Re: [WSG] accessibility statements... what are they worth?
HI all whereas accessibility (a.k.a. a11y) is not about web standards, one aspect of it is about conformance with standards, in particular, the parsing of code. So I guess it's OK to talk about it here for a little bit. There are two points to consider here: I just had a look at the myki accessibility statement and there are several interesting issues. WCAG 1.0 measures conformance against Priority 1, 2, and 3, http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#priorities WCAG 2.0 measures against success criteria levels A, AA, AAA: http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/ Saying they attempt to conform to WCAG 1.0 Level AA shows they don't know what they're talking about. I would be surprised, in fact if they even met the conditions they claim to have met. In fact, if you follow the link that states they conform to the Victorian Government Standard from your link: (http://www.myki.com.au/Home/Accessibility/Accessibility/default.aspx) it actually states the VIC standard is WCAG 2.0 and they must meet the NTS timeline The second point is that all AU gov sites are required to PASS, not "reasonable effort to ensure", but actually successfully MEET the WCAG 2.0 Level A criteria by Dec 2012 and Level AA by dec 2014 according to the AGIMO Web Accessibility National Transition Strategy (NTS). http://webguide.gov.au/accessibility-usability/accessibility/ In fact, if you follow the link that states they conform to the Victorian Government Standard from your link: (http://www.myki.com.au/Home/Accessibility/Accessibility/default.aspx) it actually states the VIC standard is WCAG 2.0 (not 1.0) and they must meet the NTS Guidelines. According to the strategy, now is when they should have formulated a plan and started on the road to transitioning to a fully compliant site by the first deadline. In conclusion, if you feel like complaining, the best bet would be to make the owners of the site aware of this discrepancy, and their obligations and request a timeframe on when they expect to meet their obligation for compliance. J On 04/09/2011, at 22:39 , Istvan Vincze wrote: > Hi Andrew :) > > I have a bit of a peeve with the Myki site, too... a lot in fact. When the > site was launched I had a bit of a poke around the source and found it to be > a pretty low-effort job, so not surprised about your findings. Glad you > looked into this. I'd suspect the Metlink site has similar failings. > > Considering that it's public transport, I'd also expect a mobile optimised > site and/or web app to manage account. I've finally found an app (on android, > possibly iOS too) called MyUsage that can at least retrieve my Myki (amongs > many other services) balance easily. > > Istvan > > > On 4 September 2011 21:51, Andrew Harris wrote: > Hi all, > I recently had some problems with the Myki website (I like to use the > keyboard to navigate - they don't make it easy!), which prompted me to > visit the site's accessibility page. > http://www.myki.com.au/Home/Accessibility/Accessibility/default.aspx > > There, they make a claim about their efforts to reach WCAG AA > compliance. Ever pedantic, I ran a few checks over the site, and found > many errors that would indicate that this simply isn't so. In fact > only one of the five pages I tested actually passed! > > Does it have to wait for someone to bring an action against them, or > is there some other sort of trigger that can be used to prompt them to > action? After all, this isn't just some business selling widgets, it's > a public transport ticketing system! > > -- > Andrew Harris > and...@woowoowoo.com > http://www.woowoowoo.com > > ~~~ <*>< ~~~ > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** = This email is: [ ] bloggable[x] ask first[ ] private = http://about.me/joe.ortenzi *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] accessibility statements... what are they worth?
On Sep 4, 2011, at 4:51 AM, Andrew Harris wrote: > Hi all, > I recently had some problems with the Myki website (I like to use the > keyboard to navigate - they don't make it easy!), which prompted me to > visit the site's accessibility page. > http://www.myki.com.au/Home/Accessibility/Accessibility/default.aspx > > There, they make a claim about their efforts to reach WCAG AA > compliance. Ever pedantic, I ran a few checks over the site, and found > many errors that would indicate that this simply isn't so. In fact > only one of the five pages I tested actually passed! > > Does it have to wait for someone to bring an action against them, or > is there some other sort of trigger that can be used to prompt them to > action? After all, this isn't just some business selling widgets, it's > a public transport ticketing system! > > -- The site claims WCAG 1.0 AA compliance. If I'm not mistaken, keyboard navigation is not included in WCAG 1.0. The site (whoever wrote the accessibity statement) may be confused it with access key navigation. If I were a user of this site, I would write email to suggest the site needs upgrade to WCAG 2.0 AA comformace, it probably gets ignored, but if more users write in it will bring the attention. tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] accessibility statements... what are they worth?
Hi Andrew :) I have a bit of a peeve with the Myki site, too... a lot in fact. When the site was launched I had a bit of a poke around the source and found it to be a pretty low-effort job, so not surprised about your findings. Glad you looked into this. I'd suspect the Metlink site has similar failings. Considering that it's public transport, I'd also expect a mobile optimised site and/or web app to manage account. I've finally found an app (on android, possibly iOS too) called MyUsage that can at least retrieve my Myki (amongs many other services) balance easily. Istvan On 4 September 2011 21:51, Andrew Harris wrote: > Hi all, > I recently had some problems with the Myki website (I like to use the > keyboard to navigate - they don't make it easy!), which prompted me to > visit the site's accessibility page. > http://www.myki.com.au/Home/Accessibility/Accessibility/default.aspx > > There, they make a claim about their efforts to reach WCAG AA > compliance. Ever pedantic, I ran a few checks over the site, and found > many errors that would indicate that this simply isn't so. In fact > only one of the five pages I tested actually passed! > > Does it have to wait for someone to bring an action against them, or > is there some other sort of trigger that can be used to prompt them to > action? After all, this isn't just some business selling widgets, it's > a public transport ticketing system! > > -- > Andrew Harris > and...@woowoowoo.com > http://www.woowoowoo.com > > ~~~ <*>< ~~~ > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** > > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] accessibility statements... what are they worth?
Hi all, I recently had some problems with the Myki website (I like to use the keyboard to navigate - they don't make it easy!), which prompted me to visit the site's accessibility page. http://www.myki.com.au/Home/Accessibility/Accessibility/default.aspx There, they make a claim about their efforts to reach WCAG AA compliance. Ever pedantic, I ran a few checks over the site, and found many errors that would indicate that this simply isn't so. In fact only one of the five pages I tested actually passed! Does it have to wait for someone to bring an action against them, or is there some other sort of trigger that can be used to prompt them to action? After all, this isn't just some business selling widgets, it's a public transport ticketing system! -- Andrew Harris and...@woowoowoo.com http://www.woowoowoo.com ~~~ <*>< ~~~ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] accessibility statements
The Bo$$ wrote: I really don't think accesskeys are all that good for accessiblity though. See http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/01/04/im_still_off/ I think that's a matter of opinion. If you use numbers for your accesskeys the conflicts are fairly limited. Even if few people use them, they aren't doing any harm. Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] accessibility statements
Michigan State University Web Accessibility Statement http://www.msu.edu/accessibility/index.html MSU Web Accessibility Statement of Encouragement http://www.msu.edu/webaccess/encourage.html On Jan 20, 2005, at 6:28 PM, Cade Whitbourn wrote: What's in a good accessibility statement? Where are the best accessibility statements you've come across on the web? I'm currently writing one for the site I work on, to coincide with a redesign that's nearing completion. I haven't found many good examples of statements on other corporate sites. Some background to my site: It won't validate due to technical constraints (unreliable CMS, legacy code, third-party systems), but it's been built 'in the spirit' of web standards (i.e semantic markup, CSS for most of the layout, a few accessibility features etc). The sections I have so far in my statement: - Access keys - what are they, how to use them. - Navigation - unordered lists which degrade well, skip to content link, prominent search box, comprehensive sitemap - Standard compliance - built to HTML4.01 but will not validate, semantic markup used, WCAG compliance - Technical requirements - javascript used but degrades without, screen rez recomended for visual design but degrades - A list of the devices that the site has been tested for accessibility on. Whatdya reckon? Cheers, Cade ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** Justin Thorp Principal; Web Developer & Accessibility Specialist MyCapitalWeb.com LLC 3016 S. Deerfield Lansing, MI 48911 [EMAIL PROTECTED] my blog - http://thinkthentype.blogspot.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] accessibility statements
Hi Cade, I like http://www.diveintoaccessibility.org/accessibility_statement.html Grant -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Cade Whitbourn Sent: Friday, 21 January 2005 10:29 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] accessibility statements What's in a good accessibility statement? Where are the best accessibility statements you've come across on the web? I'm currently writing one for the site I work on, to coincide with a redesign that's nearing completion. I haven't found many good examples of statements on other corporate sites. Some background to my site: It won't validate due to technical constraints (unreliable CMS, legacy code, third-party systems), but it's been built 'in the spirit' of web standards (i.e semantic markup, CSS for most of the layout, a few accessibility features etc). The sections I have so far in my statement: - Access keys - what are they, how to use them. - Navigation - unordered lists which degrade well, skip to content link, prominent search box, comprehensive sitemap - Standard compliance - built to HTML4.01 but will not validate, semantic markup used, WCAG compliance - Technical requirements - javascript used but degrades without, screen rez recomended for visual design but degrades - A list of the devices that the site has been tested for accessibility on. Whatdya reckon? Cheers, Cade ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** ** This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain privileged information or confidential information or both. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender. ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] accessibility statements
I think accesskeys are a case of: those who like them will find them, those who don't can (and will) ignore them. I use my user stylesheet to reveal accesskeys and tabindexes. Terrence Wood. The Bo$$ wrote: CSS used, still accessible without. I really don't think accesskeys are all that good for accessiblity though. See http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/01/04/im_still_off/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] accessibility statements
CSS used, still accessible without. I really don't think accesskeys are all that good for accessiblity though. See http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/01/04/im_still_off/ On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:28:51 +1100, Cade Whitbourn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What's in a good accessibility statement? > Where are the best accessibility statements you've come across on the web? > > I'm currently writing one for the site I work on, to coincide with a > redesign that's nearing completion. I haven't found many good examples of > statements on other corporate sites. > > Some background to my site: It won't validate due to technical constraints > (unreliable CMS, legacy code, third-party systems), but it's been built 'in > the spirit' of web standards (i.e semantic markup, CSS for most of the > layout, a few accessibility features etc). > > The sections I have so far in my statement: > - Access keys - what are they, how to use them. > - Navigation - unordered lists which degrade well, skip to content link, > prominent search box, comprehensive sitemap > - Standard compliance - built to HTML4.01 but will not validate, semantic > markup used, WCAG compliance > - Technical requirements - javascript used but degrades without, screen rez > recomended for visual design but degrades > - A list of the devices that the site has been tested for accessibility on. > > Whatdya reckon? > > Cheers, > Cade > ** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ** > > ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] accessibility statements
What's in a good accessibility statement? Where are the best accessibility statements you've come across on the web? I'm currently writing one for the site I work on, to coincide with a redesign that's nearing completion. I haven't found many good examples of statements on other corporate sites. Some background to my site: It won't validate due to technical constraints (unreliable CMS, legacy code, third-party systems), but it's been built 'in the spirit' of web standards (i.e semantic markup, CSS for most of the layout, a few accessibility features etc). The sections I have so far in my statement: - Access keys - what are they, how to use them. - Navigation - unordered lists which degrade well, skip to content link, prominent search box, comprehensive sitemap - Standard compliance - built to HTML4.01 but will not validate, semantic markup used, WCAG compliance - Technical requirements - javascript used but degrades without, screen rez recomended for visual design but degrades - A list of the devices that the site has been tested for accessibility on. Whatdya reckon? Cheers, Cade ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
