I want to contract a WCAG compliance and accessibility review on a Persian-language website. Several consultants indicate that they have no experience with right-to-left languages. They also tell me that this isn't necessary to conduct a thorough accessibility review of a right-to-left, Persian-language website.
One consultant has responded, saying that he is not comfortable to do this review. He believes he might miss important accessibility concerns because of the language barrier.
I'm not familiar enough with WCAG to know if experience with right-to-left languages in general, and Persian in particular, is an impediment to conducting a thorough accessibility review. Nor do I seem to be able to find a WCAG and accessibility professional that can help me audit a right-to-left, Persian-language website.
Can anybody shed light on the necessity for experience with Persian and/or right-to-left languages in order to do a thoroughgoing WCAG compliance and accessibility review?
It is essential to understand the website's language to do a good review. Of course, the best option is that the accessibility consultant understands the language. Perhaps, including a professional translator in the project could be a possible solution if you can't find any accessibility consultants familiar with Persian.
Some WCAG criteria that the consultant needs to understand the language to evaluate them:
1.1.1 Non-text content: ALT texts need to be evaluated
All criteria under the 1.2 principle (audio, subtitles, etc.)
2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context): the purpose of the link can be determined
2.4.6 Headings and Labels: evaluates that headings and labels describe the topic or purpose
Other criteria like 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics that evaluates that sensory characteristics are not being used as instructions for understanding or operating content
Regarding what you ask about reading order it is also very important. As in WCAG reading order is mentioned in the criteria and techniques. For example, 2.4.3: Focus Order takes into account the reading order.
Related
I noticed that tutanota and mega.io mentioned "Privacy by design" in their homepages. So, I became curious and found the wikipedia page about Privacy by design, but it seems to be an abstract concept (a collection of principals). However, I was looking for something like - do a and b or implement y and z. For example, mega.io uses Zero Knowledge Encryption (User-Controlled End-to-End Encryption). What other features do a product need to have to be called a "Privacy by Design" service.
By their very nature, abstract principles do not concern themselves with implementation detail. There are many different ways to implement them, and mandating one approach over another is simply out of scope – what matters is the net effect. It's also applicable to non-tech environments, paper records, etc; it's not exclusive to web dev.
Privacy by design (PbD) is a term coined by Ann Cavoukian, an ex-information commissioner in Canada, and it has a collection of principles, as that Wikipedia page describes. PbD is also referenced by GDPR. I've given various talks on privacy and security at tech conferences around the world – you can see one of my slide decks on PbD.
So how do you use them in web development? Take the second principle: "Privacy as the default". This means that if a person using your web app does nothing special, their privacy must preserved. This means, amongst other things, that you should not load any tracking scripts (perhaps even remote content), and not set any cookies that are not strictly necessary. If you do want to track them (and thus break the user's privacy to some extent), then you need to take actual laws into account, such as the EU privacy directive, which is what requires consent for cookies and trackers.
So although the principle itself did not require these measures, it influenced the technical decisions you needed to make in your implementation in order to comply with the spirit of the principle. If that happens, the principle has done its job.
So what you have to do in order to claim privacy by design (though it's not like you get a badge!) is to introspect and consider how these principles apply to your own services, then act on those observations and make sure that the things you design and build conform to the principles. This is a difficult process (especially at first), but there are tools to help you perform "privacy impact assessments" (also part of GDPR) such as the excellent PIA tool by the French information commissioner (CNIL).
If you're thinking about PbD, it's worth looking at two other important lists: the data protection principles that have been the basis of pretty much all European legislation since the 1980s, including GDPR, and the 6 bases for processing in GDPR. If you get your head around these three sets of concerns, you'll have a pretty good background on how you might choose to implement something privacy-preserving, and also a good set of critical guidelines that will help you to spot privacy flaws in products and services. A great example of this is Google Tag Manager; it's a privacy train wreck, but I'll leave it to you to contemplate why!
Minor note: the GDPR links I have provided are not to the official text of GDPR, but a reformatted version that is much easier to use.
I'm working on a website design that needs to meet WCAG 2.0 AA requirements - and I'm not sure how to interpret the contrast ratio requirements:
"1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum): The visual presentation of text and images of text has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1, except for the following"
(reference: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickref/?versions=2.0#qr-visual-audio-contrast-contrast).
Given that most (if not all) operating systems as well as browsers nowadays have contrast enhancement features built-in, what's the rationale for this requirement?
Given that most (if not all) operating systems as well as browsers nowadays have contrast enhancement features built-in, what's the rationale for this requirement?!
People can not always choose which operating system they use, for instance when using an interactive kiosk (public terminal), or won't be able to install such plugins (university computers, mobile phone, ...)
WCAG defines minimum and enhanced contrast ratios. Those are still insufficient for people with important disabilities like glaucoma, LHON, ... Those requirements have to be seen as "minimal" (or enhanced), not "optimal".
Certain people (like elderly people) won't know every shortcut to activate a given accessibility feature.
It should not be necessary for a user who requires enhanced accessibility features to install plugins or alter settings for them to use your website/service. By meeting the WCAG guidelines on contrast (and other things) you can improve the experience for those users in a vanilla browser and operating system.
There are many contrast checkers online which help with this, I use this one. This SO question explains what the different ratings mean very well.
I like to think that when it comes to accessibility it is worth investing time in doing it properly so that more people can use your site or service. Not making your site/service accessible when it is relatively easy to do so is locking these users out. They will shop elsewhere rather than battle with browser/OS settings in order to get your website usable for them.
If it requires user customization of your site just to make it usable, that is a fail on your part.
A side benefit is that for people with nominal eye site, your site will be easier to read and look at for long periods of time if foreground items contrast well with the background. Which is something you probably want, right?
I just found out that there's some countries(UK, CANADA and some more) that actually have a LAW about the web-site accessibility. I was shocked, because one thing when there's some RECOMMENDATIONS and another thing is a LAW, witch means anyone can sue you for not being 'standard'.
I'm interesting in your professional opinion about why is it bad to use LAW based on WCAG 2.0 recommendations to make web-site accessible to disabled people. If you may, please provide a good examples with proper comments. There's not so many people who're fluent in WCAG 2.0 standards.
I found at wikipedia criticism about wcag here what it says:
Criticism of WAI guidelines
There has been criticism of the W3C process, claiming that it does not
sufficiently put the user at the heart of the process.[2] There was a
formal objection to WCAG's original claim that WCAG 2.0 will address
requirements for people with learning disabilities and cognitive
limitations headed by Lisa Seeman and signed by 40 organisations and
people.[3] In articles such as "WCAG 2.0: The new W3C guidelines
evaluated",[4] "To Hell with WCAG 2.0"[5] and "Testability Costs Too
Much",[6] the WAI has been criticised for allowing WCAG 1.0 to get
increasingly out of step with today's technologies and techniques for
creating and consuming web content, for the slow pace of development
of WCAG 2.0, for making the new guidelines difficult to navigate and
understand, and other argued failings.
*I may be wrong, but I think CODE should not be restricted by any law at all. It's a godamn CODE ffs
I think governments should encourage web-site owners(businesses!) to make they sites accessible, but not restrict them to some wcag for example.
Thanks!
I think there is a basic misunderstanding about how the law aspect works, it isn't based on WCAG.
In the UK, most of the EU, Canada and Australia there is no mention of WCAG2 or any particular standard for website accessibility in the law itself.
The law in the UK and in other countries like Australia says (and consider this an extreme paraphrase) that any product or service you provide should not discriminate against people with disabilities.
Whether you rely on a website to be accessible is up to you, you just have to provide your product/service in an accessible way somehow, you could do it on the phone and in a physical place.
NB: Most countries have "advisory notes" that do talk about WCAG, but see those as a means of making things accessible, not the core legal requirment.
Given that the website is generally the easiest way to provide something accessibly, WCAG2 is the most recognised set of guidelines and if you use that and make a "reasonable effort", any legal complaints will be easier to deal with.
Taking the book example (from the comments elsewhere), a paper book may not be accessible to someone who is blind, but the publisher is obliged to either make the digital copy available as an ebook (which can be read out by a computer or other device) or make the content available to services that create audio versions. They don't loose out on sales, and it is not a hardship to provide an accessible version.
There are lots of ways to make products and services available and thanks to the web being created as accessible-by-default, it is a very good channel for that.
Also, WCAG does not say "you have to do it this way or you are not standard", it says things like "All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose". It doesn't define the code you use (although there are obvious ways to acheive that), the guidelines are written so there there a multiple ways of acheiving the aim.
Some people complain about that and think it should be clearer and easier to implement!
Bottom line: If you are paid to make a website, making it accessible is part of a professional job.
Accessibility is not just "code", accessibility is about discrimination.
And fortunately, there are laws to sue people, not for not being standard, but for removing access to people with disabilities.
Is it mandatory in some countries to make all websites accessible?
If so, what would happen if someone in country with this mandate does not make a website accessible?
Can the government remove or block the IP if the site is not accessible?
How could the government know if any website is not accessible? Do they check every single website?
Does only the people/company who make the inaccessible site get any notice from the government?
Why are there so many accessibility guidelines -- WACG 1, WCAG 2.0, DDA, Section 508, etc.? If the whole world follows W3C for XHTML and CSS, then why have some countries made their own guidelines?
Is it mandatory in some countries to make all websites accessible?
Yes, particularly the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia.
This is in order to comply with legislation that prevents discrimination against disabled people. While this is, or can be, seen as a burden I find it helps to think of it as widening your audience, consumer or user-base.
If so, what would happen if someone in country with this mandate does not make a website accessible?
Being a legal requirement means that a court is/will be able to impose sanctions, depending on their interpretation of the local laws, that might involve enforced compliance with the laws, a financial penalty (fines, etc) or some other punishment until compliance is established.
Can the government remove or block the IP if the site is not accessible?
That depends on which government and the specifics written into the laws. It seems unlikely that they would block the website because of non-compliance with accessibility legislation. It seems far more likely, though I am biased because of where I live (the United Kingdom), that reparations would be sought through the judicial system.
How could the government know if any website is not accessible? Do they check every single website?
In the United Kingdom it seems that complaints would be brought by disabled users that are prevented from successfully using/accessing the site or service. These complaints would likely be taken to the court system, see above.
It is even more likely that the user would inform the owner of the website directly, before bringing a complaint to court, in order to give you/the owners a chance to apologise (never underestimate the power of a sincere apology) and enhance the site.
[Do] only the people/company who make the inaccessible site get any notice from the government?
I would imagine, and this is why this isn't necessarily a great place to ask the question, that the owners would be notified. It is, however, quite likely that, as the site developer, you would quickly receive complaints from the owner of the site since you made it/designed it. But the legal burden of responsibility is likely to depend upon the contract under which you were employed/contracted.
If you feel that accessibility would add an undue burden upon yourself, it's always worth specifying to the client the costs of adding compliance with accessibility requirements, and telling them of the specific laws under which they are requirements.
But, for this, you need to speak to a lawyer.
Why are there so many accessibility guidelines -- WACG 1, WCAG 2.0, DDA, Section 508, etc.? If the whole world follows W3C for XHTML and CSS, then why have some countries made their own guidelines?
Because all laws are set locally, or, in some cases, internationally via treaties. The W3C can make suggestions and guidelines, but it is not, thankfully for IE, illegal not to comply with CSS2.1. It is, however, illegal not to comply with the DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) in the United Kingdom.
All the above is not the advice of a qualified legal representative, or counsel. For specific advice consult a lawyer who practices the law in the country/region in which your client is based, or in which your website/product will accessible.
This would imply a lawyer from the United Kingdom for a British local government website, for a German authority website it would, of course, imply the services of a lawyer from Germany.
Is it only mandatory to make site accessible for Govt. own website and for stock exchange listed corporate sites. or for all type of sites?
I can't speak as to the exact requirements, since I'm not a lawyer. However a quick Google turns up the following web-page that seems to address this question: http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/uk-website-legal-requirements.shtml
To paraphrase the linked page:
The DDA makes it unlawful for a service provider to discriminate against a disabled person by refusing to provide any service that it provides to members of the general public.
I read this to mean that all websites that provide a service to the public are required to be accessible under the terms of the DDA. This would include Government websites, but also home-shopping websites (from, for example, Sainsbury's, Asda, Tesco's, etc) and the Royal Mail or cinema ticket-reservation sites.
From 01/10/1999 service providers must take reasonable steps to change any practice that makes it unreasonably difficult for disabled people to make use of its services
The key term here, I think, is 'reasonable steps.' I presume, from this, that if the website/service generates an income of £10000 per annum, and the cost of compliance with accessibility would be in excess of £10000 then you could argue that it exceeded any reasonable effort/cost to become compliant.
However, this is the reason that progressive enhancement is popular in Javascript and CSS. If the service, at its most basic, is accessible then Javascript and CSS can be used to make it prettier and shinier (whatever that means to you), but it should degrade back to a functional UI when JS or CSS are disabled. In this situation the site is compliant, but a disabled person might not have the same shiny, moving buttons.
Accessibility means that they must be able to access the service/site without unreasonable difficulty. It does not mean that the site has to look/behave exactly the same.
A direct quote from the linked page:
2.13 - 2.17 (p11-13): “What services are affected by the Disability Discrimination Act? An airline company provides a flight reservation and booking service to the public on its website. This is a provision of a service and is subject to the act.”
In addition to above answers:
The W3C has a page listing relevant laws in different countries, including links to the relevant laws (often in the language of that country though):
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/
As I said, it's very hard to answer in general. I guess you will be getting a list of answers specific to countries - maybe a good idea to make it Community Wiki.
For Germany, according to Wikipedia and other sources:
Newly built web sites of federal administrative bodies in Germany have to be accessible by law since 2006. The accessibility guidelines are defined in a directive named BITV (german text here). BITV follows the WCAG 1.0 Guidelines very closely.
Similar laws exist for the country's sixteen states ("Länder").
The creation of accessible web sites is encouraged by a number of government and EU initiatives and private initiatives like the BIENE Award (German only).
To my knowledge, no plans to enforce accessibility in non-government websites exist at this time.
As to why countries implement their own guidelines, among other things, language certainly is an issue: To put guidelines into a law, you need the guidelines in your native language, double-checked by lawyers.
There is an ISO standard, ISO 23026 for reccomended practices for website engineering and website lifecycle management and this does not vary for country specific guidelines. This std includes clauses for website accessibility as well. This standard touches upon guidelines for website accessibility, usability and security, etc.
Why are there so many accessibility guidelines -- WACG 1, WCAG 2.0, DDA, Section 508, etc.?
Just on this point (and assuming “DDA” refers to the UK’s Disability Discrimination Act), the Act doesn’t contain any guidelines on web accessibility in particular.
It makes a legal requirement for companies to provide equivalent service to disabled and non-disabled customers, and that requirement applies to websites just like any other service.
But the Act doesn’t count as another set of guidelines in itself.
I believe Section 508 was based on, and is almost identical to, WCAG 1.
That just leaves WCAG 1 and 2, both of which are from the W3C, and version 2 now supersedes version 1. So there’s actually just one set of guidelines, unless you’ve got any more examples.
Is there a reasonable way to search standards for programming and markup languages (specifically, C, C++, Java, JavaScript, (X)HTML)? Standard libraries tend to be well-documented and easy to access, but when looking for information on the basics of a language I always have trouble, and end up getting most of my information second-hand from tutorials. That's not all bad, since tutorials often point out gotchas (such as even though this is in the standard, it doesn't work in Internet Explorer) but tutorials are sometimes wrong and often don't cover more obscure areas.
There is really only one way to get information from a standard: read the standard.
If the standard is too hard to read (and a lot of them are), then maybe the standards folks have created (non-normative) introduction or tutorial documents. But they are not the standard. Very occasionally, someone produces an "annotated" version of a specification that offers simplified explanations. These are very useful, but once again they are not the standard.
If a standard is available in machine readable / searchable form, document search on suitably chosen keywords can often point to the relevant part(s) of the documents. But you have to read and understand the text. There are no tools around (that I'm aware of) that can accurately translate the (often abstruse) technical details of a standard into something that "normal people" can read easily.
This is why we label people who are intimately familiar with particular standards "standards lawyers" or "language lawyers". It is analogous to lawyers and judges reading/writing legal documents.
I assume you are looking for a syntax reference, as opposed to a standard. The standard is precise but probably too low level for what you really want. A syntax reference will show you the language constructs for looping, selection etc. There are some exceptions such as (X)HTML which is a markup language as opposed to a programming language. Markup language standards documents tend to be more useful from the reference perspective.
For example look at the Visual C++ Language Reference and compare it to a version of the standard.
For (X)HTML and the DOM, the standards are handled by the W3C. But as you know, browsers don't exactly follow the standards. For an exhaustive resource on browser issues there's nothing better than the quirksmode compatibility tables.