The presentation of this document has been augmented to identify changes from a previous version. Two kinds of changes are highlighted: [begin proposed] proposed text [end proposed], and [begin current] current working draft text [end current].
Copyright © 2003 W3C ® ( MIT , ERCIM , Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply.
NOTICE:
This draft includes a number or editorial changes, and recent proposals.
W3C published the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG 1.0) as a Recommendation in May 1999. This Working Draft for version 2.0 builds on WCAG 1.0. It has the same aim: to explain how to make Web content accessible to people with disabilities and to define target levels of accessibility. Incorporating feedback on WCAG 1.0, this Working Draft of version 2.0 focuses on guidelines. It attempts to apply guidelines to a wider range of technologies and to use wording that may be understood by a more varied audience.
This document is an editors' copy that has no official standing.
This document is prepared by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (WCAG WG) to show how more generalized (less HTML-specific) WCAG guielines might read. This draft is not yet based on consensus of the WCAG Working Group nor has it gone through W3C process. This Working Draft in no way supersedes WCAG 1.0.
Please refer to "Issue Tracking for WCAG 2.0 Working Draft" for a list of open issues related to this Working Draft. The "History of Changes to WCAG 2.0 Working Drafts" is also available.
This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use W3C Working Drafts as reference material or to cite them as other than "work in progress". A list of current W3C Recommendations and other technical documents is available.
The Working Group welcomes comments on this document at public-comments-wcag20@w3.org. The archives for this list are publicly available. Archives of the WCAG WG mailing list discussions are also publicly available.
Patent disclosures relevant to this specification may be found on the WCAG Working Group's patent disclosure page in conformance with W3C policy.
This document has been produced as part of the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The goals of the WCAG WG are discussed in the Working Group charter. The WCAG WG is part of the WAI Technical Activity.
This document outlines design principles for creating accessible Web content. When these principles are ignored, individuals with disabilities may not be able to access the content at all, or they may be able to do so only with great difficulty. When these principles are employed, they also make Web content accessible to a variety of Web-enabled devices, such as phones, handheld devices, kiosks, network appliances, etc. By making content accessible to a variety of devices, that content will also be accessible to people in a variety of situations.
The design principles in this document represent broad concepts that apply to all Web-based content. They are not specific to HTML, XML, or any other technology. This approach was taken so that the design principles could be applied to a variety of situations and technologies, including those that do not yet exist.
In order to facilitate understanding of the guidelines and to help people focus in on just the parts they need, the guidelines are presented as a set of interrelated documents. There are basically 3 layers to the guidelines information.
The top layer is titled "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0". It is the document you are currently reading. This document provides:
An introduction
The 4 major principles for accessibility (Perceivable, Operable, Understandable and Robust).
The (non-technology-specific) guidelines (19 in total).
Success criteria (normative), and definitions, benefits and examples (all non-normative) for each guideline
An appendix containing definitions, references and other support information.
In addition to the general guidelines, there will be a series of technology-specific checklist documents. These documents will provide information on what is required when using different technologies in order to meet the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft access guidelines.
Editorial Note: These checklists do not yet exist. At the present time, the checklists are expected to be non-normative, though no formal decision has been made.
The Techniques Documents will include code examples, screen shots, and other information specific to a technology. These documents will be non-normative. They will contain different strategies for meeting the requirements as well as the current preferred approaches where they exist. Examples include:
Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) and Extensible Hypertext Markup Language (XHTML) Techniques
Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Techniques
Server-side scripting Techniques
Client-side scripting Techniques
Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) Techniques
Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL) Techniques
Extensible Markup Language (XML) Techniques
(These will become active links as the corresponding working drafts are published)
These guidelines have been written to meet the needs of many different audiences from policy makers, to managers, to those who create Web content, to those who code the pages. Every attempt has been made to make the document as readable and usable as possible while still retaining the accuracy and clarity needed in a technical specification. For first time users, the work of the Education and Outreach Working Group of the Web Accessibility Initiative is highly recommended.
These guidelines cover a wide range of issues and recommendations for making Web content more accessible. They include recommendations to make pages accessible and usable by people with a full range of disabilities. In general, the guidelines do not include standard usability recommendations except where they have specific ramifications for accessibility beyond standard usability impacts.
This WCAG 2.0 Working Draft does not assign priorities to guidelines, as did WCAG 1.0. Instead, guidelines include three levels of success criteria.
The main WCAG 2.0 Working Draft document does not include technology-specific implementation requirements or techniques, but it does include links to technology-specific requirements as well as technology-specific examples and techniques.
This Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 is a follow-on and evolution of WCAG 1.0 and reflects feedback received since the publication of WCAG 1.0 in May 1999. Although the same approaches to accessibility are followed in 1.0 and 2.0, the organization and structure have been improved significantly. In addition, the principles have been worded to make it easier to understand their application across the wide range of existing and emerging technologies.
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is working carefully to enable organizations and individuals that are currently using WCAG 1.0 (which remains stable and referenceable at this time) to ensure that they will eventually be able to make a smooth transition to WCAG 2.0. To understand how this eventual transition would be facilitated, please refer to the (draft) Mapping Between WCAG 1.0 and the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft for more detail on current correspondences.
Editorial Note: As we publish this Working Draft of WCAG 2.0, the WCAG WG is in the midst of significantly changing the conformance scheme from previous drafts. This section outlines the conformance structure used throughout this document. Feedback, comments, and proposals are encouraged.
Guidelines are divided into three categories of success criterion:
Level 1 Success criterion:
do not specify how information is presented
are reasonably applicable to all websites
are testable (machine or reliably human)
Level 2 Success criterion:
may require an author to present content in particular ways
are reasonably applicable to all websites
are testable (machine or reliably human)
Level 3 Success criterion:
are additional criteria that go beyond Level 1 and 2 that may be applied to make sites accessible to more people with all or particular types of disability
Note:
Some guidelines do not contain level 1 success criteria.
In order to make a valid conformance claim for a Web resource, the resource must satisfy all level 1 success criteria for all guidelines.
A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 Level A" can be made if all level 1 success criteria for all guidelines have been met.
A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 A+" can be made if all level 1 success criteria for all guidelines and some level 2 success criteria have been met.
A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 AA" can be made if all level 1 success criteria andall level 2 success criteria for all guidelines have ben met.
A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 AAA" can be made if all level 1 and level 2 success criteria and X% of level 3 success criteria for all guidelines have ben met.
Editorial Note: Feedback from WCAG 1.0 indicates that developers often do not attempt to meet any Priority 2 Checkpoints because there is no way to indicate in the conformance claim that they have "done more than Level A but not enough to claim Level AA." "A+" is a proposal that allows developers to say, "I do more than A but not all of AA." However, some members of the WCAG WG have issues with the idea of having any "+" conformance claims such as A+ or AA+.
All conformance claims must include (at minimum):
The version of the guidelines to which a conformance claim is made and the dated URI of the guidelines document.
The scope of the conformance claim. The scope describes which parts of a site or application are included in the claim.
Editorial Note: Should exclusions be allowed for certain types of content, such as third-party or copyrighted material that is being reprinted? How does one define scope? Is it an end-to-end process that the user should be able to complete? Is it a path through accessible content?
The set of criteria being claimed.
The date the conformance claim was made.
Sites that currently conform to WCAG 1.0 that want to shift towards WCAG 2.0 will want to capitalize on past accessibility efforts. A qualified conformance statement could allow them this flexibility. For example, a conformance claim might include the following statement, "Materials created or modified before 24 April 2003 conform to WCAG 1.0. Materials created or modified on or after 24 April 2003 conform to WCAG 2.0."
Editorial Note: In some instances, the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft may be easier to conform to than the WCAG 1.0 Recommendation while other criteria might be harder to meet in WCAG 2.0 than in WCAG 1.0. The WCAG WG will consider the differences between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 conformance and offer advice to developers who currently conform to WCAG 1.0. This advice might take the form of a WCAG 1.0 conformance profile to WCAG 2.0 and information about migrating from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0. This advice is not yet available.
The overall goal is to create Web content that is perceivable, operable and understandable by the broadest possible range of users and compatible with their wide range of assistive technologies, now and in the future. The basic principles include:
Content must be Perceivable.
Operable. Ensure that the interface elements in the content are operable by any user.
Understandable. Make it as easy as possible to understand the content and controls.
Robust. Use Web technologies that maximize the ability of the content to work with current and future accessibility technologies and user agents.
Accessible Web content benefits a variety of people, not just people with disabilities. In the physical world, ramps are used by bicycles, people pushing strollers, and people in wheelchairs. Similarly, accessible Web content is beneficial to a variety of people with and without disabilities. For example, people who are temporarily operating under constrained conditions like operating in a noisy environment where they can not hear well at all, or driving their car where their eyes are busy would benefit from an accessible site. Likewise, a search engine can find a famous quote in a movie if the movie is captioned.
Note:
These principles apply only to Web content presented to a human reader. A structured database or metadata collection where the data is intended for use by another machine, and that requires no interface, lies outside the scope of these guidelines.
Here are a few scenarios, by no means an exhaustive list of the variations and types of disabilities and needs:
Someone who cannot hear will want to see the information normally presented via sound.
Someone who cannot see will want to hear or read through braille information that is usually presented visually.
Someone who does not have the strength to move quickly or easily will want to use as little movement as possible and have as much time as they need when operating Web interfaces.
Someone who does not read well may want to hear the information read aloud.
If Web content employs the design principles described in this document, then users should be able to access the content using adaptive strategies and assistive technologies. A screen reader is an example of an assistive technology that reads the page aloud. There are many other tools people with disabilities employ to make use of Web content. For more in-depth scenarios of people with disabilities using accessible and inaccessible Web content, please read "How People with Disabilities Use the Web".
These guidelines provide the basic requirements for designing accessible Web content. This document is not designed to provide the background needed to learn about accessible Web design in a thorough or effective manner for those interested in learning. Readers are therefore referred to the Education and Outreach Working Group of the Web Accessibility Initiative.
the text equivalent fulfills the same function as the author intended for the non-text content (that is, it conveys all of the intended information and achieves the same function as the non-text content).
The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
People who are blind, have low vision, have cognitive disabilities or have trouble reading text for any reason can have the text read aloud to them by assistive technology.
People who are deaf, are hard of hearing, or who are having trouble understanding audio information for any reason can read the text presentation or have it translated and presented as sign language by assistive technology.
People who are deaf-blind can read the text in braille.
Example 1: an image used as a button. (short equivalent for function)
A right arrow icon is used to link to the next slide in a slide show. The text equivalent is "Next Slide," so that a screen reader would read the phrase "Next Slide" and automatically identify it as a link by adding the word link or changing the synthesizer's voice.
Example 2: a data chart. (short label + longer description)
A bar chart compares how many widgets were sold in June, July, and August. The short label says, "Figure one - Sales in June, July and August." The longer description identifies the type of chart or graph, provides a high-level summary of the data comparable to that available from the chart or graph, and provides the data themselves in a table or other accessible format.
Example 3: an animation. (short label + longer description)
An animation shows how to tie a knot. The short label says, "An animation showing how to tie a square knot." The longer explanation describes the hand movements needed to tie the knot.
Example 4: an audio file of a speech. (short label + transcript)
An audio file is embedded in a Web page. The short label says, "Chairman's speech to the assembly." A link to a text transcript is provided immediately after the audio clip.
Example 5: an audio file of a symphony. (short label)
An audio file is embedded in a Web page. The short label says, "Beethoven's 5th Symphony performed by the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra."
Editorial Note: There is discussion about moving some of the current success criteria from Level 1 to Level 2. The issue stems from trying to apply the success criteria to every Web cam, newscast, and home broadcast. Another approach is to allow a conformance claim to state, for example, "All pages and applications on this site meet the Level 1 guidelines of WCAG 2.0 except the Web cam at http://example.org/webcam/."
Editorial Note: A definition for "time dependent" is needed that explains that it includes audio and visual information presented at the same time, as well as audio or visual with interaction, or in combination with real-time events.
A text transcript or other non-audio equivalent that is not synchronized with the multimedia presentation satisfies this success criterion if all four of the following statements about the content are true:
the content is real-time and
the content is audio-only and
the content is not time-sensitive and
the content is not interactive
If the Web content is real-time and audio-only and not time-sensitive and not interactive a transcript or other non-audio equivalent is sufficient.
Editorial Note: This exception also applies to item 3.
A text transcript or other non-audio equivalent that is not synchronized with the multimedia presentation satisfies this success criterion if all four of the following statements about the content are true:
the content is real-time and
the content is audio-only and
the content is not time-sensitive and
the content is not interactive
is a music program that is primarily non-vocal
an equivalent that conforms to Guideline 1.1 (for example, an ongoing text report of weather conditions)
[end proposed]a link to an equivalent that conforms to Guideline 1.1 (for example, a link to a weather Web site that conforms to Guideline 1.1)
[end proposed]Editorial Note: This whole guideline (1.2) needs reworking. Perhaps move some down from above, or limit the items above to just certain classes of content - and then put the rest of the coverage (for other types of content) here.
The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
People who are deaf or have a hearing loss can access the auditory information through captions.
People who are blind or have low vision as well as those with cognitive disabilities who have difficulty interpreting visually what is happening benefit from audio descriptions of visual information.
People without disabilities also benefit from media equivalents:
People in noisy environments or with muted sound often rely on captions.
Captions help many people to develop language and reading skills.
Audio descriptions provide visual information for people who are temporarily looking away from the video presentation, for example, when following an instructional video and looking at their hands.
Captions and text descriptions make it possible to index and search media files.
Note:
Time-dependent presentations that require people to use a single sense to follow two or more things at the same time may present significant barriers to some users. Depending on the nature of the presentation, it may be possible to avoid scenarios where, for example, a deaf user would be required to watch an action on the screen and read the captions at the same time. However, this may not be available for live broadcasts (e.g. a football game). Where possible (especially for education and training materials), provide content so that it does not require tracking multiple simultaneous events with the same sense, or, give the user the ability to freeze the video so that captions can be read without missing the video.
Example 1: a movie clip with audio description and captions.
A clip from a movie is published on a Web site. In the clip, a child is trying to attract a puppy to the child's bedroom by laying a trail of crumbs since the soundtrack includes only the child's mumbling. The audio description that is heard when the child stops mumbling says "Charlie puts a crumb on each stair leading to his room." The caption that appears as he mumbles reads, "[inaudible mumbling]."
Example 2: a video clip of a news story.
A video clip accompanies a news story about flooding in a major city. The reporter gives a verbal description of the scene. No audio description is necessary. The captions display what the reporter is saying.
Example 3: a silent animation.
An animation shows a pantomime with a white face and black costume climbing an invisible ladder. There is no audio track for this animation. No captions or audio description are required. Instead, a text label and description are provided as required by guideline 1.1.
Information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation.
[end current]data models or markup are used to enable assistive technology to recognize relationships among content elements, including (but not limited to) those listed below: [Issue #604]
[end proposed]hierarchical elements and relationships, such as headings, paragraphs and lists
non-hierarchical relationships between elements such as:
cross-references and linkages,
associations between labels and controls,
associations between table cells and their headers
Editorial Note: JS: these should probably be listed as examples of hierarchical relationships instead of non-hierarchical
emphasis on specific words and phrases
the following can be derived programmatically (i.e. through a markup or data model that is assistive technology compatible) from the content without requiring user interpretation of presentation.
[end current]any hierarchical elements and relationships, such as headings, paragraphs and lists
any non-hierarchical relationships between elements such as cross-references and linkages, associations between labels and controls, associations between cells and their headers, etc.
any emphasis
The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
Separating content and structure from presentation allows Web pages to be presented differently to meet the needs and constraints of different users without losing any of the information or structure. For example, information can be presented via speech or braille (text) that was originally intended to be presented visually.
It can also facilitate automatic emphasis of structure or more efficient navigation.
All of these can benefit people with cognitive, physical, hearing, and visual disabilities.
Example 1: a multi-column document.
A document is marked up with headings, paragraphs and other structural features. It is presented visually in three columns. The markup that creates the columns is separate from the markup that specifies the logical structure of the document.
Example 2: a scrolling list of stock prices.
Current stock quotes are scrolled horizontally across the screen. The data are separate from the methods used to scroll the text across the page.
Example 3: a 3-dimensional site map.
A custom user interface renders 3D visualizations of the pages on a site and how they relate to one another from a data source. Any hierarchical relationships, groupings, cross-references, etc. would originate in the data source so that alternate interfaces could be rendered (from the same source) that expose the structure of the site in an accessible form. (See also guideline 4.3)
Example 4: a list that allows users to sort information on a page according to preference.
A script allows a user to rearrange a categorical listing of music files by date, artist, genre, or file size. The script updates both the structure and the presentation accordingly when generating alternate views.
All text can be decoded into words represented in Unicode.
[end current]Editorial Note: The CKW reorganization suggested that this guideline be combined with guideline 3.2. [I#442]
The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
Facilitating unambiguous decoding of characters and words in content is also helpful for individuals who are learning to read or learning a second language.
Example 1: an acronym in a page title.
In the following heading, "People of the W3C." the acronym "W3C" is marked as an acronym. Because it has been marked appropriately, the user agent would be able to speak the letters of the acronym one at a time rather than attempting to pronounce it as though it were a word.
Structure has been made perceivable through presentation.
[end current]Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): Could probably be rewritten to be testable. Body text is a structural element, may be too technology specific. Not sure what this means for a form. (Untestable Success Criteria)
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): Not testable unless we define the major visual display types. But if we do that, then it will be incomplete as soon as a new display type is invented. (Untestable Success Criteria)
Editorial Note: : The following items are techniques and would be moved to the techniques gateway.
Editorial Note: JS 10/25: Do we want to say, "...then an alternate presentation that features additional graphics, etc."? or are we recommending changes to the default presentation?
The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
Presentation that emphasizes structure:
enables users with cognitive and visual disabilities to orient themselves within the content,
enables all users to move quickly through the content and notice major content divisions
enables all users, but particularly users with visual or cognitive disabilities to focus on important content,
enables all users, but particularly users with visual or cognitive disabilities to distinguish the different types of content.
Example 1: documentation for a product.
Identifying chapters in the structure of a book is appropriate and accepted use of labeling the structure. Within the chapters, headings identify (label) changes in context and highlight ideas contained in the following text. Subtle differences between the appearance of the chapter title and the section headings helps the user understand the hierarchy and relationship between the title and headings. The only difference might be font size and margin indentation when presented visually, and spoken in a difference voice or preceded by a sound when presented auditorily.
Example 2: a data table.
Groups of rows or columns are labeled with headers.
Example 3: an audio presentation.
An audio rendering of a document, generated according to a style sheet, uses a different, more formal voice to read titles and headers so the listener can easily identify the words as a title and not part of the running text.
Foreground content is easily differentiable from background for visual default presentations.
[end current]Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): Guideline 1.6 - "easily differentiable" is not testable. "legible" might be better. (Untestable Success Criteria)
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): If we don't come up with a testing algorithm, this is not testable. (Untestable Success Criteria)
Editorial Note: this item may be moved or updated if the proposal for adding a guideline on color is accepted. [I#621]
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "easily readable" is not testable. Propose "readable by someone with 20/xx vision" (Untestable Success Criteria)
Editorial Note: The working group is seeking an algorithm that measures contrast in a way that is accurate and testable enough that we could include it in the guidelines. One algorithm, which comes from the Techniques For Accessibility Evaluation And Repair Tools document, is currently under consideration for inclusion in the techniques, but the group has not yet found something that is specific enough to be included at the guidelines level.
The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
Individuals with low vision can easily make out characters in the content even if they don't have the wide field of view or full range of color perception used by fully sighted persons to separate text from background images.
Example 1: a background image on a page.
A background image and text are arranged so that there is no image behind the text or the image is so faint that the difference between the darkest part of the image and the text (which is dark) meets the standard foreground/background contrast requirements. The image behind the text also does not contain lines that are about the same width as the characters so they do not interfere with character recognition.
Foreground content is easily differentiable from background for auditory default presentations.
[end current]Note:
A 20 decibel (db) difference in sound level is roughly 4 times quieter (or louder). Background sound that meets this requirement will be approximately four times (4x) quieter than the foreground audio content.
[Issue #620]Note:
A 20 db difference in sound level is roughly 4 times quieter (or louder).
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): determining that background audio content is more than 20 db lower than foreground audio content is not testable with a single audio stream unless can separate them into separate tracks for measuring. Could change to something like "for audio content that has multiple tracks, the background sounds are at least 20 db lower than the foreground audio content". Explore references at http://www.decibel-meter.com and http://www.lhh.org/noise/decibel.htm (Untestable Success Criteria)
The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
Individuals with hearing impairments that limit their ability to hear all of the frequencies of speech can make out the words from the sounds they can hear because they are not mixed with residual sounds from the music.
Example 1: speech over background sounds.
Because speech is often naturally mixed with background sounds (movies, live news etc) and cannot be easily removed or separated, captions are provided (under guideline 1.2) to make dialog understandable. However not all people can see or read the captions. Where speech is mixed or recorded so that it is at least 20 db above any background sounds people do not need to rely on captions to understand the dialog.
Principle 2: OPERABLE. Ensure that Interface Elements in the Content are Operable by Any User
[end current]All functionality is operable at a minimum through a keyboard or a keyboard interface.
[end current]Note:
refer to guideline 4.3 for information regarding user agent support.
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): Need to define "abstract". Should really move to a technique because it is so technology dependent. (Untestable Success Criteria)
The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
Individuals who are blind (and cannot use pointing devices) can have access to the functionality of the Web content or site.
Individuals with severe physical disabilities can use speech input (which simulates keystrokes) to both enter data and operate the interface elements on the page.
Example 1: operation with multiple input devices.
The content relies only on focus-in, focus-out, and activation events; these are defined in the API of the environment for which the content is written, and are intended to be operable by a variety of input devices, including pointing devices, keyboards and speech input systems.
Example 2: examples of Web content that would and would not be operable from a keyboard or keyboard interface
If it's written to be operable from a computer keyboard, it conforms. (because it is operable from the keyboard.)
If it's written to be used on a device that doesn't usually have a keyboard such as a cell phone and but it can be controlled by an optional keyboard for that device, it conforms. (A person who needs a keyboard - or alternate keyboard - can use it to control the application.)
If it's written to be used with a device that doesn't have a keyboard, but it could also be used by similar devices that do and it would work with their keyboard, it conforms. (A person who needs a keyboard would not buy the device without the keyboard. That device may itself not be considered accessible. But the content can be controlled from a device with a keyboard and therefore conforms to this guideline.)
If it's written to work with devices that do not have keyboards and it can not be used by any other devices that do have keyboards, then it does not conform. (It cannot be accessed via keyboard.)
Users can control any time limits on their reading, interaction, or responses unless control is not possible due to nature of real-time events or competition.
[end current]the user is allowed to deactivate the time limit
Editorial Note: JS 10/26: deleted because there's no way for most developers to determine this
or the user is allowed to adjust the time limit over a wide range which is at least ten times or default setting or average user's preference,
[end current]the user is warned before time expires and given at least 10 seconds to extend the time limit
[end proposed]Editorial Note: JS 10/26: 10 seconds isn't long enough. MS Windows used to give you 15 seconds to accept changes to the Display control panel, and it wasn't long enough to let me listen to the entire dialog and then tab to the OK button.
or the user is warned before time expires and given at least 10 seconds to extend the time limit,
[end current]or the time limit is due to a real-time event (for example, an auction) and no alternative to the time limit is possible,
or the time limit is part of a competitive activity where timing is an essential part of the activity (for example, competitive gaming; an online test must be completed within a set time and the test administrator can increase the time limit for people with disabilities who are legally entitled to additional time).
[end proposed]or the time limit is part of a competitive activity where timing is an essential part of the activity (e.g. competitive gaming or time based testing).
[end current]The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
People with reading disabilities, cognitive disabilities, and learning disabilities often need more time than most people to read and comprehend written text. People with physical disabilities might not be able to move quickly or accurately enough to interact with moving objects.
Content that is updated often might not be processed and read in time or in the proper order by an assistive technology or voice browser.
Examples of content that requires comprehension or a response within a timed interval:
automatic refresh
redirection
blinking or scrolling text
dialog that disappears after a short period
shutdown or deactivation of page if activity is not received in a set amount of time
Example 1: blinking text.
Client-side scripting is used to create blinking text. The user can deactivate the use of scripting in his or her browser or override the use of scripts with a user style sheet.
Example 2: a news site that is updated regularly.
A news site causes its front page to be updated every 1/2 hour. The front page contains minimal text and primarily consists of links to content. A user who does not wish the page to update selects a checkbox. The checkbox is in the "user preferences" portion of the site which is one of the first links on each page.
User can avoid experiencing screen flicker.
[end current]Editorial Note (06/10/03): This guideline is currently a level 1 success criterion because the WCAG WG expects that it will be possible to test content for flicker and the result will be a flicker rate in Hz that can be stored in a machine-readable format. If the assumption regarding a testing tool does not hold at time of final review of these guidelines, this criterion will be moved to level 2."
content was not designed to flicker (or flash) in the range of 3 to 49 Hz (between 3 to 49 times per second).
[end proposed]content was not designed to flicker (or flash) in the range of 3 to 49 Hz.
[end current]Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): only testable by designer of site (Untestable Success Criteria)
if flickering content must be used, users are warned about the flicker before they go to the page, and are informed that an alternative version has been provided which approximates the original version as closely as possible without flickering.
[end proposed]if flicker is unavoidable, the user is warned of the flicker before they go to the page, and as close a version of the content as is possible without flicker is provided.
[end current]Editorial Note: We would like to include a third criteria here that would state that a test that was conducted and the pages passed. No test or tool exists yet though. We're looking into how such a test and/or tool might be designed.
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "other content" is too broad. "visibly" is not testable. Assumes tool can be developed that can determine if flicker falls within the 3 to 49 Hz range. (Untestable Success Criteria)
The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
Individuals with photosensitive epilepsy can have seizures triggered by flickering or flashing in the 3 to 49 flashes per second (Hertz) range with a peak sensitivity at 20 flashes per second.
Individuals who are easily distracted may not be able to focus on page content with flicker occurring in the same visual field.
Mechanisms have been added to facilitate orientation and movement in content.
[end current]Editorial Note: The CKW reorganization proposed that all of the items in required be removed and proposed a rewording of the item in level 2 that addressed logical, linear reading order. [I#441]
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): What's a perceived page? What if it's a voice XML application. How does it apply to web applications? (Untestable Success Criteria)
markup to identify hierarchical structure and other, non-hierarchical relationships such as cross-references, internal links, etc.
[end proposed]hierarchical structure mark up
[end current]Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): Does this apply to a page or the site as a whole? (Untestable Success Criteria)
table of contents
[end proposed]Table of contents (or site map)
[end current]site map
[end proposed]alternate display orders
[end proposed]alternate display orders (or alternate site navigation mechanisms)
[end current]Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): What is an alternate display order of a 50-page site? (Untestable Success Criteria)
alternate site navigation mechanisms
[end proposed]Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): Contains ambiguous words: skip, large, repetitive (Untestable Success Criteria)
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "has been reviewed" is is only testable by someone internal to the development organization. (Untestable Success Criteria)
breaking up text into logical paragraphs
dividing documents, especially very long ones, into hierarchical sections and subsections with clear and informative titles
[end proposed]providing hierarchical sections and titles, particularly for longer documents
[end current]supplying a unique and informative title for each page or resource that can be accessed independently (for example, from a search results page)
[end proposed]revealing important non-hierarchical relationships, such as cross-references, or the correspondence between header and data cells in a data table, so that the relationships are represented unambiguously in the markup or data model.
[end proposed]Editorial Note: JS 10/27: I don't understand the relationship between "revealing" relationships and representing them in the markup. Who or what does the revealing, and how?]
revealing important non-hierarchical relationships, such as cross-references, or the correspondence between header and data cells in a table, so that they are represented unambiguously in the markup or data model
[end current]dividing very large works into sections and or chapters with logical labels
Editorial Note: JS 10/27: seems redundant with B, above
others?
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "logical, linear, reading order" is not testable. (Untestable Success Criteria)
Editorial Note: JS 10/26: Does this belong somewhere under Principle 1, since it seems to have more to do with making structure perceivable than making it operable? Or should we revise this to bring out the operable characteristics of the diagram?
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "logical tab order" is not testable. (Untestable Success Criteria)
The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
When the logical structure is provided in markup or a data model,
Users with physical disabilities can use structure to more easily jump between paragraphs, chapters, sections etc.
Users with cognitive disabilities can use structure (chapter titles, headers, etc.) to provide more context for the text that follows them. They also provide warning of a change in context and reorient the user to the new focus.
Users with blindness or low vision can jump from header to header to get an overview or to more quickly "skim" to the section they are interested in.
Readers with low vision can sometimes (depending on display technology) change how chapter titles and headers are displayed to make them more visible -and easier to use when skimming the document.
the content can be presented on a variety of devices because the device software can choose only those elements of the content that it is able to display and display them in the most effective way for that device.
Providing different navigation mechanisms can provide a better match between different people's skills, background knowledge, visual vs. text orientation, and the type of information they are seeking at the moment.
Individuals with cognitive disabilities may find it easier to ask for what they want than to deduce its location from categorical choices.
Individuals with low vision or blindness may find search techniques that fetch everything that relates to a topic of interest to be easier than techniques that require them to scan lists or pages for the items.
Example 1: a physics dissertation.
A dissertation contains well-defined sections such as "Abstract," "Table of Contents," "Chapter 1," etc. The pieces in each section (paragraphs, subheadings, quotes) are denoted with structural markup.
Example 2: a scalable image of a bicycle.
Lines and a circle (spokes and rim) are grouped into a "wheel." Lines in a triangle that attach to each wheel are grouped into a "frame."
Example 3: user interface.
User interface controls are divided into organized groups.
Methods are provided to minimize error and provide graceful recovery.
[end current]Editorial Note: The CKW proposal suggested that this success criterion be combined with one of the (now level 3) items and that another level 2 item be moved up. [I#440]
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "where possible" is not testable. This is not applicable in all cases. It should be covered in some non-normative document but not here. (Untestable Success Criteria)
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "where possible" is not testable. (Untestable Success Criteria)
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "significant" and "important" are not testable. (Untestable Success Criteria)
actions are reversible
where actions are not reversible, they are checked for errors before going on to the next step in a process
[end proposed]where not reversible, actions are checked for errors in advance
[end current]where actions are not reversible, and cannot be checked in advance, the user is able to review and confirm or correct information before submitting it
[end proposed]where not reversible, and not checkable, a confirmation is asked before acceptance
[end current]The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
Principle 3: UNDERSTANDABLE. Make content and controls understandable to as many users as possible.
[end current]Language of content can be programmatically determined.
[end current]The requirement above does not apply to foreign words or phrases that are found in unabridged dictionaries for the natural language of the content.
This success criterion does not apply to imaginary words, dialect abbreviations, or other words that are not found in unabridged Dictionaries of the primary natural language in which the document is written.
Note:
Foreign words or phrases that are found in standard unabridged dictionaries for the natural language of the content do not need to be marked.
This success criterion applies only to foreign words, not to imaginary words, dialect abbreviations and other words that may not be found in an unabridged dictionary of the primary language but that are not foreign words.
The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
Phrases from various languages are often interspersed in writing. When these phrases are identified, a speech synthesizer can voice text with the appropriate accent and pronunciation. When they are not identified, the speech synthesizer will use the default accent and pronunciation of the language on the rest of the page, which can make the phrase unintelligible. Identifying changes in language will also allow a tool to ask for automatic translations of that content. When editing content, authoring tools can switch between appropriate spelling dictionaries.
Example 1: a French phrase in an English sentence.
In the following sentence, "And with a certain je ne sais quoi, she entered both the room, and his life, forever." the French phrase "je ne sais quoi" is marked as French. Depending on the markup language, English may either be marked as the language for the entire document except where specified, or marked at the paragraph level.
The definition of abbreviations and acronyms can be unambiguously determined.
[end current]Editorial Note: The CKW reorganization suggested that this guideline be combined with guideline 1.4. [I#442]
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "first in standard unabridged dictionary" is not testable. Good example is "ATM" - automatic teller machine, asynchronous transfer mode, etc. Does "first time" mean first time on the page, on a site, in the content management system, etc. ? (Untestable Success Criteria)
Editorial Note: If a standard format for doing it can be achieved, we might require that linkages to glossaries for all abbreviations and acronyms that are created by the author or site be provided. We could also recommend that linkages to any abbreviations, acronyms, etc. used by the authors also be provided. We could also have a weaker recommendation for acronyms and abbreviations appearing on the site that linkages to glossaries explaining all abbreviations acronyms, etc. that appear in any documents on the site be provided.
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "can or should be used" is not testable. Define "cascading dictionaries". Can test if there is a list of links. (Untestable Success Criteria)
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "has been reviewed" is only testable by someone internal to the development organization. "as appropriate" is not testable. (Untestable Success Criteria)
provide a definition or link (with the first occurrence) of phrases, words, acronyms, and abbreviations specific to a particular community.
provide a summary for relationships that may not be obvious from analyzing the structure of a table but that may be apparent in a visual rendering of the table.
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "obvious" and "apparent" are not testable. (Untestable Success Criteria)
if contracted forms of words are used such that they are ambiguous, provide semantic markup to make words unique and interpretable.
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "ambiguous" and "interpretable" are not testable. "unique" has to have scope to be testable. (Untestable Success Criteria)
The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
Defining key terms and specialized language will help people who are not familiar with the topic.
Providing the expansion of abbreviations and acronyms not only helps people who are not familiar with the abbreviation or acronym but can clarify which meaning of an abbreviation or acronym is appropriate to use. For example, the acronym "ADA" stands for both the American with Disabilities Act as well as the American Dental Association.
Content is no more complex than is necessary and/or is supplemented with simpler forms of the content.
[end current]Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "has been reviewed" is only testable by someone internal to the development organization. (Untestable Success Criteria)
The resource uses vocabulary which is widely used by members of the intended audience.
[end proposed]familiarity of terms and language structure
[end current]The length and complexity of sentences are consistent with recommended best practices for the intended audience, such as those found in current textbooks about writing in the audience's field or discipline.
[end proposed]reasonableness of length and complexity of sentences
[end current]Paragraphs develop a single topic or subtopic.
[end proposed]coherence of paragraphs (and sensibility in length)
[end current]Section headings and linked text are understandable when read by themselves (for example, in a screen reader's list of links or a table of contents).
[end proposed]clarity of headings and linked text when read out of context
[end current]Page titles are informative and unique.
[end proposed]accuracy and uniqueness of page titles
[end current]The document uses page design, graphics, color, fonts, animations, video, or audio to clarify complex text as necessary.
[end proposed]care in the use of all-capital letters where normal sentence case might increase comprehension
[end current]inclusion of non-text content to supplement text for key pages or sections of the site where they felt it was appropriate.
[end current]Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "has been reviewed" is only testable by someone internal to the development organization. (Untestable Success Criteria)
The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
All users, especially those with cognitive, learning, and/or reading disabilities benefit from the use of clear and simple writing. This should not discourage you from expressing complex or technical ideas.
Using clear and simple language also benefits people whose first language differs from your own, including those people who communicate primarily in sign language.
Sounds, graphics, videos and animations can help make concepts presented in a Web site easier to understand, especially for people with cognitive, reading, or learning disabilities or those who are unfamiliar with the language of the text of the site.
Summarizing information that is difficult to understand helps people who do not read well.
Providing a summary of the visual cues that show relationships between complex information helps people who do not use visual cues or who have difficulty using visual cues. For example, people who are completely blind do not use any visual cues, while people with dyslexia or with low vision might have difficulty interpreting visual cues.
Note:
Designers need to be cautious in deciding when to use illustrations. Reading a picture is probably a learned activity that is easier for some than others. Some users skip the pictures; others read only the pictures. Designers must also recognize that visual conventions are not universal and that individuals develop their own mental schema and expectations in interpreting visual information.
Example 1: a description of a process.
A page describes how to learn to play soccer. Each step in learning the fundamentals of the game is illustrated with a photograph of a player doing what is described in the text.
Example 2: a concrete concept.
The primary concept on a page is concrete. It is discussing Mt. Pinatubo. It includes both a description of the 1991 eruption as well as photos of the eruption and the aftermath. It links to another site that contains video and another site that contains a 3D simulation of what happened underneath the crust and within the volcano during the eruption.
Example 3: child's report of school trip.
A child went with her school on a trip to a bicycle manufacturing plant. She wrote a report for her family and friends to post to the Web. In the report, she includes the company logo as well as a picture of a bicycle on the assembly line. She links to the company Web site for more information. She includes photos she took of the plant.
Example 4: stock trading data.
A news site is comparing the performance of the economy from 3rd quarter of this year with 3rd quarter from the last 3 years. They compare prices of the most popular stocks. They present the data in a bar graph with a link to the raw data they used to create the bar graph.
Example 5: history of music.
A grandfather's hobby is listening to and playing music. He creates a Web site that includes examples of many different types of music and musical instruments. When describing specific types of music, he links to a short sound clip.
Layout and behavior of content is consistent or predictable, but not identical.
[end current]Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "key", "generally", and "predictable" are not testable. (Untestable Success Criteria)
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "inconsistent" and "unpredictable" are not testable. (Untestable Success Criteria)
an easy to find setting, that persists for the site visit, is provided for the user to deactivate processes or features that cause extreme changes in context or
extreme changes in context are identified before they occur so the user can determine if they wish to proceed or so they can be prepared for the change
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): Might be able to make this testable if we come up with a better definition of "extreme changes in context" (Untestable Success Criteria)
Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): "has been reviewed" is only testable by someone internal to the development organization. (Untestable Success Criteria)
The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
Providing consistent and predictable responses to user actions is important feedback for the user. This lets them know that your site is working properly and encourages them to continue interacting with the content. When users receive an unexpected response, they might conclude that something is wrong or broken. Some people might become so confused they will not be able to use your site.
Individuals who are unable to detect extreme changes in context or may not realize that the context has changed are less likely to become disoriented while navigating a site. This applies to people in the following ways:
Individuals who are blind or have low vision may have difficulty knowing when a visual context change, such as a new window popping up, has occurred. In this case, warning users of context changes in advance minimizes confusion when the user discovers that the back button no longer behaves as expected.
Using captions to note changes in speaker is beneficial for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and who may be unable to discern changes in speaker for audio-only presentations.
Some individuals with low vision, with dyslexia and who have difficulty interpreting visual cues may benefit from additional cues in order to detect extreme changes in context.
Example 1: a form to deactivate pop-up windows.
A checkbox is provided on a page of links to let the user select whether they want the resultant pages to appear in new windows or not.
Example 2: a warning given before a pop-up window.
At the end of a news story, several links are provided for more information. At the beginning of each link is an icon of an arrow with the text equivalent, "Link will open in new window."
Example 3: frames that do not track history making the back button behave unexpectedly.
Example 4: forms.
Editorial Note: Some of these examples are very brief. Should they be expanded and clarified with further details?
Principle 4: ROBUST. Use Web technologies that maximize the ability of the content to work with current and future accessibility technologies and user agents.
[end current]Technologies are used according to specification.
[end current]passed validity tests of the language (whether it be conforming to a schema, Document Type Definition (DTD), or other tests described in the specification)
structural elements and attributes are used as defined in the specification
accessibility features are used
deprecated features are avoided
Editorial Note: The following two success criteria seem to overlap with guideline 4.3. There is an open question about whether they should be deleted since guideline 4.3 covers programmatic interfaces.
The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
This guideline further emphasizes that following specifications increases the likelihood of accessible content. While other guidelines refer to individual pieces of content, this guideline takes a step back to look at the broad picture. It also exists to help cover future technologies or issues that we did not anticipate at the time of writing this guideline. Thus, the benefits of following specifications are primarily that assistive technologies and user agents can render the content according to spec.
Programmatic user interfaces are accessible or alternative, accessible versions are provided.
[end current]Editorial Note: This guideline includes a slightly reworded version of the suggestions from CKW reorganization. However, the following elements appeared to be redundant with the first sentence. Can they be removed?
If the application renders visual text, it should conform to the VisualText checkpoints.
If the application renders images, it should conform to the Image checkpoints.
If the application renders animations, it should conform to the Animation checkpoints.
If the application renders video, it should conform to the Video checkpoints.
If the application renders audio, it should conform to the Audio checkpoints.
If the application performs its own event handling, it should conform to the Events checkpoints.
If the application implements a selection mechanism, it should conform to the Selection checkpoints.
The application should support keyboard access per UAAG 1.0 checkpoints 1.1 and 6.7.
If the application implements voice or pointer input, it should conform to the Input Modality checkpoints.
accessibility conventions of the markup or programming language (API's or specific markup) are used (@@in UAAG somewhere?)
The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
Editorial Note: This section needs to be updated to reflect above changes in guideline and success criteria.
Authors who utilize technologies designed to support accessibility will:
encounter fewer challenges when implementing these guidelines
avoid the need to create custom solutions and workarounds to address accessibility concerns
avoid the need to provide accessible alternate versions for content rendered in a technology that does not fully address these guidelines
Individuals who rely on assistive technologies to access the Web will be able interact with the content.
Individuals who access the Web with older technologies or alternative browsing devices such as PDAs and cell phones also benefit from the inclusion of accessible alternatives to custom user interfaces.
Example 1: accessible APIs.
A Java applet uses the accessibility API defined by the language. Refer to the IBM Guidelines for Writing Accessible Applications Using 100% Pure Java.
Technologies that are relied upon by the content are declared and widely available.
[end current]Note:
When determining your list of technological requirements, consider that assistive hardware and software is often slow to adapt to technological advances, and the availability of assistive technology varies across natural languages. Verify that assistive technology compatible with the technologies you choose is available in the natural language(s) of your content.
Editorial Note: This guideline currently includes no level 1 criteria. The implications of this are that there is no level 1 criterion that says content must transform gracefully or that it must be backwards compatible. However, if the guidelines with level 1 criterion are designed well, level A conformance would result in content that transforms gracefully. This guideline might be too subjective or difficult to test and may be deleted.
The following items are candidates for removal from the guidelines document:
Editorial Note: A definition of "widely available" should be added here to include something which is low cost and available in many?/most? countries/languages.
Benefits of determining and documenting baseline user agent requirements:
Individuals can identify (either through site documentation or automatically through metadata) whether or not they are likely to be able to use a site. In conjunction with a search engine or a proxy server, this could be used to automatically filter out sites a user can not access or to automatically filter to the top sites that would be most usable.
Requiring sites to document technology requirements will cause them to evaluate assumptions about user agents and will minimize the number of sites that are inadvertently inaccessible because they are unaware of backward compatibility issues.
Benefits of designing for backward compatibility:
Individuals who must use alternative browsing technologies and devices will be able to access the content.
Individuals who can not afford or otherwise do not have access to newer technologies also benefit from backward compatibility in that they will not need to purchase upgrades or equipment as often.
Example 1: an online store.
By documenting minimum user agent requirements, the store makes it possible for people using particular technologies to determine if they are going to have trouble using the store or its checkout mechanism without having to go through the entire process of shopping and checkout only to find out that they are unable to complete their transaction at the end. They can, therefore, shop at stores they can be successful at.
Example 2: an Intranet site.
A large company was concerned about the ability to address individuals at many diverse sites that have different technology bases. They have, therefore, created two versions of their content and documented the requirements for each, making it easy for individual sites to determine which version would work for their technologies.
Editorial Note: The WCAG WG has not tackled the definitions of the terms that we are using and acknowledges that we sometimes use terms inconsistently. We need to coordinate our terms and definitions with the WAI Glossary and are working on proposals for a variety of definitions. We have been looking at the UAAG 1.0 glossary and other glossaries within the W3C.
content that can be expressed accurately and unambiguously in a reasonable number of words (for example, diagrams, charts, illustrations, etc.) Content such as a musical performance or visual artwork is considered "content that can not be expressed in words," since this type of content relies heavily on the visual (or auditory) experience.[I#320]
Editorial Note: the proposed wording in guideline 2.1 no longer references this definition.
An audio description is a verbal description of all significant visual information in scenes, actions, and events that cannot be perceived from the sound track alone to the extent possible given the constraints posed by the existing audio track and limitations on freezing the audio visual program to insert additional auditory description.
Note:
When adding audio description to existing materials, the amount of information conveyed through audio description is constrained by the amount of space available in the existing audio track unless the audio/video program is periodically frozen to insert audio description. However, it is often impossible or inappropriate to freeze the audio/visual program to insert additional audio description.
Audio descriptions are equivalents of visual information from actions, body language, graphics, and scene changes that are voiced (either by a human or a speech synthesizer) and synchronized with the multimedia presentation.
Captions are text equivalents of auditory information from speech, sound effects, and ambient sounds that are synchronized with the multimedia presentation.
A competitive activity is an activity where timing is an essential part of the design of the activity. Removal of the time element would change the performance of the participants. Versions of the activity (e.g. test) that have no time basis or time limits might be preferred and may be required for some venues but this would require a complete redesign of the activity (e.g. test) and may change the character and validation methodology and would therefore not fall under these guidelines.
Content is considered complex if the relationships between pieces of information are not easy to figure out. If the presentation of the information is intended to highlight trends or relationships between concepts, these should be explicitly stated in the summary.
Examples of complex information:
data tables,
concepts that are esoteric or difficult to understand,
content that involves several layers.
Content
Editorial Note: We need to include a definition for content here.
Controlled languages use a restricted vocabulary taken from natural language. The purpose is to make texts easier to understand and translate. Standards generally limit words to a single meaning and prescribed part of speech. Complex syntax is avoided. Information about controlled language applications is available on the World Wide Web.
A feature is a specific component of a technology, for example an element in a markup language or a function call in an Application Programming Interface. Typically, a given feature may only be available in specific versions of the technology, and thus may need to be noted explicitly in the required list.
Functionality is the purpose or intended effect of the content. This may include presentation of information , data collection, securing a response from the user, providing user experience, linking to other content, testing, confirmation, purchasing, etc.
A keyboard interface is the point where the application accepts any input that would come from the keyboard (or optional keyboard).
Mechanisms that cause extreme changes in context include:
opening a new browser window unexpectedly and without any nonvisual cue (back button suddenly appears nonfunctional)
in an auditory presentation, the speaker changes with no visual cue and no notation in captions
captions that do not identify a change in speaker
Common user actions include:
mouse movements
key activation
link selection
use of browser navigation buttons (e.g. back and forward)
opening new browser windows
Common responses to user actions include:
loading a new page
exposing/concealing content based on mouse position or keyboard focus
displaying the contents of a menu (auditorily or visually)
displaying pop-up menus or windows
submitting a form
It is important that responses to user actions be predictable and sensible to the end user and that interactions are consistent, both throughout the site and with commonly used interaction metaphors used throughout the Web.
Media equivalents present essential audio information visually (captions) and essential video information auditorily (audio descriptions).
Natural languages are those used by humans to communicate, including spoken, written, and signed languages.
non-text content includes but is not limited to images, text in raster images, image map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), ASCII art, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video.
Note:
Scripts, applets, and programmatic objects are not covered in this definition and are addressed in guideline 4.3.
The term operable includes the concept of efficiency. That is, it implies that the device can be operated from the keyboard in a reasonably efficient fashion. Using MouseKeys or having to tab dozens of times to move through a small section of a document or page, or other unreasonably inefficient keyboard access would not qualify. If a document has a very large number of links, some mechanism other than tabbing through them one at a time needs to be provided. This might include provision of headers (for header navigation), the use of skip navigation, links, etc.[I#346]
[end add]Presentation is the rendering of the content and structure in a form that can be sensed by the user.
Real-time events are those that are based on the occurrence of events in real-time where the events are not under the control of the author.
A site navigation mechanism is a mechanism for easily orienting and moving about within the site. Site navigation mechanisms include but are not limited to:
A home page with hyperlinks on it and subsequent pages that link to the other pages at the site
site map(s)
search engine(s)
expanding outline(s)
dynamic fisheye views showing all linked pages or topics related to any page.
3-D virtual representations of site content
Structure includes both hierarchical structure of the content and non-hierarchical relationships such as cross-references, or the correspondence between header and data cells in a table.The heirarchical structure of content represents changes in context. For example,
A book is divided into chapters, paragraphs, lists, etc. Chapter titles help the reader anticipate the meaning of the following paragraphs. Lists clearly indicate separate, yet related ideas. All of these divisions help the reader anticipate changes in context.
A bicycle is divided into wheels and a frame. Further, a wheel is divided into a tire and a rim. In an image of the bicycle, one group of circles and lines becomes "wheel" while another group becomes "frame."
A technology is a
markup or programming language
application Programming Interface (API)
or communication protocol
A text equivalent
serves the same function as the non-text content was intended to serve.
communicates the same information as the non-text content was intended to convey.
may contain structured content or metadata.
Note:
Text-equivalents should be easily convertible to braille or speech, displayed in a larger font or different colors, fed to language translators or abstracting software, etc.
A time-dependent presentation is a presentation that
is composed of synchronized audio and visual tracks (e.g., a movie), OR
requires the user to respond interactively at specific times in the presentation.
Content might be unfamiliar if you are using terms specific to a particular community. For example, many of the terms used in this document are specific to the disability community.
Editorial Note: definition of "widely available" should be added here to include something which is low cost and available in many?/most? countries/languages.
Since the release of WCAG 1.0 in May 1999, the WCAG Working Group has received feedback on priorities of checkpoints, the usability of the set of documents, and requests for clarifications on the meaning of specific checkpoints and what is needed to satisfy them. Thus, it is intended that WCAG 2.0, when it eventually becomes a W3C Recommendation:
will be more efficiently organized,
may adjust the priority of some checkpoints,
may modify, remove, or add requirements due to changes in Web technologies since the publication of WCAG 1.0,
will incorporate the Errata from WCAG 1.0,
will reflect the experience gained in implementing WCAG 1.0.
For a detailed comparison, refer to the Mapping Between WCAG 1.0 and the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft.
We hope that WCAG 2.0 will have several improvements over WCAG 1.0. While the primary goal of WCAG 2.0 is the same as WCAG 1.0 (to promote accessibility of Web content) additional goals for WCAG 2.0 include improvements that will:
Ensure that requirements may be applied across technologies
Ensure that the conformance requirements are clear
Ensure that the deliverables are easy to use
Write to a more diverse audience
Clearly identify who benefits from accessible content
Ensure that the revision is "backward compatible" with WCAG 1.0
For more information about the intended improvements in WCAG 2.0 Working Draft, please refer to Requirements for WCAG 2.0.
Editorial Note: Links within the document will be turned into references and the links to those documents will be listed here. They are inline for the time being.
Editorial Note: The following items are the additional notes from previous drafts. They are referenced from level 3 sections of some guidelines but there is not yet consensus on whether these items should be removed from the document or how they might be incorporated into other documents.
Editorial Note: The proposed edits in the plain language proposal (Issue 650) for this section involved a complete reorganization of this section. Therefore, individual edits have not been tracked.
Organize material so it is easy to read and use.
Use a style manual, dictionary, and other reference materials.
Test documents to learn if potential users understand the material, and include people with cognitive, learning, or reading disabilities in the test group.
Use vocabulary that will be familiar to intended readers.
If the resource is intended for people who work in a particular technical field, consider using a Controlled Language. For example, a resource designed for aircraft engineers could use a controlled language like the one used by Boeing Aircraft Company.
If a technical resource is intended for translation into other languages, consider using a Controlled Language.
If the resource is intended for a general audience or for translation into other languages, avoid professional jargon, slang, and other terms with a specialized meaning that may not be clear to people outside a specific group. Review the document for plain language, using a checklist like the ones produced by US and Canadian government agencies.
Editorial Note: js: We should include examples from other countries and other languages if possible
If the resource is intended for a general audience and it is necessary to use words that have specialized meanings, define those words.
When there is a choice between abstract and concrete terms, use the more concrete term unless there is a specific reason for using the abstract term.
Avoid ambiguity unless it is an essential aspect of the subject-matter.
Make sentence-length consistent with common practice in the language of the document or the primary audience for whom the document is intended. Consult textbooks about writing in that field or discipline.
Use the simplest sentence forms consistent with the purpose of the content
For example, the simplest sentence-form for English consists of Subject-Verb-Object, as in John hit the ball or The Web site conforms to WCAG 2.0.
Consider using bulleted or numbered lists in place of paragraphs that contain long series of words or phrases separated by commas
Use single nouns or short noun-phrases.
Make sure that pronoun references and references to earlier points in the document are clear
The sentence below contains several pronouns whose references are not clear:
Web developers can't understand those guidelines because they don't speak their language.
It is not clear which guidelines are referred to as "those guidelines" (the guidelines you are reading now would be these guidelines)
It isn't clear whether the pronoun "they" refers to the Web developers or to the guidelines (the rules of English syntax indicate that the reference is to the guidelines, but common usage doesn't always obey those rules)
It isn't clear whether the pronoun "their" refers to the language used by the Web developers or the language in which the guidelines are written.
The sentence can be rewritten to resolve the ambiguities:
Web developers can't understand these guidelines because the guidelines are not written in the developers' language.
For documents written in English and some other Western languages, use the active voice unless there is a specific reason for using passive constructions. Sentences in the active voice are often shorter and easier to understand than those in the passive voice.
Active: Many people believe that readers understand sentences in the active voice more easily than sentences in the passive voice.
Passive: It is believed by many that sentences in the active voice are more easily understood by readers than sentences in the passive voice.
Use verb tenses consistently.
For example, do not switch randomly between past and present tense. In the sentences, John left the room. He takes the elevator down to the lobby, the shift from past tense (in the first sentence left the room) to present tense in the second sentence (takes the elevator) might create ambiguity about John's use of the elevator: did he use it in the past or is he using it now?
Indicate the logical relationships between phrases, sentences, paragraphs, or sections of the text.
In some cases, simple words such as and, however, furthermore, and therefore may be enough to make the logical relationship clear between one sentence and the next. Other cases may require longer phrases or even additional sentences.
Editorial Note: js: I suggest moving the items under this heading to Guideline 2.5 (help users avoid mistakes and make it easy to correct them
Thoroughly explain instructions or required actions
Use names and labels consistently.
Clarity where the document:
addresses users
explains choices and options
labels options to get more information
instructs users how to modify selections in critical functions (such as how to delete an item from a shopping cart)
Application of:
Use a goal-action structure for menu prompts.
default settings (and the ease in re-establishing them)
Use two-step, "select and confirm" processes to reduce accidental selections for critical functions
Provide calculation assistance to reduce the need to calculate (for example, use a script to calculate the total price for an online purchase)
Editorial Note: js: I propose deleting the first two items under this head, which are addressed earlier in this guideline
Provide summaries to aid understanding
add non-text content to the site for key pages or sections specifically to make the site more understandable by users who cannot understand the text only version of the site.
Make it possible to convert text into symbolic languages such as those used by Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) devices
Editorial Note: js: WCAG 1.0 and Section 508 both allow text-only variants only in cases when the "original" can't be made accessible any other way, and then require that the text-only variant be updated whenver the "original" changes. That seems to have dropped out of WCAG 2.0, but I think we need to reinstate it.
Editorial Note: js: say how-through metadata? And we need an example for this one, under examples. Clearly a Level 3
use of sentence structures that increase understanding
such as active voice in languages where this form helps convey information
length of noun phrases
strings of no more than three or four nouns are easiest to understand
clarity of reference with pronouns and anaphoric expressions (these refer back to something already said in the text)
example of potential ambiguity: "Scientists study monkeys. They eat bananas."
correct use of conjunction forms and adverbs to make explicit the relationship between phrases or parts of the text
such as "and," "but," "furthermore," "not only"
complexity of verb tenses
do the tenses used in a document seem overly complicated?
intelligibility of verb phrases
familiarity of idioms or slang
logic in the order and flow of information
consequences of ambiguity or abstraction
improved readability of vertical lists might offer in place of long paragraphs of information
use of summaries to aid understanding
thoroughness in the explanation of instructions or required actions
consistency in the use of names and labels
clarity where the document:
addresses users
explains choices and options
labels options to get more information
instructs users how to modify selections in critical functions (such as how to delete an item from a shopping cart)
application of:
proper markup to highlight key information
goal-action structure for menu prompts
default settings (and the ease in re-establishing them)
two-step "select and confirm" processes to reduce accidental selections for critical functions
calculation assistance to reduce the need to calculate
testing with potential users for ease of accessibility
use of a controlled language
providing support for conversion into symbolic languages
adding non-text content to the site for key pages or sections specifically to make the site more understandable by users who cannot understand the text only version of the site.
place navigation bars in a consistent location whenever possible
similar layout for user interface components should be used for sections or whole site
similar user interface components should be labeled with similar terminology
use headers consistently
use templates for consistent presentation of sections or whole site
pages with similar function should have similar appearance and layout
controls that look or sound the same should be designed to act the same
conventions likely to be familiar to the user should be followed
unusual user interface features or behaviors that are likely to confuse the first-time user should be described to the user before they are encountered
allow the user to select different page layout templates for presentation of pages. (e.g. 3 column, linear, adding extra orientation or navigation elements, etc.) [Issue #353]
[end proposed]