By: Peter Abrahams, Practice Leader - Accessibility and Usability, Bloor Research Published: 23rd May 2007 Copyright Bloor Research © 2007

On May 17th 2007 the latest Working Draft of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0) was published. WCAG 2.0 will replace WCAG 1.0, which was published in 1999.

WCAG 1.0 was an amazing achievement in its day and has been a great assistance to all those concerned with accessibility. The plethora of new technology since '99 means that some of the recommendations are now not relevant and many technologies are not covered at all. However the biggest problem with WCAG 1.0 to my mind is that it is difficult to understand for anyone coming new to accessibility. We could say that it is not accessible.

The new Guidelines are much more accessible, firstly because they have several introductory documents but mainly because the guidelines and success criteria are built around just four principles. These four principles lay the foundation necessary for anyone to access and use Web content. Anyone who wants to use the Web must have content that is:

• Perceivable—information and user interface components must be perceivable by users;
• Operable—user interface components must be operable by users;
• Understandable—information and operation of user interface must be understandable by users;
• Robust—content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.

Under each principle there is a list of guidelines that address the principle. There are a total of 12 guidelines:

1. Perceivable
   1. Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler language.
   2. Provide synchronized alternatives for multimedia.
   3. Create content that can be presented in different ways (for example spoken aloud, simpler layout, etc.) without losing information or structure.
   4. Make it easier for people with disabilities to see and hear content including separating foreground from background.
2. Operable
   1. Make all functionality available from a keyboard.
   2. Provide users with disabilities enough time to read and use content.
   3. Do not create content that is known to cause seizures.
   4. Provide ways to help users with disabilities navigate, find content and determine where they are.
3. Understandable
   1. Make text content readable and understandable.
   2. Make Web pages appear and operate in predictable ways.
   3. Help users avoid and correct mistakes that do occur.
4. Robust
   1. Maximize compatibility with current and future user agents, including assistive technologies.

That is all you need to understand about WCAG 2.0; the rest, as an ancient Rabbi said, is just commentary. Like any commentary it is vastly longer than the text.

Under each guideline there are more detailed descriptions and justifications of the guidelines; and for each guideline there are success criteria that describe specifically what must be achieved in order to conform to this standard. They are similar to the "checkpoints" in WCAG 1.0. Each success criterion is written as a statement that will be either true or false when specific Web content is tested against it.

All WCAG 2.0 success criteria are written to be testable. While some can be tested by computer programs, others require human testers for part or all of the test. The same results should be obtained with a high level of confidence when people who understand how people with different types of disabilities use the Web test the same content.

Each success criterion for a guideline has a link to the section of the Quick Reference document that provides:

• Sufficient techniques for meeting the success criterion.
• Optional advisory techniques.
• Links to descriptions of the intent of the success criteria, including benefits, and examples.

This structure of: principles, guidelines, success criteria and techniques makes WCAG 2.0 much more readable and understandable.

The developers of the new version should be congratulated. The guidelines are still in draft but I do not think there will be substantive changes in the final version, just some further clarification and explanations. Anyone about to develop an accessible web site should definitely review these guidelines and incorporate them in the development plans.

Reader Comments

We are no longer accepting comments against this item. We suggest contacting the author directly.

24th May 2007: 'Peter Abrahams' (Author) said:

Since writing this blog I have realised that a memorable acronym would help:
Perceivable
Operable
Understandable
Robust
Gives the obvious acronym POUR.
So we should POUR accessibility into all our systems.
Hope that is helpful.

Reply to Peter Abrahams?

6th June 2007: 'BT' said:

Should be POOR. Then you can say IT-Director.com has POOR design principles and POOR image.

Reply to BT?

6th June 2007: 'Matt' said:

How about a piss POOR effort for the last comment? I thought this feature was for constructive criticism and debate? I personally think that IT-Director.com is much improved without losing any of the core design principles that sets it aside from other wanabees: 1. The page footprint/size is much smaller and faster. Renders very fast in Opera 9.
2. All the text resizes proportionally.
3. The text is easier to read with better line spacing and font.
4. The print version is excellent - so many sites have a seperate page for 'print version' - being able to hit print on any page is great.
5. To top it all off you have quite accessible PDF's generated from every article. Now, let's see how you cope with the pixel perfect IT-Analysis.com! Matt

Reply to Matt?

6th June 2007: 'BT' said:

Yaaaaaawwwwwwnnnn. I stand by my comment. This is POOR.

Reply to BT?

8th June 2007: 'Peter Abrahams' (Author) said:

BT
As the author of the original article I have a real interest in accessibility and usability for all. This includes giving all users a pleasurable experience when they go to a website.
There is obviously something that has been removed from IT-D that you would like to have returned. If you can articulate that requirements I would appreciate. I need to understand what is important to web users. If your requirement is reasonable I will discuss it with IT-D designers and see if it should be incorporated in a future release.
In the meantime thanks for all the other positive comments we have received.

Reply to Peter Abrahams?

29th May 2007: 'Fi' said:

Have you applied the WCAG 2 guidelines to your website? Last week it looked really well presented, if a little dated. This week it looks like a five year old got hold of a cheap WYSIWYG application and knocked out a website! Please change it back - this new look really sucks.

Reply to Fi?

29th May 2007: 'Peter Abrahams' (Author) said:

Fi
Yes we have followed WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 guidelines in revamping IT-D (and IT-A earlier). We believe that IT-D now conforms to AAA. As you can see from recent comments on other articles, some of our readers really like the new design. We are always trying to improve the design to make it more accessible, usable and attractive so we would really like to hear from you as to what you dislike about the new design.

Reply to Peter Abrahams?

29th May 2007: 'Fi' said:

To be honest I don't like the greyscale approach. There are hundreds are web safe colours and you have to pick grey! The previous incarnation with its blue and white might not have been accessible but at least it looked good. I would like to think that aesthetics are more important!

Reply to Fi?

29th May 2007: 'James' said:

I disagree. I find the new design quite fresh looking and certainly easier on the eyes. Congrats to Peter. Keep up the good work.

Reply to James?

29th May 2007: 'Gareth Newhouse' said:

Fi, I have to agree. It looks quite horrid. I was talking with some of the analysts this morning and they appear to share our sentiments. I think the site will soon revert to the design you saw last week. Accessibility has it's place, I'm sure. But let's not spoil it for everyone else.

Reply to Gareth Newhouse?

30th May 2007: 'Kevin' said:

Fi, we agree too. IT-Director.com had a classic, if a little dated, design. Now it looks very amateurish. If the developers wanted to make the website accessible surely all they had to do was to create accessible.it-director.com and point readers to another version. Afterall how many blind people can be using the web?

Reply to Kevin?

30th May 2007: 'Jamie' said:

Kevin, I am appalled at your comment. The web is a universal medium and should be treated as such. There are many blind users out there. Peter has done an exemplary job upgrading IT-Director.com, its a pity that other portals can't follow suit.

Reply to Jamie?

6th June 2007: 'Gerry' said:

Fi, the general consensus from my esteemed colleagues is that the new design of IT-Director.com sucks. Get rid of it. I preferred the less accessible version.

Reply to Gerry?

30th May 2007: 'Ed' said:

I am impressed by the speed at which your developers correct issues. Okay, perhaps the minor CSS bugs I found could have been caught prior to publishing the new design, but then most developers only have access to a small number of operatings systems and browser versions. IT-Director.com will have to be careful else they might become known as the caring news portal. Keep up the great work!

Reply to Ed?

30th May 2007: 'Frank K' said:

Peter, is there a css media type for screen readers? I see frequent use of handheld, screen, print and projector types but not reader. I do not mean a aural style either - but a way to easily define a visual style without having to rely on disabling CSS altogether.

Reply to Frank K?