Web Accessibility Standards Harmonization
Page Contents
This document is an in-progress draft and should not be referenced or quoted under any circumstances...
Abstract
[@@old text] This document explains the key role that harmonization of standards plays in increasing the accessibility of the Web for people with disabilities. It examines how adoption of a consistent set of international technical standards, the World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) guidelines for Web content, authoring tools, browsers and media players can drive more rapid progress on Web accessibility, and make the design and development of accessible Web sites more efficient.
Common standards for Web content accessibility and for authoring tools encourages the development of tools that support production of accessible Web content. Likewise, the adoption of a consistent standard for browser and media player accessibility would improve access to and reinforce the accessibility of Web content, and would help ensure that accessible content will be more available through assistive technologies used by some people with disabilities.
This document introduces the concept of harmonization and causes of fragmentation in the area of Web accessibility standards, and examines the impact of harmonization and fragmentation on Web developers, tool developers, and organizations. It also suggests action steps for promoting Web accessibility standards harmonization.[@@]
Executive Summary [only this section is new]
Providing Web content that is accessible to people with disabilities is a worldwide challenge that is being addressed through standards developed by the World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), in partnership with industry, government, disability organizations, and research. The W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 is the core worldwide standard for accessible website, Web content and Web applications. A number of factors, however, including local government standardization efforts, contribute to a fragmented accessibility standards landscape. Fragmentation of accessibility standards has the potential to disrupt the broadly-shared goal of universal Web accessibility. The harmonization of accessibility standards is the optimal approach to realizing this goal while addressing local needs.
- Web accessibility is a broad, complex topic that affects
many different stakeholders. The primary concept underlying Web
accessibility is that many Web users may not be able to see or hear Web
content, read it, or be physically able to use a mouse or keyboard.
- Web accessibility is relevant to Web users, Web content creators, site designers, and Web authoring tool developers. It is also relevant to policy makers and advocates with responsibility and interest in ensuring accessibility of information technologies.
- Web accessibility surfaces both in the way that sites are designed as well development tools, test tools, servers, and browsers - the technologies that are respectively used to create and consume the Web. Both Web production and consumption sides must be addressed to realize the goal of a truly accessible Web.
- The goal of Web accessibility is to make information on the Web accessible to as many people as possible regardless of disabilities. Web accessibility is part of a larger goal, shared by government, industry, and people with disabilities, of creating a truly inclusive digital society, as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
- The adoption of Web accessibility standards has been a
prominent driver of success in the accomplishment of Web accessibility
goals. However, adoption has not been uniform. Numerous factors contribute
to a fragmentation of accessibility standards and disrupt progress toward
the goal of universal Web accessibility.
- Examples of fragmentation of Web accessibility standards include local standards that set different requirements from international standards and disability-specific standards that ignore the stable “normative layer” of WCAG.
- Fragmented standards are often driven by local initiatives. Developed with the best of intentions, local standards can actually impede accessibility by making it harder for authoring and evaluation tools to provide support. The drivers of fragmentation range from a misunderstanding of WCAG standard as a “U.S. only” standard to a sense that only local guidelines can meet the needs of the local disability community. In most cases, local needs can be address through the “informative layer” of WCAG, which builds on top of the stable normative layer.
- Fragmentation has an impact on all stakeholder groups
and the issues that they face.
- Fragmentation makes it difficult, or even impossible, for the largest number of Web developers and content creators to make their sites universally accessible. They simply cannot develop Web sites that conform to every single differing standard at once.
- For Web content creators, it is also confusing and costly to keep up with conflicting, fragmented standards.
- Authoring tools, which help support production of accessible web content, may be rendered incompatible by fragmented standards, resulting in inefficiency and incomplete realization of an accessible web.
- Incompatible standards reduce technology industry economies of scale that favor investment in more and better accessibility tools.
- Ultimately, fragmentation is a policy issue. Though the goal of localized standards may be to improve accessibility for local people with disabilities, the end result may in fact be the opposite. Localities that implement their own standards may find that their technology industry suffers from the creation of products and Web content that cannot find a market globally.
- Harmonization of Web accessibility standards is a workable solution to the problems caused by fragmentation. Harmonizing standards is a matter of bringing local and global Web accessibility standards into alignment. It encourages progress toward the goal of universally accessible Web content while addressing the needs of various stakeholders, including different localities. Standards harmonization can take several forms, but the most effective approach is for a local entity to reference, or adopt, the worldwide standard but then adapt the informative layer of the standard in developing for specialized local needs. For example, the normative layer of WCAG calls for Web images to carry alt tags so that visually impaired site visitors can hear the content of the image. To make this standard work in a distinct language character set, though, it may be necessary for a local adaptation of the informative layer that specifies the “how to implement” aspects of the normative layer. These modifications to the informative layer can then be contributed back to the standards body for inclusion in the standard.
- Challenges to standards harmonization emerge in the
process of putting the concept into action. Standards harmonization is not
a push-button process and it can be difficult to find common ground amongst
the various people, organizations, and policies inherent in any given
situation. Making standards harmonization work requires commitment from
stakeholders.
- An effort must be made to bring standards bodies together for regular, productive dialogue around standards harmonization. This is a matter of process, organizational structure and commitment.
- The harmonization process must be well structured and open, inclusive of voices from government, non-profits, NGOs, technology industry vendors, standards bodies, and others.
- Policy makers should consider standards harmonization when contemplating the mandating of local standards. Mandating local standards can contribute to fragmentation of Web accessibility, a state that does not ultimately contribute to the social and economic benefits that policy makers want. Rather, the optimal approach is to encourage engagement of local Web accessibility stakeholders with the global standards bodies and facilitate the harmonization of standards through mapping to the accepted global standards.
Current Situation
[@@following text is old] Fragmentation of Web accessibility guidelines can impact progress on Web accessibility in various ways:
- Changing the wording of individual provisions in accessibility guidelines often changes the technical meaning of the provisions. This in turn changes what is required to meet a given level of conformance in those guidelines. This can make it more difficult for developers of authoring tools and evaluation tools (which are used to evaluate the accessibility of Web content), as they will then need to support potentially conflicting sets of implementation and evaluation techniques.
- Combining two or more different accessibility provisions may likewise affect the meaning of these provisions. Again, this can change what is required to meet a given level of conformance to accessibility guidelines. As above, this can increase the burden for developers of authoring tools and evaluation tools, which play a key role in facilitating the production and evaluation of accessible Web content.
- Omitting or adding accessibility provisions likewise changes what is required to meet a given level of conformance. This may similarly make it more difficult for developers of authoring tools and evaluation tools to support the resulting reduced or expanded conformance levels.
Fragmentation Driver | Reason for Harmonization |
---|---|
A restriction on the types of standards that governments can adopt; with a belief that W3C is not an official standards body | W3C is the leading standards body for the Web industry. Many governments have adopted HTML or XML, and therefore already have mechanisms whereby they can adopt W3C standards. |
A requirement that only standards officially available in local language(s) can be adopted | W3C now allows the development of authorized translations in local languages through its Policy for Authorized W3C Translations. |
The belief that only local guidelines can meet the needs of the local disability community | Disability needs with regard to Web accessibility do not vary significantly from country to country. |
The belief that the needs of people with disabilities outside a country are different or not relevant | The Web is worldwide. People with disabilities from other countries, with the same needs for accessibility and using the same kinds of assistive technologies, may need access to the Web-based resources of a particular country. |
The belief that W3C/WAI guidelines were developed by a single country | W3C/WAI guidelines were developed with broad international input, and reflect needs from around the world. |
The belief that development of local guidelines is the best activity in which to invest local funding for Web accessibility | Development of local guidelines takes scarce resources away from activities where building local capacity is crucial -- such as development of education, awareness, training and technical assistance on Web accessibility. |
The belief that it is more practical in the long term to have locally developed guidelines | Because Web technologies are constantly evolving, ongoing development and maintenance of local guidelines and techniques into the future may be prohibitively resource-intensive. |
The belief that Web accessibility can be more easily achieved through locally developed guidelines | Web accessibility can be more easily achieved through increased availability of supporting tools and resources, including authoring tools, evaluation tools, browsers, media players, and training and technical resources. These tools and resources develop more rapidly when there is a unified market around a consistent international set of Web accessibility standards. |
Consequences
Web Development
For Web developers using today's authoring tools, development of accessible Web sites first requires an awareness of the need for Web accessibility, then a deliberate effort to apply WCAG 1.0. It may require working around features of authoring tools that make it hard to build accessible Web sites. For instance, some authoring tools still produce non-standard markup, which can be a barrier for accessibility. Authoring tools that conform to ATAG 1.0 provide built-in support for production of accessible Web sites.
When Web developers develop accessible Web sites using today's authoring tools, they may need to work around inconsistent support of Web standards in browsers and media players. For instance, inconsistent initial support in browsers for Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) features, such as CSS positioning, led many Web developers to rely on less accessible design solutions for layout for many years. Browsers and media players that conformed to UAAG 1.0 would provide reliable support for accessibility features, making the jobs of Web developers much easier.
Web developers must already learn a variety of Web technologies and tools in order to be competitive in their field. Harmonization of Web accessibility standards enables Web developers to learn one consistent set of guidelines and implementation techniques, rather than needing to learn many different guidelines; and it allows them to re-use training and technical assistance resources among a broader Web community.
Authoring Tools
Increased availability of authoring tools conforming to the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (ATAG 1.0) is key to making the Web accessible because, with such tools, Web content developers could more easily and more automatically create accessible Web sites.
Authoring tool developers face competing priorities when deciding which features to build into their software. Product managers' decisions with regard to which features are included in product releases are frequently based on the extent of demand for a given set of features throughout their customer base. Harmonized standards mean a more unified customer demand. This strengthens the business case for accessibility for authoring tool developers and can tip the balance towards implementation of more accessibility features in their products. This, in turn, means more rapid availability of authoring tools with features supporting production of accessible content.
Evaluation Tools
Developers of evaluation tools are also impacted by fragmented standards, as these can delay, and/or increase the development cost, of the evaluation tools. Time needed to implement evaluation tests for conflicting versions of guidelines could otherwise be used to improve evaluation tools by increasing their usability or accuracy.
Harmonized Web accessibility standards would allow developers of accessibility evaluation tools to concentrate their efforts on implementing one set of evaluation tests, rather than multiple tests for overlapping or conflicting guidelines and standards in different regions or economic sectors. Improved evaluation tools enable more people to test Web sites more reliably, and help ensure more accessible Web sites.
Organizations
When there is fragmentation of standards, organizations that have audiences spanning different geographic regions, countries, or economic sectors must keep track of multiple sets of requirements. Such organizations may need to provide additional authoring tools, evaluation tools, training resources and technical assistance for their Web developers. This can divert resources from the actual development work needed to ensure accessible Web sites. The increase in cost and effort resulting from fragmented standards may consequently make it more difficult to make a convincing business case for accessibility within the organization.
Harmonized Web accessibility standards, on the other hand, allow organizations to re-use authoring and evaluation tools, training, and technical assistance resources throughout the organization, thereby achieving more cost-effective accessibility solutions.
Browsers, Media Players, and Assistive Technologies
The harmonization of Web accessibility standards is also a concern with regard to browsers and media players. Conflicting standards for browser accessibility can slow implementation of accessibility support. Browsers and media players' lack of conformance to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (UAAG 1.0) makes it harder for people with disabilities to access content on Web sites, and even to find and use the accessibility features that are already incorporated in some browsers and media players.
Some of today's browsers and media players do not provide access to certain kinds of accessibility information that a Web content developer may have included in a Web site; for instance, long descriptions of complex visuals such as maps and graphs, or summaries of information in data tables. UAAG 1.0 describes how browsers and media players can enable access to such information.
UAAG 1.0 also describes requirements for browsers and media players that can work smoothly with assistive technologies, which some people with disabilities use, such as screen readers, screen magnifiers, and voice recognition software.
Implementation of accessibility standards in browsers and authoring tools is mutually reinforcing. Once browser developers implement Web accessibility features, authoring tool developers have more reason to provide authoring support for those features. For instance, once browsers provide access to summaries of data tables, authoring tool developers then have a stronger rationale to provide a means for content developers to add summaries to tables. Similarly, browser developers are influenced by what authoring tools support, and are more likely to implement accessibility features once they know that authoring tools will provide the relevant authoring support.
Information Repositories
Online information repositories allow the gathering and storing of content for re-use in a variety of ways, including the creation of online learning modules. If the content in an information repository conforms to a consistent accessibility standard, then that content can be more easily shared among an unlimited number of users. It can be re-purposed and personalized according to user profiles, which may include information on preferred learning styles and the accessibility requirements of users with disabilities. With harmonized standards for accessibility of content in information repositories, educators and learners are able to freely transform shared resources according to user needs.
Action Steps
W3C continues to update and refine the WAI guidelines, supporting techniques, and other resources to keep pace with evolving Web technologies. WAI is currently developing the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 with broad international participation. WCAG 2.0 is expected to be easier to understand and to implement, and more precisely testable; and it will address more advanced Web technologies. Public feedback on Working Drafts of WCAG 2.0 as well as other WAI guidelines and resources is important to ensuring that these documents will continue to meet a broad spectrum of needs.
The following steps can increase the international harmonization of Web accessibility standards, and help lead more rapidly to an accessible Web:
- Participate in development of WCAG 2.0 and ATAG 2.0 by reviewing and commenting on drafts, providing feedback during implementation trials, and/or participating in WAI Working Groups.
- Promote awareness among policy-makers, standards developers, technology developers, and disability communities of the strategic importance of standards harmonization towards achieving an accessible Web.
- Ensure that developers of authoring tools, browsers, and media players are aware of the need for ATAG- and UAAG- conformant tools, and aware of how implementation of ATAG and UAAG can improve interoperability with assistive technologies and accelerate overall progress on Web accessibility.
- For organizations which currently have guidelines that diverge from international standards, consider establishing mechanisms for rapid review and potential transition to WCAG 2.0 once it is completed.
- Assist in preparing authorized translations of WAI guidelines according to W3C's policy for authorized translations.
- Redirect energies from the development of divergent standards to promoting awareness and providing implementation support for Web accessibility.