Recently my firm asked to get accessibility status of all 3rd party content we are using. I can see active and closed issues on github regarding accessibility in select2 library, but is select2 formally compliant with wcag guidelines (web content accessibility guidelines) .If yes then what level? (WCAG 2.x A/AA/AAA)
Is there a VPAT(voluntary product accessibility template) document provided by select2 which I can use(can't find it in anywhere-github/docs)?
It is demanded from teams to get VPAT documents of all 3rd party content.
Is there a forum or a person or a place where I can request accessibility status / vpat document for select2.
You should raise this question on the select2 repository. Judging by the number of open accessibility issues, it’s not likely that it will meet a high level of compliance.
Related
The WCAG 2.0 requirements and techniques regarding CAPTCHA include:
WCAG requirements 1.1.1 Non-text Content: CAPTCHA
CAPTCHA: If the purpose of non-text content is to confirm that content is being accessed by a person rather than a computer, then text alternatives that identify and describe the purpose of the non-text content are provided, and alternative forms of CAPTCHA using output modes for different types of sensory perception are provided to accommodate different disabilities.
G143: Providing a text alternative that describes the purpose of the CAPTCHA
G144: Ensuring that the Web Page contains another CAPTCHA serving the same purpose using a different modality
I evaluate the Google reCAPTCHA v2 with these two demo:
https://www.google.com/recaptcha/api2/demo
https://recaptcha-demo.appspot.com/
It seems that reCAPTCHA v2 has the provided the describe text (in aria-live="polite" div), and the alternative accessibility solution for screen readers, which can fulfil the above requirement.
And I learned from this answer that automated accessibility tools, e.g. the WAVE tool, may return specific false positive. Beyond that the reCAPTCHA seems fine on my scans.
So, are there any violations? Can we say reCAPTCHA v2 is currently conforming to WCAG 2.0 AA?
Conforming to WCAG
Yes, but only because WCAG has added exceptions for the inherent accessibility problems with CAPTCHA. Conformance is not the same as actually working for people with disabilities
It fails at the first hurdle as I can't find a text alternative which is an A level requirement and the first WCAG rule.
Now while that rule does provide for CAPTCHA (so you get a technical pass) it certainly does not fit the spirit of this rule and has always been a point of contention on WCAG.
Providing an audio alternative doesn't work as some people are deaf and blind, which is why a text alternative is a must (a programatically determinable description etc.)
Usable / a good experience / accessible, absolutely not!
If you have poor vision there is no way you can differentiate the images.
If you have a cognitive disability you may not be able to associate the images correctly with the question being asked.
Using it with a screen reader (as a blind user) is horrendous as you have to use the audio captcha.
The audio captcha is useless if you also have a hearing impairment (it is hard to use even if you don't).
Using it with a braille screen (if you are blind and deaf for example) is impossible.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Especially that last point. Yes Google provides alternatives to "tick the boxes" but neither option is useful for someone who is blind and deaf.
Is it effective at blocking spam?
Not really, you can buy 1,000 captcha solves for $5!.
All you are actually doing is helping Google perfect self driving cars image recognition when you implement a Captcha (why do you think they show you pictures of buses) and annoy your visitors.
In the mean time you are
introducing friction for users who want to fill out your form (and depending on usage could result in a lower conversion rate),
making the site hard or impossible to use for disabled users
probably making your site slower (depending on implementation) as the Captcha library is bloated, hurting your Core Web Vitals.
Avoid and do not use!
I am having trouble finding clear information regarding WCAG 2.1 compliance and user-generated content. Would a site fail compliance if the end users of the site created or uploaded content that would fail to conform to requirements?
Some examples could be the user uploading video content without captions or subtitles, or gifs that contain flashing content, or using a page editor to create different levels of html heading tags throughout the page for their personal preference but could interfere with screen reading technology etc...
What do you do about content which you cannot control?
You have two options - force users to upload WCAG compliant content (which is near impossible, but you can improve things by insisting on alt text, .srv or similar format caption files for videos etc. and explaining why it is important) or you use a statement of partial compliance on the site, of which their are two versions.
Statement of Partial Conformance - Third Party Content
The W3C recognises that you cannot control third party content, including user uploaded and user linked (embedded) content.
Now here you do have two realistic options, depending on your available resources.
Option 1 - maintain the pages
If the content is uploaded to your website then you have the option to "repair" it. You can put a system in place to monitor newly added content and add / adjust the markup, alt attributes etc. to make the page compliant.
You would still add a statement of partial compliance but would also state that pages will get updated and maintained to provide full compliance within 2 business days.
Due to the heavy resource requirements on busy sites this may or may not be an option.
However this would be the preference if you are able to do this (to reduce costs you can combine this with any mediation / approval processes you have in place. For content that cannot be made accessible, for example your scenario of flashing content, you can have a simple warning box that can be used to explain the problems with the content.)
Option 2 - accept that user content is not compliant
A "statement of partial conformance" may be made that the page does not conform, but could conform if certain parts were removed.
You detail which pages / page types are not compliant, but explain which parts are compliant and which parts need to be removed in order to make the page compliant.
I would put a warning before any content that explains that it is user generated content and link this to your partial compliance statement. It could have a positive effect where a few people take the time to learn about accessibility.
It must be noted that third-party implementation and third-party content are two distinct things:
Using a page editor that generate bad heading tags is on the author's control.
Permitting third-party users to add content to the website is not (but can be) on the author's control,
For instance, integrating a twitter feed written by your social media manager is on your control : appropriate image alternative and text can be made, and using the API instead of the iframe integration can provide sufficient accessibility.
If you let people upload a video without giving them the ability to provide captions, then it's on your responsibility. If they can choose their own provider (like Youtube) but do not provide captions, then it's their responsability.
See Partial conformance claims due to third party content
When an author makes a decision to use a third party implementation, they should choose products that meet WCAG requirements. [...] However, if the page does not conform to WCAG only for reasons that are legitimately outside the author's control then the author can make a claim of partial conformance. It is important to recognize that this is a statement of non-conformance
Is there a formal standard I can use to to rate the accessibility, especially for visually impaired people, of my MVC3 web application? If there are various standards, as I suspect, which should I give preference to for a web application primarily targeted at people with no or minimal visual impairment, but strongly wanting to offer as much as possible to visually impaired people? This is a learning management application, so wide accessibility is important.
I am trying to stick to best practices in terms of HTML and CSS semantics and such like things, documented in the handful of books I have, and I am using HTML5 validation in Visual Studio for my Razor views. What other tools can I use, preferably on the development side, before I deploy and can use the various online validators? Are the any online rating tools?
Standard (and reference list)
The W3C standard is WCAG 2.0.
The WCAG 2.0 Recommendation tries to be technologically agnostic and to apply to all kinds of websites, even web apps but the consequence is that it's rather unspecific. HTML/CSS/Script Techniques (as well as the Failure ones and Flash/Pdf/Smil if you use them) and the Understanding part are good reads.
For daily auditing I prefer to use:
AccessiWeb 2.2 reference
list,
"a methodology to verify conformance to WCAG 2.0" that "facilitates
(its) understanding and implementation".
There are references to WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria and Techniques but alas no links. Hyperlinks exist on the french version but weren't added on the english one, alas (I'll try to fix it with them this month).
The script part, essential to webapps, is again partly unspecific but that's because it's hard to be so without having 10x as tests! There are thousands of things to do with JS when there are a hundred of HTML elements.
EDIT 2014: this checklist has been updated to new techniques in HTML5/ARIA (an awesome work imho) but only in french. AccessWeb HTML5/ARIA (in french) May be translated in english in 2014 or 2015 or try an online translation service ;) 70% of tests are common with AccessiWeb 2.2 and the new tests are up to date HTML5/ARIA techniques already working in modern websites with the browsers and screen readers quoted in Annexes.
ARIA, as in Accessible RIA, is another work from W3C-WAI:
(ARIA) especially helps with dynamic content and advanced user
interface controls developed with Ajax, HTML, JavaScript, and related
technologies.
No doubt this is the future of accessible web apps but its support is a work in progress in browsers and assistive technologies. Also old screen readers'll never be compatible with ARIA and they're very slowly being replaced for newer versions because they cost A LOT (thousand(s) of USD/EUR for JAWS).
Thus webdevs must always create apps compatible with both old plain techniques (using tab key and space to access information and interact with it) and new ones (manipulating a tree with arrow keys, being informed of changes in a Live region while reading another part of the page).
ARIA is complicated, needs time and experience, etc
ARIA doesn't replace WCAG 2.0; huge improvements'll be seen with WCAG 2.0 only.
not everything is as complicated as a tree implementation. Landmark roles are very easy to add in any website for example.
If you use jQuery UI, there exists an accessible version of popular modules/scripts: http://hanshillen.github.com/jqtest/
It isn't perfect yet but it's far better than the original. In my experience, you can't mix the legacy jQuery UI scripts and these ones (though I didn't try for too long, I could easily be wrong).
Testing
I wrote about 2 useful services, Opquast and Tanaguru, in another answer. The other answer from BrendanMcK related to automated tests is a must read.
WAVE (fluffmyboner already wrote about it in the other answer) both exist as a toolbar and as a webservice. Main difference afaik: the WAVE toolbar'll analyze the DOM of your page while the webservice'll analyze the HTML+CSS sent but won't execute any JS
TAW (select inglès than WCAG 2.0) is another service for analyzing a few criteria
Wave is my go-to for accessibility validation, although I'm not too sure about what you can use to check pre-deployment.
I wrote a trivia game in Flex (flash). The site is written entirely in Flex. Almost all of the text is pulled from a database. It also has a fair number of images. The image file paths are pulled from the db.
My site's not getting any hits. If I check on google site:mysite it the url appears only. I know that inbound links are important and I'll try to get some. At the moment, I don't have any inbound links. In google webmaster tools, if I look under the site's keywords, there are 0. My sites been up for about a month.
Any suggestions on how to improve this situation?
(I've seen a few people ask for help with Flash SEO and the comments tended to be of the "don't use Flash" variety-- which aren't too helpful if you've written something in Flex/Flash).
Thank you.
-Laxmidi
Check out this article: Read Here
SEO FLASH PROGRAMMING
My recommended Flash SEO method uses a
DIV with search-engine-accessible,
primary content, and an open source
Javascript function called swfobject()
to detect when browsers are capable of
viewing Flash. When an appropriate
version of Flash player is present,
the Javascript manipulates the page's
document object model (DOM) to replace
the primary content with the Flash
movie. Most search engine spiders
can't handle Flash, so they will elect
to view the primary content. The
primary content may contain links,
headings, styled text, images—anything
we can add to an ordinary HTML page.
With SEO copyediting and coding skills
applied to the primary content, Flash
becomes a non-issue.
Flash accessibility programming isn't
spamming, as long as the primary
content and the visible movie are
essentially the same. The World Wide
Web Consortium (W3C) Web Accessibility
Initiative (WAI) specifically states
that multimedia content should have an
alternative representation available.
Accessibility programming creates the
benefit of presenting visual
information without losing the
visitors and search engines who depend
upon textual content.
As of July 2007, I discussed this
method with Dan Crow of Google. He
warned that this programming method
could draw attention because of the
possibility for abuse. If you use this
method, make sure the alternative
content is a faithful representation
of the Flash content, and avoid
combining this with other coding
methods that could be abused. While
this SEO method is not abusive, it is
aggressive because there is a small
risk that the search engines could
mistakenly decide that the primary
content is a form of cloaking.
I would also create a sitemap and link to multiple keyword rich landing pages about your game with a link back to the game. The more content google has to bite into the better changes someone will find you.
You also need to market your site...just because you build it doesn't mean they will come. Use twitter, facebook and any other form of social media to get the word out. You may also try buying a few bucks worth of ad words to start the ball rolling.
The solution to only the url appearing in Google is probably as simple as adding a meta description tag.
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=79812
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/09/improve-snippets-with-meta-description.html
It would also probably be beneficial to provide a description or instructions for the trivia game in HTML alongside the Flex part of the website, if this is possible.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Could someone show me some css ui framework/template for consistent web application, something like:
http://www.webguitemplates.com/templates/futurism/futurism-blue
http://www.webguitemplates.com/templates/simplus/simplus-silver
http://www.adminizio.com/
http://gooeytemplates.myshopify.com/products/blue-atom
http://gooeytemplates.myshopify.com/products/blue-carbon
http://themeforest.net/category/site-templates/admin-skins
http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/
http://ukijs.org/functional/wave.html
The framework/template is "pure" css and not javascript/ajax framework (ExtJS, JQuery UI, YUI, etc) and can work without JQuery or other JS/Ajax framework (mainly it just the UI).
Maybe be a bit too much, but consider the template included:
Form styling (input, button, select, fieldset, radio, checkbox, etc)
Table styling (header, row-highlight, row-focus, etc)
Navigation styling (tab based, list based, etc)
Text typography (h1...h3, b, i, u, em, strong, a, etc)
I found some here:
http://www.webresourcesdepot.com/free-admin-template-for-web-applications/
http://blogfreakz.com/web-design/excellent-free-admin-template-for-web-applications/
I hope i could find any, especially the one that looks like google product (gmail, wave, analytics), just for speeding up web design process while maintaining consistency on UI design.
I'd recommend without any hesitation http://themeforest.net/ , or any other envato web site
http://www.adminizio.com/
There's awesome free version ;)
There are plenty of free UI frameworks—I'd recommend http://www.blueprintcss.org/. If you need the design, you're probably going to have to pay. $10 - $50 is a small price to pay for a really good ui.
I´d recommend AdminSquare – http://www.adminsquare.com, the price is $50, but they provide unlimited licence for using and all feature updates for free.
Followings two are the best UI framework I have ever seen
Twitter Bootstrap (has almost everything but old browser won't support many things)
jQuery UI (well cross-browser support and actively maintained)
You can use Karmanta Lite – Free Bootstrap 3 Admin Template
Karmanta – Free Bootstrap Admin Template is the excellent responsive and multipurpose Admin Theme powered with Twitter Bootstrap 3.0 Framework. Karmanta can be used for any type of web applications dashboard: custom admin panels, admin dashboards, CMS, CRM, SAAS and websites: CMSs, SAAS, CRM, HRMS, Support & Social portal, e-commerce, personal business, corporate. Karmanta has a minimal, sleek, clean and intuitive design which makes your next project look awesome and yet user friendly.