Gregg Vanderheiden assembled the first web accessibility guide in It was at the start of the digital revolution. Following the release of the first guide, more organizations started to give their input.
Thirty-eight new regulations followed and were combined in the Unified Web Site Accessibility Guidelines. The WCAG 1. There are fourteen guidelines in WCAG 1. Each guideline has its checkpoint, 65 checkpoints for all the policies, to how to implement it to your website. It defines how each guideline is applied to specific web page features, following a priority system.
Priority one is the requirements that must be implemented. Priority two is requirements should be implemented. Priority three is requirements may be implemented. The digital world is ever-changing, and therefore the guidelines needed to be updated as well.
Nine years later, the new WCAG 2. The guidelines are based on four main pillars or principles: POUR. Under the criteria Perceivable and Operable, there are four guidelines outlined. The pillar Understandable includes three guidelines, and Robust has one guideline. Like WCAG 1. All web content has to be robust enough to be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.
The WCAG 2. The whole structure of the guidelines has been changed and is based on four important pillars: POUR. WCAG 2 continues to be updated. Additional success criteria are being developed for a future WCAG 2. As technologies advanced, WCAG 1.
Levels of Conformance To help development teams prioritize accessibility implementation and remediation efforts, WCAG success criteria are organized into three levels of conformance: Level A is a basic requirement for some users with disabilities to be able to access and use web content. Level AA indicates overall accessibility and removal of significant barriers to accessing content. Level AAA provides improvements and enhancements to web accessibility for some users with disabilities.
Is this the final version? We do not assume an unrealized future in which Flash, Silverlight, or other technologies are the main way to deliver Web pages.
Instead, you either may or may not apply a guideline. No to Priority 3 : Not only do you not have to comply with any Priority 3 guidelines, most of which are unworkable, you must not comply with them. Yes to Priorities 1 and 2 : You must comply with Priority 1 and 2 guidelines, as corrected by the Samurai. Among other things, this means you must have valid code in nearly every case. No new guidelines for cognitive disabilities : WCAG 1 and 2 are both inadequate to address the needs of people with cognitive disabilities like dyslexia though that is only one of many such disabilities, which often have conflicting needs.
Nobody else has, either; it requires considerably more research and, importantly, user testing. We are leaving WCAG 1 almost exactly as it is on this subject. Tables for layout and frames are banned and all guidelines relating to tables for layout and frames are deleted. All other PDFs have to be tagged. Goodbye, 20th-century relics : Instead of worrying about how to make holdovers from the late 20th century accessible, we simply ban unnecessary artifacts like ASCII art.
How can I comply with the errata? We tried something else. You only have to use that markup if a human reader or adaptive technology would be likely to make a mistake or misunderstand the content e. Acronyms and abbreviations without expansions in real-world use e. Ignore this provision. We intend to clear up the actual accessibility problem to the extent HTML can; we are not interested in perpetuating a guideline that allows outsiders to claim your entire page is inaccessible because you made an intelligent choice about abbreviations and acronyms that the outsider disagrees with.
You are not only empowered to make intelligent choices, you must. Nor are we interested in perpetuating an unequal playing field, in which authors must mark up extensive bits and pieces of documents but makers of adaptive technology, like screen readers, never have to update their own pronunciation dictionaries. We maintain the requirement to notate a change in document language, but that obviously implies that the original language must have been notated, too.
Once a guidelines is provided as a recommendation, it is considered web standard. WCAG 1. In order to address new technologies, techniques, design trends, and mobile accessibility, WCAG 2. WCAG 2. At the time of writing this article, WCAG 2. Thankfully, WCAG 2.
In addition to addressing accessibility for web content on desktops, laptops, and tablets, WCAG 2. In an effort to make WCAG more user friendly and understandable to everyone creating digital content, the goal is to provide an easy-to-understand explanation of requirements. WCAG 3. This flexibility will also be implemented in a flexible scoring system.
Additionally, to help with creating perspective, WCAG 3. We are excited about this addition as we find our usability labs particularly useful during our WCAG audits. A major change planned for this new version of WCAG will be the structure. Here is an abbreviated visual structure of WCAG 2. In WCAG 2. For example, Guideline 2. Each success criterion is evaluated and either passes or fails.
0コメント