule der Medien
Nobelstraße 10
70569 Stuttgart
Tel. +49 711 8923 2749
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Web accessibility guidelines -- which ones?
Posted by Tyler Kavanaugh <tw...@kc.rr.com>.
Hi Stuart,
Thanks for your much more extensive treatment of the subject. I had
thought only S508 would be sufficient, but I now stand corrected.
-Tyler
On 1/9/2014 9:35 PM, V Stuart Foote wrote:
> Rob, *,
>
>> ... However, there was a confusing (to me) number of
>> authorities for accessibility standards.
>
> It is really pretty simple--WCAG 2.0 is the gold standard for Web content, and is applicable to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (ICT). National and International Standards bodies are basing conformance against this standard.
>
> WCAG 2.0 A, AA, AAA ( also published as ISO/IEC 40500:2012 ) are functional levels of conformance with accessibility standards. http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag
>
> The reworked AOO Website should probably meet majority of WCAG v2.0 AA level requirements. And Apache OpenOffice as a document preparation and review program should also strive to meet WCAG level A & AA conformance criteria for ICT (http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ ).
>
> Fortunately much of that is accomplished for the website with valid HTML 5.0 and WAI-ARIA markup. While the introduction of IAccessible2 to supplement MSAA, and improvements in ATK and NSAccessibility move the office suite proper into a better compliance with some notable shortcommings.
>
> In the United States, the existing Accessibility Board US Section 508 requirements were loosely equivalent to WCAG v1, and are being rewritten to match functional levels of WCAG 2.0 A & AA. The draft proposal for U.S. conformance can be found here:
>
> http://www.access-board.gov/attachments/article/490/draft-rule.pdf
>
> Also, relevant parts of the European Union EN 301 549 ( http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/01.00.00_20/en_301549v010000c.pdf ) as work of the European Commision (EC) Mandate M 376 ( http://www.mandate376.eu/ ) are also based on WCAG v2.0 level A and AA.
>
> So running conformance validators for WCAG 2.0 A, AA, & AAA is probably the correct choice in reworking the web site.
>
> Stuart
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Web accessibility guidelines -- which ones?
Posted by V Stuart Foote <VS...@utsa.edu>.
Rob, *,
>... However, there was a confusing (to me) number of
>authorities for accessibility standards.
It is really pretty simple--WCAG 2.0 is the gold standard for Web content, and is applicable to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (ICT). National and International Standards bodies are basing conformance against this standard.
WCAG 2.0 A, AA, AAA ( also published as ISO/IEC 40500:2012 ) are functional levels of conformance with accessibility standards. http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag
The reworked AOO Website should probably meet majority of WCAG v2.0 AA level requirements. And Apache OpenOffice as a document preparation and review program should also strive to meet WCAG level A & AA conformance criteria for ICT (http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ ).
Fortunately much of that is accomplished for the website with valid HTML 5.0 and WAI-ARIA markup. While the introduction of IAccessible2 to supplement MSAA, and improvements in ATK and NSAccessibility move the office suite proper into a better compliance with some notable shortcommings.
In the United States, the existing Accessibility Board US Section 508 requirements were loosely equivalent to WCAG v1, and are being rewritten to match functional levels of WCAG 2.0 A & AA. The draft proposal for U.S. conformance can be found here:
http://www.access-board.gov/attachments/article/490/draft-rule.pdf
Also, relevant parts of the European Union EN 301 549 ( http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/01.00.00_20/en_301549v010000c.pdf ) as work of the European Commision (EC) Mandate M 376 ( http://www.mandate376.eu/ ) are also based on WCAG v2.0 level A and AA.
So running conformance validators for WCAG 2.0 A, AA, & AAA is probably the correct choice in reworking the web site.
Stuart
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Web accessibility guidelines -- which ones?
Posted by V Stuart Foote <VS...@utsa.edu>.
Rob, *,
>... However, there was a confusing (to me) number of
>authorities for accessibility standards.
It is really pretty simple--WCAG 2.0 is the gold standard for Web content, and is applicable to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (ICT). National and International Standards bodies are basing conformance against this standard.
WCAG 2.0 A, AA, AAA ( also published as ISO/IEC 40500:2012 ) are functional levels of conformance with accessibility standards. http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag
The reworked AOO Website should probably meet majority of WCAG v2.0 AA level requirements. And Apache OpenOffice as a document preparation and review program should also strive to meet WCAG level A & AA conformance criteria for ICT (http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ ).
Fortunately much of that is accomplished for the website with valid HTML 5.0 and WAI-ARIA markup. While the introduction of IAccessible2 to supplement MSAA, and improvements in ATK and NSAccessibility move the office suite proper into a better compliance with some notable shortcommings.
In the United States, the existing Accessibility Board US Section 508 requirements were loosely equivalent to WCAG v1, and are being rewritten to match functional levels of WCAG 2.0 A & AA. The draft proposal for U.S. conformance can be found here:
http://www.access-board.gov/attachments/article/490/draft-rule.pdf
Also, relevant parts of the European Union EN 301 549 ( http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/01.00.00_20/en_301549v010000c.pdf ) as work of the European Commision (EC) Mandate M 376 ( http://www.mandate376.eu/ ) are also based on WCAG v2.0 level A and AA.
So running conformance validators for WCAG 2.0 A, AA, & AAA is probably the correct choice in reworking the web site.
Stuart
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Web accessibility guidelines -- which ones?
Posted by Tyler Kavanaugh <tw...@kc.rr.com>.
On 1/9/2014 7:38 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> I've started taking a look at our website from the perspective of
> accessibility.
I appreciate this, Rob. Great start, now that the product is
implementing more accessibility interfaces and tools.
> Since the website is mainly human-authored HTML, with
> many authors over several years, we'll need to check individual pages
> for problems. I was going to focus on the top 50 or so pages, which
> account for the vast majority of website visits.
>
> I found a number of scanning tools, both web-based and standalone,
> that looked good. However, there was a confusing (to me) number of
> authorities for accessibility standards. For example, one tool (Total
> Validator) offered to check against the following 6 guidelines:
>
> US Section 508
> WCAG v1 A
> WCAG v1 AA
> WCAG 2.0 A
> WCAG 2.0 AA
> WCAG 2.0 AAA
>
> Does anyone have a good sense for which one is the most
> useful/appropriate for our website?
Given that the website, to my knowledge, does not have much in the way
of multimedia (Flash animations, etc) or dynamic content, US Section 508
is going to be our best bet. The other tools that we use (MWiki and
CWiki) already implement accessibility to at least these standards by
default. TK.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Web accessibility guidelines -- which ones?
Posted by Tyler Kavanaugh <tw...@kc.rr.com>.
On 1/9/2014 7:38 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> I've started taking a look at our website from the perspective of
> accessibility.
I appreciate this, Rob. Great start, now that the product is
implementing more accessibility interfaces and tools.
> Since the website is mainly human-authored HTML, with
> many authors over several years, we'll need to check individual pages
> for problems. I was going to focus on the top 50 or so pages, which
> account for the vast majority of website visits.
>
> I found a number of scanning tools, both web-based and standalone,
> that looked good. However, there was a confusing (to me) number of
> authorities for accessibility standards. For example, one tool (Total
> Validator) offered to check against the following 6 guidelines:
>
> US Section 508
> WCAG v1 A
> WCAG v1 AA
> WCAG 2.0 A
> WCAG 2.0 AA
> WCAG 2.0 AAA
>
> Does anyone have a good sense for which one is the most
> useful/appropriate for our website?
Given that the website, to my knowledge, does not have much in the way
of multimedia (Flash animations, etc) or dynamic content, US Section 508
is going to be our best bet. The other tools that we use (MWiki and
CWiki) already implement accessibility to at least these standards by
default. TK.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org