Review: Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity? A Framework for Applying the WCAG in the Real World

The paper, Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity? A Framework for Applying the WCAG in the Real World (henceforth referred to as "the study"), acknowledges the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) as a significant and valued resource. It is critical of a number of WCAG's and WAI's aspects. The majority of the issues raised have been resolved by WCAG 2 or overcome by events. However, WCAG's relationship to usability may merit Working Group discussion if it has not already been discussed.

Issues Resolved or Overcome by Events

The study is a decade old with much of its content based on WCAG 1. For instance it criticizes WCAG for ambiguous guidelines due to using the phrase, "until user agents" and not allowing propitiatory formats such as Flash and PDF via WCAG 1 Checkpoint 11.1, "Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task." Both of these issues have been resolved.

WCAG 2 doesn't use the phrase, "until user agents." In fact User Agent and Assistive Technology Support Notes sections of individual techniques include some information to help determine accessibility support.

WCAG 2 is designed to be technology agnostic. By contrasting WCAG 2.0 with WCAG 1.0 it is apparent that version 1.0 specifically references HTML and nothing else. WCAG 2.0 takes a more modern approach, allowing authors freedom of choice in terms of technology. WCAG 2 does not promote W3C technologies over others. Moreover, Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT) examines how WCAG may apply to software and documents.

WAI Model

The authors of the study state that 3 sets of WAI guidelines: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines, and User Agent Accessibility Guidelines, do not reflect the diversity of users, user environments, Web usage, and real world environments.

WAI did have 3 sets of guidelines in 2005. Since then WAI has increasingly expanded it's standards and supporting material, which provide guidance in making work accessible via documents such as:

Others exist such as IndieUI which are likely to become increasingly important in the coming years.For details consult the Indie UI Working Group and Indie UI Charter.

The [DRAFT] Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Charter calls for developing "normative WCAG 2.0 extensions to address special topic areas as needed" and a WCAG 2.0 extensions framework is being created. Extension specifications will add normative content accessibility requirements to the WCAG 2.0 base for topics identified as priorities according to Working Group scope.

Framework

The authors of the study refer to a framework, which was being developed in 2005. They state:

An implication of this framework from the perspective of Web accessibility guidelines is the need for accessibility policies to be capable of being integrated within this framework. This layered approach will mean, for example, that Web accessibility guidelines should be neutral on file format issues; the Web accessibility should describe how particular formats should be used in order to be accessible, but should not mandate usage of the formats. 

Since WCAG 2 does not mandate usage of formats this issue has been resolved.

Issue Meriting Working Group Discussion?

Usable Accessibility

The study cites the WCAG 1.0 definition of accessible:

Content is accessible when it may be used by someone with a disability.

It then argues that the test for whether a Web site is accessible is if people with disabilities can use it, not whether it conforms to guidelines. The study concludes that WAI should include usability within its remit and future versions of WCAG should include guidelines on best practices for usability.

WCAG 2.0 does not define accessibility. Regarding usability, Understanding WCAG 2.0 specifically states:

There are many general usability guidelines that make content more usable by all people, including those with disabilities. However, in WCAG 2.0, we only include those guidelines that address problems particular to people with disabilities. This includes issues that block access or interfere with access to the Web more severely for people with disabilities.

The WAI's Education and Outreach Working Group has explored the relationship between accessibility and usability in a number of drafts and documents to encourage increased communication and coordination between the two areas as well as promoting the benefits of involving users with disabilities to identify usability issues that are not discovered by conformance evaluation alone. Some of those documents are:

As discussed in the review of Guidelines are only half of the story: accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the web the definition of "accessible" has recently been expanded to include usability in United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) resolution agreements.

The topic of "Usable Accessibility" may help enhance WCAG2. The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) explains:

"Usable accessibility combines usability and accessibility to develop positive user experiences for people with disabilities. User-centered design processes (UCD) include both techniques for including users throughout design and evaluation, and using guidelines for design and evaluation. UCD helps make informed decisions about accessible design. Thus UCD is necessary to improve accessibility in websites and web tools...The goal of web accessibility is to make the Web work well for people, specifically people with disabilities. While technical standards are an essential tool for meeting that goal, marking off a checklist is not the end goal. People with disabilities effectively interacting with and contributing to the Web is the end goal. To make the Web work well for people with disabilities, designers and developers need to understand the basics of how people with disabilities use the Web. Following UCD to involve people with disabilities throughout design processes and involve users in web accessibility evaluation helps design solutions that are effective for users and for developers."

If the WCAG WG hasn't previously discussed the matter, the group may want to contemplate the question of if a tighter integration of usability and accessibility is in or out of scope. If it is in scope, would a "Usable Accessibility" or UCD extension or other documentation be in order?

Conclusion

This study acknowledges the WCAG as a significant and valued resource. It is critical of a number of WCAG's and WAI's aspects.The majority of issues raised have been resolved by WCAG 2 or overcome by events. However, WCAG's relationship to usability may merit Working Group discussion if it has not already been discussed to determine what is in or out of scope.

References