Requirements/Analysis and changelog for Transitioning from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0 Resource Suite
This is a requirements analysis for a suite of documents that will recommend strategies and best practices for organizations making the transition from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0.
The purpose of the suite of documents is to:
- Reassure people that:
- work already done towards WCAG 1.0 will still be relevant for WCAG 2.0
- the fundamental issues of Web accessibility are basically the same
- Explain how WCAG 2.0 differs from WCAG 1.0
- Provide a methodology/process for managing the
transition from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0
- a Web site
- an organization
- a government or other cross-organization advising body
- reference WAI documents and how they can be used in this process
- possibly provide a flow chart to illustrate each step in relation to the next
- Clarify the status of 1.0 after 2.0 comes out
- Provide guideance on transitioning policies from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0
The goals of this resource suite are to answer common questions such as:
- How is WCAG 2.0 different from WCAG 1.0?
- Where do I start with WCAG 2.0?
- Is previous work I have done to make my site WCAG 1.0 compliant valid?
- Will I need to start work all over again?
- When should I start using WCAG 2.0? — in Web site development? — in Web accessibility policies?
- What are the new additional requirements in WCAG 2.0? [I already conform with WCAG 1.0 Priority 1, 2, or 3 Checkpoints (A, AA, or AAA).]
- What's the difference between conformance in WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 and how does my conformance claim have to change?
- Why was WCAG 2.0 necessary?
- Why change to WCAG 2.0?
- What baseline do I use? [applies to WCAG 2.0 overall, not just transitioning]
The objectives of the "managing the transition" doc are to provide people who have been working towards WCAG 1.0 with the ability to:
- identify what needs to be done to move to WCAG 2.0 when, and by whom
- to benchmark their existing site against WCAG 2.0 and map out a project plan to help them meet the success criteria at chosen Level [relates to evaluating and implementing]
- to identify, prioritize and plan work needed to meet the required WCAG 2.0 conformance level [relates to implementing]
There are very different audiences for this resource suite, which will be addressed in different sub-documents:
- People developing Web sites who already have an
understanding of WCAG 1.0 and want practical guidance on how to migrate
their Web sites to WCAG 2.0 including web developers, designers,
programmers, content authors, project managers, and tool developers. This
- Project management level
- Technical implementation level
- People managing Web accessibility policies, including policy makers and decision makers in commercial organizations, nonprofit organizations, and governments.
Probably the following documents (rough draft titles only!).
Benefits of WCAG 2.0 presentation
- [Draft] Benefits of WCAG 2.0 presentation material (.ppt, 500KB), HTML version
- E-mail introduction
- Audience: Web site owners, policy makers, tool developers, ...
- Format: A video and presentation materials, not a "document".
How to Transition Your Web Site from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0
- [Draft] How to Transition Your Web Site from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0
- Audience: Web project managers and web developers are the primary audience.
- Objective: To provide practical guidance for transitioning a website from 1.0 to 2.0 compliance but also point to other documents ("How WCAG 2.0 Compares to WCAG 1.0", "Comparison of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0" and "Transitioning Web Accessibility Policies from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0") that go into more detail on specific areas.
- Note: Make it direct steps, no fluff, limied transitions and niceities (based on reviews of early drafts by developers)
- Open: Should the topics listed below be separate
documents, or sections of this document?
- How WCAG 2.0 Compares to WCAG 1.0
- Probably a somewhat expanded version of How WCAG 2.0
Drafts Differ from WCAG 1.0 that is currently in the Overview
of WCAG 2.0 Documents.
- Audience: Pretty much everyone.
- say more that WCAG 2.0 is more flexible, applicable to more advanced technologies& non-W3C technologies, is more testable -- and therefore the difference approach takes some time to learn
- provides more detail than WCAG 1.0, what WG was thinking
- provide example(s) of differences between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 checkpoints; i.e., s different in WCAG 1.0 (Checkpoint 2.2) and WCAG 2.0 (Success criteria 1.4.1 and 1.4.3)
- that different criteria at different levels cover the same issue
- Probably a somewhat expanded version of How WCAG 2.0 Drafts Differ from WCAG 1.0 that is currently in the Overview of WCAG 2.0 Documents.
- Comparison of
WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints to WCAG 2.0 document with perhaps
some overview and positioning info added.
- Primary Audience: Web developers actually implementing WCAG 2.0
- Possible Content: Go through the comparison and
Does our site meet this WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint?
- If yes, Is the requirement similar in 2.0?
- If yes, then easy confirmation that we still meet it in WCAG 2.0.
- If no (the requirement is different in 2.0, e.g., it is more specific (like colour contrast), then need to spend some effort seeing if meet the different requirements in 2.0
- If no, Is it still a requirement in 2.0?
- If yes, then need to work on implementing it
- If no, then you're OK not implementing it
Transitioning Web Accessibility Policies from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0
- [Draft] Transitioning Web Accessibility Policies from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0
- Open issue: Maybe it's own document, or maybe section of broader document on WCAG 2.0 in Policies ?
- Audience: Policy Makers, from internal organizations to international governing bodies
- Related documents:
- Notes: Some example policies:
Slide set(s) for some or all of above
- Primary audience: Presenters
- Part of the WCAG 2.0 Documentation Suite, currently described in the Overview of WCAG 2.0 Documents
Mapping discussed EOWG 14 Dec 2008
<start new introduction>
This page shows how the WCAG 1.0 checkpoints relate to the WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft published 11 December 2007. While WCAG 2.0 is still a draft it does not supersede WCAG 1.0. The WCAG 2 FAQ answers the question, "When should I start using WCAG 2.0?"
See the Overview of WCAG 2.0 Documents for information on "How WCAG 2.0 Drafts Differ from WCAG 1.0" and "Transitioning from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0".
WAI is working carefully to enable organizations and individuals who are currently using WCAG 1.0 to make a smooth transition to WCAG 2.0. Additional resources will be available in 2008 and announced on the WAI home page, WAI RSS feed, and public WAI IG email list.
</ end introduction>
Others changes on June 2007 draft:
- Change title to "Comparison of WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints to WCAG 2.0"
- Move the new requirements to the top, after the introduction and before
the other tables.
- Put them under an <h2>New WCAG 2.0 requirements not mentioned in the comparison tables below.
- Also, consider adding "Success Criteria" to each, because this terminology is new to those familiar with WCAG 2.0. (Note: think having it at the top would be enough and don't need to add it to the tables.)
- Change "New Level 1 requirements..." to "New Level A requirements..."
- In the new requirements, simplify the format. Two ideas:
- Put the scccess criteria in bullets, e.g.:
- Success Criteria 3.1.3 Unusual Words: A mechanism is available for identifying specific definitions of words or phrases used in an unusual or restricted way, including idioms and jargon. (Level AAA)
- Success Criteria 3.1.6 Pronunciation: ...
- Put the success criteria on the same line with the guideline, e.g.:
Guideline 3.1, Success Criteria 3.1.3 Unusual Words: A mechanism is available for identifying specific definitions of words or phrases used in an unusual or restricted way, including idioms and jargon. (Level AAA)
Guideline 3.1, Success Criteria 3.1.6 Pronunciation: ...
- Put the scccess criteria in bullets, e.g.:
- Add <h2>Priority 1 checkpoints
- Add a Page Contents box with links with the <h2>s, e.g., http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20.php#contents
- Change the second column heading from "WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria" to "WCAG 2.0"
- Align text top of table cells
- Provide an option to have them listed either by Priority (as they are now), or by checkpoint number (so they are better organized by topic). Let's talk about priority and options for this (e.g., sort options on one page, versus separate pages).
WCAG WG folks: Does this address all the comments?
</ end Mapping discussion notes from EOWG 14 Dec 2008>
- [Open issue] When do we move the explanation of the differences between WCAG 2.0 and 1.0 from the Overview of WCAG 2.0 Documents to this transitioning suite?
- [Open issue - Shawn to check with WCAG WG] In "About baselines and WCAG 2.0" there is reference to a document being written called "A Guide for Policy Makers". Check that that document would be part of this resource suite -- with WCAG WG being responsible for the technical accuracy of the content.
- [Open issue - Shawn to check with WCAG WG] Confirm that WCAG WG thinks the "Checkpoint mapping" belongs in this resource suite -- with WCAG WG responsible for the technical content.
- Add Venn diagramm and text sich as: The diagram below shows an approximate estimation of the overlap between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 requirements. <alt="Venn diagram with teo overlapption circles. The first circle is labeled WCAg 1.0 and has about X% not overlapping. The second...">
- Provide explanation/rationale of new issues in WCAG 2.0 and deleted issues from WCAG 1.0
- Transitioning Web Sites from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 (latest version), 23 Dec version, 15 Dec version
- Comparison of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0
- 23 October 2006 EGW2 TF Teleconference minutes, agenda
- 20 October EGW2 Teleconference minutes, agenda
- 2 October EGW2 Teleconference minutes, agenda
- 14 August EOWG2 Teleconference minutes, agenda
- 11 August 2006 EOWG Teleconference minutes, agenda
- 00 July 2006 EOW2 TF Teleconference minutes, agenda
Removed "Baseline" section from "Transitioning Web Sites from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0"
- Understanding the Baseline concept
To understand Baseline you will need to to be clear on the concept of technologies that are relied upon versus technologies used but not relied upon. For example ....
- Who sets the Baseline
The Baseline can be set by a number of different entities including (but not limited to) authors, organizations, customers, and governmental bodies. Depending on what type of organisation you are may influence who sets the Baseline. For example Government Web sites may have a Baseline set by Government.
- Find appropriate Baseline
An appropriate Baseline must be set taking into account a number of different factors. This will include your users, user agents capability (for example browsers, media players, plug-ins and assistive technologies), your type of organisation, Government guidelines, industry and so on.
- Understand how Baseline impacts your Conformance
Your Conformance claim assumes that all Level Success Criteria, whether it be Single-A (A), Double-A (AA) or Triple A (AAA), are met assuming user agent support for only the technologies specified in the Baseline. For example...
- Dependant on Baseline and Conformance understand techniques
that need to be implemented
Once your Baseline and Conformance claim are clear it will be possible to map out what techniques must be applied to your Web site(s) in order to meet your chosen Level Success Criteria. Mapping out the technical changes necessary is explored in more detail below in section 3 "Analyze How the Differences in Requirements Apply to Your Site".
Removed "Conformance" section from "Transitioning Web Sites from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0"
Things you need to figure out include:
- WCAG 2.0 Conformance scheme
The Conformance scheme has changed in WCAG 2.0. Under WCAG 1.0 there are guidelines that have checkpoints, which are Priority 1, 2 or 3. The basis for determining conformance to WCAG 1.0 are the checkpoints. Under WCAG 2.0 there are four design principles of Web accessibility. Each principle has guidelines, and each guideline has Success Criteria at level 1, 2, or 3. The basis for determining conformance to the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft are the Success Criteria.
- WCAG 2.0 Scoping
Decide if your Conformance claim applies to all of your Web site or applies to only part of your Web site and on what basis. For example...
- Look at legal guidelines for your country or region
If WCAG 1.0 Priority 1 and 2 (AA) has previously been recommended by Government, perhaps they will adopt WCAG 2.0 Level 1 and Level 2.
Note that you might refine your conformance goals after you have completed a more in-depth analysis of the technical differences, as describe below in section 3.
23 January 2006
- [noted] Review the approach of the document so that the primary focus is Step 3 with the introduction covering 1 and 2
- [noted] Consider if any of the information from 4 and 5 is relevant. 17]
- [noted] 3.1 2: Simplify the heading along the lines of "Are there requirements in WCAG 1.0 that your site no longer needs to meet" or similar.
- [noted] Under 3.1 look at the use of the text equivalents as an example to see if there is another possible alternative
- [noted] 3.1 - 3.2: Look at either breaking down the sections to re-worded headings and examples or, headings, sentence explanation and sidebar examples.
- [noted] Step 3, first full paragraph: Remove "customize" and use something that highlights that the Quick Ref documents helps you "identify"
- [noted] Under step 2: "You may be interested in " make it stronger.
- [noted] Add an image of a venn diagram to show the overlaps and differences of WCAG 1.0 and 2.0
- [noted Consider this replacement for P3 of Intro: "WCAG 2.0 builds on wcag 1.0. WCAG 2.0 is backwards compatible with WCAG 1.0, meaning that it is possible to update your Web site in a way that will meet both."
- [noted] "2. Define Your Conformance Parameters": Look at the first full sentence and edit it to audience for whom the conformance level is already defined
- [noted] "2. Define Your Conformance Parameters": Change the text in the heading to "Re-examine Your Conformance Levels" or something similar. "decide" or "declare" (also mentioned were "understand" and "know")
- [done] Under step 2: Remove the note at the end of the section but keep
a note of it in the changelog.
REMOVED: [Note that you might refine your conformance goals after you have completed a more in-depth analysis of the technical requirements of WCAG 2.0, as described in the next section.]
- [done] For the document title change to "How to transition sites from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0" 09]
- [done] Label numbered headings "Step 1" and so on
- [done[ Change to numbers to bullets under "2. Define Your Conformance Parameters"
- [done] Requirements: Under Approach under item under number 2 change text "Benefits of transitioning from WCAG 1.0" to "Benefits of transitioning to WCAG 2.0"
- [done] Requirements: Add to the overall audience tool developers & #2 benefits
Various edits October 2006-January 2007.
23 October 2006
- [done] Add an instruction at the end of the 1st para in the intro to tell users to read the "resources".
- In the Overview Doc - add a bit more about the four Principles
- [done] Under 1. Learn the Basic Differences -- delete the principles. delete "It is essential to understand the differences between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0... before you start deciding on changes to implement in your site."
- [done] +Under 1. Learn the Basic Differences change wording to something like "the key differences that you need to have learned from reading the Overview are: approach & terminology -- e.g., success criteria, level, [baseline] eg - the baseline underpins your new conformance claim".
- [done] Change "2. Clarify Your Baseline and Conformance Goals" 3rd sentence, something like "If not, the info below tells you what you need to do."
- [done] Delete "With this information in place you can work out what the Level Success Criteria you need to meet in order to transition your site to WCAG 2.0 and meet your Baseline and Conformance level."
- [done] "Note: this section will be revised after the concept of basline is re-stablized and "About Baselines" should be moved to under the heading.
- [done] Delete redundancy in sentences starting with "Once the Baseline i..."
- [done] Delete "You need to understand are how conformance is measured i.e. as Levels in WCAG 2.0 rather than the Priorities used in WCAG 1.0 and how WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria support conformance."
- [done] Change the "requirements" note to something like: "note: What we're calling requirements here was the WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints, and is the WCAG 2.0 success criteria." - and try puttin git under the heading
- [done] Change "To determine what technical changes you need to make to your site identify which WCAG 2.0 requirements are relevant dependant on the Baseline and Conformance level." to something like "use the quick reference to determine which success criterion you need to meet based on your Baseline & conformance"
- [done] consider deleting or cutting down "You will need to be familiar with what requirements in versions 1.0 and 2.0 map to each other and what is removed. Key questions to ask your self are:"
- [done] Change: "Checkpoint 12.3 "Divide large blocks of information into more manageable groups where natural and appropriate"" to one that we don't really care if people do -- e.g., placeholder text in fields or other "until user agent clause one, prefer P2, but maybe P3
- [done] Editing: look at cutting down tranistions and niceities. each sentence: what needs to be said here, not said anywhere else. developers just want to cut to the chase
- [done] Change "WCAG 2.0 as Guideline 1.4 "Make it easy to distinguish foreground information from its background" specifies a luminosity ratio." to use the success criteria instead of guidelines. check the other ones as well
- [done] Consider cutting down: "You will need to know what Success Criteria are new in WCAG 2.0 and what is required according to the Baseline and Conformance level you have set. These are listed at under "[New Ones]" in the Comparison of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0. Key questions to ask are:"
- [done] Remove duplicated ""Information required to understand and operate content does not rely on shape, size, visual location, or orientation of components""
- [done] Under 4 , delete "The WCAG 2.0 Quick reference is a key document when doing this as it allows you to list only those Success Critiera and techniques relevant to technologies set in your Baseline."
- [done] Tighten up "Once you have reviewed the differences between WCAG 1.0 and 2.0, you can then plan what changes need to be made to the site. There are two key stages in planning and implementing changes in your site:"
23 October 2006
- [done] Add link to (new) Benefits doc
- [done] When worswmithing, try to cut down 10-20% or more :)
- [done] Under "1. Learn the Basic Difference" change the 4 bullets to just a simple list, something like: "Key differrences include, baseline, conformance, and some technical requirements."
- [done] Edit first paragraph under "Clarify Your Baseline and Conformance Goals" since many readers' organizations' don't have accessibility policies
- [done] Remove <h3 Accessibility Policies, as this is tangential for most readers. Consider what you would say *if* we had "Transitioning Web Accessibility Policies from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0" doc done. Then consider if want to put a little in here now, until that doc is done.
- [done] Change: "The Baselines defines what technologies will be supported in your Web site(s)." to "Baseline [1 sentence evelvator pitch goes here]."
- [done] Move the steps under "Baseline" to changelog, in new "Archives" section.
- [done] Under "Baseline" add note before steps, something like "<em>[this will be revised after About Baselines in WCAG 2.0 is updated]
- [done] Delete paragraph under "WCAG 2.0 Conformance scheme"
- [done] Under "Conformance" add note before steps, something like "<em>[these steps will be revised after Conformance WCAG 2.0 is updated]
- Under "Baseline" and "Conformance", tweak the steps
- [done] Leave just "requirements" in the headings. right after resources, add a sentence (probably in a paragrpah by itself so it stadns out), something like: WCAG 1.0 requirements were in Checkpoints, and WCAG 2.0 requirements are in Success Criteria.
- [done] For the OVERVIEW "How WCAG 2.0 Drafts Differ from WCAG 1.0", consider including the principles themselves
- [done] Under 3.1, add something like "Note that there are requirements in WCAG 1.0 that are no longer requirements in WCAG 2.0"
- [done] Under 3.1, 3rd bullet: edit to clarify "that you site didn't meet" in WCAG 1.0 that they can meet in WCAG 2.0
- [done] Try for different example under "Which new WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are already implemented in your existing site?" prefer Level 2, perhaps 1.3.5 Information required to understand and operate content does not rely on shape, size, visual location, or orientation of components. (Level 2)
- [done] Include all in the linked text: ""Prioritizing the Repairs" section of Improving the Accessibility of Your Web Site."
- [done] Consider changing "tes the site against WCAG 2.0" to soemthing like "Evaluate how your current site meets WCAG 2.0"
- [done] Also link to http://www.w3.org/WAI/impl/improving.html#eval
- [done] Delete <h2 5. Update any Internal Guidance, and integrate the idea below
- [done] Consider at the end adding something like "when technicaues are updated, Wai will announce at home page & IG mailing list. to subscribe..." from the end of http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/w3c-process
- [done] Add <h2 s under Page Contents
20 October 2006
- [done] Consider making the introduction just an overview and putting the 2nd paragraph content into the steps.
- [done] Transitioning changelog take benefits out of doc and point to elsewhere.
- [done]Transitioning changelog. In the benefits first paragraph take content and consider adding to the introduction.
- [done] Transitioning. Under number 1 "Learn the basic differnces" clarify what types of things people should look at such as Priority v Level success criteria
2 October 2006
- Look at list of 10 questions in the changelog and see which is addressed by which document in the transition suite
- [done] Add a bit at the end about checking for new techniques as technology changes.
- [done] Under "Benefits" of transition split bullet 4 into 2.
- [done] Under "Benefits" change the order of the bullets.
- [done] Under "Benefits" update the bullets with more detail.
- [done] Add in that in some cases meeting 2.0 will be easier than 1.0.
- [done] Add in text: One of the first things you need to do is review the difference in conformance, the conformance scheme, scopoing etc.
11 August 2006
- [done] add to requirements: clarify the status of 1.0 after 2.0 comes out
- [done] add to requirements questions: why was WCAG 2.0 necessary, why change to WCAG 2.0