Within the standards that W3C create, do they have a set of states they go through before they are a standard and what are those states?
For example HTML 5.1 currently is in Working Draft.
The process is typically linked in the section "Status of This Document".
For HTML 5.1, it says:
This document is governed by the 1 August 2014 W3C Process Document.
This links to the World Wide Web Consortium Process Document from 2014-08-01 (the latest version is always accessible from http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/).
For technical reports that should become Recommendations, this is the process:
Publication of the First Public Working Draft,
Publication of zero or more revised Public Working Drafts.
Publication of a Candidate Recommendation.
Publication of a Proposed Recommendation.
Publication as a W3C Recommendation.
Possibly, Publication as an Edited Recommendation
However, it’s also possible to go steps back:
The Director […] may require the specification to return to a lower maturity level.
Ahh I think I literally just found the answer on Consortium/Process, too many tabs open!
The W3C Recommendation track:
Working Draft
A Working Draft generally represents work in progress and a commitment by W3C to pursue work in a particular area. The label "Working Draft" does not imply consensus within W3C about the document.
Candidate Recommendation
A Candidate Recommendation is a stable Working Draft that the Director has proposed to the community for implementation experience and feedback.
Proposed Recommendation
A Proposed Recommendation is a Candidate Recommendation that has benefitted from implementation experience and has been sent to the Advisory Committee for review.
Recommendation
A Recommendation reflects consensus within W3C, as represented by the Director's approval. W3C considers that the ideas or technology specified by a Recommendation are appropriate for widespread deployment and promote W3C's mission.
Related
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.
I'm new in SCORM and don't know a lot about it.
My customer already has his own custom LMS with courses. And he wants these courses "to be mounted on Blackboard". And it appears that material would have to be SCORM compliant to play in Blackboard.
The problem is, that existing courses are not linear, but branching. For example, if user answered "Yes" on first question, he will get question with id=2 next. If he answered "No", he will get question with id=3 next. As I understood, you do not have the ability to create such "branching" packages in SCORM. Only linear. Am I wrong?
Or, maybe, Blackboard allows you to use your own LMS and only send back to Blackboard "SCORM big four" data?
When I last checked Blackboard Learn included the same SCORM player used by scorm.com. So if the packages play there they should work within Blackboard Learn. You might be better off implementing the courses in Blackboard's internal content structure.
SCORM 2004 would allow you to take advantage of the sequence and navigation. Enabling you to set pre/post rules on skipping based on outcomes. Allows for controlling the flow, choice and allowing the student to move forwards and backwards (or not). You'll have to see if it fits the use case though.
IMS Simple Sequencing was dropped into it, so most the detail I think you'll find more beneficial from IMS Global since for whatever reason it's not highly documented in the SCORM 2004 specification. http://www.imsglobal.org/simplesequencing/
There are also a lot of moving parts here to so it can get overwhelming. I can't say I've ever seen a great tool to design this flow/rule/behavior, and its been the subject of a few reasons why some feel SCORM 2004 didn't get more widely adopted. SCO's can make requests to the "adl.nav" space for requesting jumping to another SCO or continuing etc. too.
Rustici has some "Golf Examples" on http://scorm.com/scorm-explained/technical-scorm/golf-examples/ which also highlight some of these more rich examples under the "SCORM 2004 4th Edition" section on that page. But have several SCO and manifest examples you can use as a basis for understanding a little of what you can accomplish.
Edit: Another option if its just single questions, is to just let a SCO manage this. I've had this on ones where they had "roles" at the beginning and we had to present different questions to a counselor vs. a teacher. So you can have more custom control within the SCO, and you don't have to get your geek on with all the IMSManifest.xml rules.
Thanks and good luck,
Mark
The XForms standard page seemed to indicate that it was no longer live, and that html5 kinda sorta does the job now. Is this the case? I'm looking at storing heterogenous data nuggets as XML fragments - generating a editor page according to the datatype.
To add to Phil's answer:
The XForms Working Group at W3C is active and currently working on XForms 2.0. See in particular the proposed 2.0 features on the wiki and the in-progress draft of the spec as of Feburary, 2012.
Also I don't think it's fair to say that HTML 5 "does the job". HTML 5 forms bring small and welcome improvements over HTML 4 forms, but they don't bridge the gap with XForms.
XForms on the other hand provides:
MVC architecture
XML data model (you like it or you don't, of course)
a powerful repeat model with xf:repeat
declarative properties and calculations
declarative event handlers
integration between the data model and REST services with xf:submission
built-in notion of hint, help, and alert messages
And I am probably missing some.
UPDATE 2016-11-28: For an answer up to date as of the end of 2016, please see this newer question.
The standard definitely isn't dead, although it's perhaps true to say that it hasn't gained much traction within the standard web-browsing ecosystem.
I have worked on a number of projects where XForms has been used as the forms layer in some bespoke application; in my cases the XForms parts have been handled by either Backplane BX or Ubiquity XForms, both of which may be worth taking a look at depending on your requirements (full disclosure: I've worked in the past as an implementer on both projects). Backplane BX is Windows/IE specific; Ubiquity XForms is a cross-browser, client-side javascript library; both are open source.
There are also a number of other libraries that I've not worked with but which I've heard good things about: Orbeon and XSLTForms spring to mind, but a more complete, albeit slightly outdated, list can be found here.
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.
I think there are a lot of people out there unaware of RFC's (Request for Comments). I know what they are at a logical level, but can anybody give a good description for a new developer? Also, sharing some resources on how to use and read them would be nice.
The term comes from the days of ARPANET, the predecessor to the internet, where the researchers would basically just throw ideas out there to, well, make a request for comments from the other researchers on the project. They could be about pretty much anything and were not very formal at the time. If you go read them, it’s pretty comical how informal they were.
Now, there are more standards about what goes in RFC's and you can't get an RFC published until you have met strict guidelines and have done extensive research. They are pretty much reserved for well researched network standards that have been approved by the IETF.
From http://linux.about.com/cs/linux101/g/rfclparrequestf.htm
The name of the result and the process
for creating a standard on the
Internet. New standards are proposed
and published on the Internet, as a
Request For Comments. The proposal is
reviewed by the Internet Engineering
Task Force (http://www.ietf.org/), a
consensus-building body that
facilitates discussion, and eventually
a new standard is established, but the
reference number/name for the standard
retains the acronym RFC, e.g. the
official standard for e-mail message
formats is RFC 822.
See also: RFC Wikipedia Article
This could also mean "Request for Change" in an Agile environment. Just throwing that out there as everyone is so certain is just means "Request for Comments".
Wikipedia gives a good description of what [RFC] is about but in a nutshell it is a set of recommendation from the Internet Engineering Task Force applicable to the working of the Internet and Internet-connected systems. They are used as the standards.
So if you're looking for a definitive source of the information about the implementation of FTP, LDAP, IMAP, POP etc you don't have to look further than the appropriate RFC documents.
It's a Request For Comments. That title is a little misleading though, as it's often used as a name for standards, mostly those by the IETF. See Wikipedia