[contents]

W3C

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

W3C Working Draft 11 February 2005

This version:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20050211/
Latest version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
Previous version:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20041116/
Editors:
Ben Caldwell, Trace R&D Center
Wendy Chisholm, W3C
Gregg Vanderheiden, Trace R&D Center
Jason White, University of Melbourne

Abstract

The World Wide Web Consortium (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.

Status of this Document

This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.

This document is prepared by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (WCAG WG) to show how more generalized (less HTML-specific) WCAG guidelines 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.

Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document 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.

This document was produced under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. The Working Group maintains a public list of patent disclosures relevant to this document; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) with respect to this specification should disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent 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.


Table of Contents

Appendices


Introduction

Purpose

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. 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.

How to read this document

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 3 layers to the guidelines information.

1 - Top layer - Overview of Design Principles, Guidelines, Success Criteria

The top layer is titled "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0". It is the document you are currently reading. This document provides:

  1. An introduction

  2. The 4 major principles for accessibility (Perceivable, Operable, Understandable and Robust).

  3. The (non-technology-specific) guidelines (13 in total).

  4. Success criteria (normative), and definitions, benefits and examples (all non-normative) for each guideline

  5. An appendix containing definitions, references and other support information.

2 - Technology-specific Checklists

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.

Editorial Note: These checklists do not yet exist. At the present time, it is not clear if the checklists will be normative or non-normative. If checklists are non-normative, it is easier to update them. If checklists are normative, changes made to them alter the definition of conformance. However, it may be necessary to make checklists normative in order for the guidelines to be testable.

3 - Bottom layer - Technology-specific application information

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:

(Items above will become active links as the corresponding Working Drafts are published)

Audience

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 write the code. 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. In particular, Getting Started: Making a Web Site Accessible.

Authoring tools

A large part of Web content is created using authoring tools. These tools often determine how Web content is implemented, either by making authoring decisions directly or by limiting the choices available to the author. As a result, authoring tools will play an important role in creating Web content that conforms to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. At the same time, we recommend that all authors become familiar with the Guidelines because this will help in creating accessible content and coverage of the Guidelines may vary between tools.

Developers of authoring tools can help to make their tools more aware of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines by following the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines.

We encourage users and purchasers of authoring tools to consider conformance to the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines as a criterion when selecting tools.

Editorial Note: The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has published Working Drafts of ATAG 2.0. The above references will need to be updated as ATAG 2.0 moves through recommendation track.

Scope

These guidelines cover a wide range of issues and recommendations for making Web content more accessible. They include recommendations to make content 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.

Priorities and Techniques

This Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 builds upon 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 changed. Where WCAG 1.0 uses guidelines to group checkpoints, this Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 uses guidelines to group success criteria. Where WCAG 1.0 assigns a priority to a checkpoint, this Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 categorizes a success criterion into one of three levels.

In addition, the general design principles have been reworded to apply across a wide range of existing and emerging technologies. The WCAG 2.0 Working Draft does not include technology-specific implementation requirements or techniques, but it will link to technology-specific requirements as well as technology-specific examples and techniques (as soon as those documents are more stable).

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is working to ensure that organizations and individuals who are currently using WCAG 1.0 (which remains stable and referenceable at this time) will be able to smoothly transition to WCAG 2.0. For more information about the similarities and differences between WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints and WCAG 2.0 Guidelines and success criteria, please refer to the (draft) Mapping Between WCAG 1.0 and the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft.

Conformance

Editorial Note: Baseline Technologies Assumption

In working on WCAG 2.0, the WCAG WG continues to struggle with the role of content authors and the role of user agents in making Web content accessible to people with disabilities. In WCAG 1.0, we identified shortcomings in user agents and created guidelines with phrases like, "until user agents..."

Today, many of the same issues continue to exist but we are looking for a more effective mechanism to address them than creating "temporary bridge" guidelines designed to make up for user agent shortcomings. One way of doing this would be to write the guidelines based on an assumption of a baseline user agent. We are currently considering using user agents that conform to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 as the baseline User Agent for WCAG 2.0. That is, the WCAG 2.0 guidelines would be written assuming that all users had user agents that conform to all of the priority 1 checkpoints from the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (UAAG 1.0). This has many implications. For example, WCAG 2.0 would assume that user agents and assistive technologies can effectively interact with scripted content.

Today, no single user agent meets all of the UAAG 1.0 priority 1 checkpoints. If WCAG 2.0 adopts an assumption that user agents conform to UAAG 1.0 priority 1 checkpoints, there would be some shortfall between Web content that meets WCAG 2.0 and currently available user agents. To address this shortfall, we propose to take two measures.

  1. Press hard for the development of user agents that conform to all priority 1 checkpoints of UAAG 1.0

  2. Develop a set of "repair techniques" that could be used by content authors who would like to create content that not only meets WCAG 2.0, but that also makes up for the shortfall in current user agents.

We would also like to work with the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (UAWG) and Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) to come up with a set of strategies that user agent manufacturers could build into user agents to help make up for common errors of content authors.

The result would be a more stable WCAG 2.0 as well as better integration with UAAG to put the responsibility for the appropriate parts of the accessibility issue on the appropriate parts of the Web technologies (user agents versus Web content). Refer to Interdependent Components of Web Accessibility for more information.

The WCAG working group is analyzing this approach to understand better how it might affect users. The guidelines and success criteria in this working draft do not yet reflect this direction. The WCAG WG invites you to comment on this approach and the related issues.

Editorial Note: There are several open issues with the proposed conformance scheme. This section outlines the conformance scheme used throughout this document. Feedback, comments, and proposals are encouraged.

Success criteria for every guideline are categorized into three levels:

  • Level 1 success criteria:

    1. Achieve a minimum level of accessibility through markup, scripting, or other technologies that interact with or enable access through user agents, including assistive technologies

    2. Can reasonably be applied to all Web resources.

  • Level 2 success criteria:

    1. Increase accessibility through one or both of the following:

      1. further facilitating the ability of user agents to provide accessible content

      2. recommending content and/or presentation that provides direct accessibility without requiring users who have disabilities or their user agents to do anything different from users without disabilities or their user agents

    2. Can reasonably be applied to all Web resources.

  • Level 3 success criteria:

    1. Go beyond Level 1 and 2 to increase direct and user agent enhanced accessibility.

The Working Group believes that all success criteria should be testable. Tests can be done by computer programs or by people who understand these guidelines. Tests done by people who understand the guidelines should get the same results testing the same content for the same success criteria.

Editorial Note: To facilitate discussion related to the levels assigned to each criterion, a square bracket notation is included at the end of each criterion. "[I]" (invisible) indicates that a criterion does not specify how information is presented and "[V]" (visible) indicates that addressing the criterion may require an author to present content in particular ways.

Note:

Some guidelines do not contain level 1 success criteria.

Conformance Requirements

  1. Any conformance with WCAG 2.0 requires that all level 1 success criteria for all guidelines be met.

  2. WCAG 2.0 conformance at level A means that all level 1 success criteria for all guidelines are met.

  3. WCAG 2.0 conformance at level Double-A means that all level 1 and all level 2 success criteria for all guidelines are met.

  4. WCAG 2.0 conformance at level Triple-A means that all level 1, level 2 and level 3 success criteria for all guidelines are met.

The Working Group believes that success criteria at all 3 levels are important or essential for some people. Thus, the old descriptions of "impossible to access" for Level A, "difficult to access" for Level AA, and "somewhat difficult" for Level AAA are no longer used. Instead we define the three levels as above.

Conformance Claims

All conformance claims must include at least the following information:

  1. The version of the guidelines to which the conformance claim is made.

  2. A list of one or more URIs or URI patterns, identifying the delivery units for which the claim is made. A resource conforms to WCAG 2.0 at a given conformance level only if all content provided by that resource so conforms.

    Note:

    If multiple representations can be retrieved from a URI through content negotiation, then the conformance claim would be for the delivery unit that is returned when no negotiation is conducted (unless the server returns an error for that condition in which case one of the negotiated forms must comply).

    Editorial Note: There is some question as to whether URI is specific enough a reference to the material for which the claim is being made.

  3. The level of conformance being claimed.

Editorial Note: A question has been raised as to whether the information required in items 1-3 above should all be transmitted in the HTTP header or in some other way.

Level of conformance being claimed

The conformance level for a delivery unit that contains authored units is equal to the lowest conformance level claimed for the delivery unit content and any of the authored units it contains - including claims of aggregated units.

A resource referred to by a URI conforms to WCAG 2.0 at a given conformance level only if all content provided by that resource so conforms. For example, if the resource provides information retrieved from a database in response to users' queries, all delivery units containing such information must satisfy the success criteria of WCAG 2.0 to the level at which conformance is claimed. Note that an exception arises if content negotiation is in effect and the user agent requests a version of the content that does not meet WCAG 2.0 at the asserted conformance level.

Editorial Note: We are currently looking at how to handle unknown or community-contributed, authored units that are created using an aggregator supplied tool. If the aggregator-supplied tool conforms to ATAG, can ATAG conformance be used to imply that the aggregated content conforms to WCAG?

Scoping of Conformance Claims

Conformance claims can be scoped to pertain to only some parts of a Web site. All conformance claims, however, must be directed to a URI or a range of URIs. Scoping to exclude a particular type of content (for example, images or scripts) from a site is not allowed since it would allow exclusion of individual success criteria. Scoping by URI to exclude sections of a site is allowed so that authors can make claims for just some parts of a site.

Content that conforms to WCAG 1.0

Authors that have content that currently conforms to WCAG 1.0 that want to transition to WCAG 2.0 over time may 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. If a delivery unit is modified in a significant way then the full delivery unit should 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.

Overview of Design Principles

The overall goal is to create Web content that is perceivable, operable and understandable by the broadest possible range of users and compatible with a wide range of assistive technologies, now and in the future. The basic principles include:

  1. Content must be perceivable.

  2. Interface elements in the content must be operable.

  3. Content and controls must be understandable.

  4. Content must be robust enough to work with current and future technologies.

Accessible Web content benefits a variety of people, not just people with disabilities. In the physical world, ramps are used by people riding bicycles or pushing baby strollers as well as 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 such as extremely noisy environments or poor lighting would benefit from accessible content. Likewise, someone using a search engine can find a famous line in a movie if the movie has been captioned to support users who are hard of hearing.

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.

User needs

Here are a few scenarios, by no means an exhaustive list of the variations and types of disabilities and needs:

  • Someone who cannot hear well will want a visual representation of information presented via sound.

  • Someone who cannot see well will want to hear or feel (via braille or tactile graphics) an equivalent of the visual information.

  • 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. There are many tools that 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".

Designing Accessible Web Content

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.

Principle 1: Content must be perceivable.

Guideline 1.1 Provide text alternatives for all non-text content.

Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.1

  1. For all non-text content that is functional, such as graphical links or buttons, text alternatives serve the same purpose as the non-text content. [I]

    How to provide text alternatives for content that is functional. (Informative)

  2. For all non-text content that is used to convey information, text alternatives convey the same information. [I]

    Note:

    for multimedia, this means that two alternatives are provided:

    1. a transcript

    2. a text alternative that identifies the purpose or function of the multimedia

    How to provide text alternatives for content that conveys information. (Informative)

  3. For non-text content that is intended to create a specific sensory experience, such as music or visual art, text alternatives identify and describe the non-text content. [I]

    How to provide text alternatives for content that creates a specific sensory experience. (Informative)

  4. Non-text content that does not provide information, functionality, or sensory experience is marked such that it can be ignored by assistive technology. [I]

    How to provide text alternatives that can be ignored by assistive technology. (Informative)

  5. Any text alternatives are explicitly associated with the non-text content. [I]

    How to explicitly associate text alternatives with non-text content. (Informative)

  6. For live audio-only or live video-only content, such as internet radio or Web cameras, text alternatives describe the purpose of the presentation or a link is provided to alternative real-time content, such as traffic reports for a traffic Web camera

    Note: real-time content does not imply real-time captions.

    Editorial Note: This is similar to #1 above, yet it seems we need to specifically address audio-only and video-only content to avoid confusion.

Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.1

  1. No level 2 success criteria for this guideline.

Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.1

  1. For multimedia content, a combined transcript of audio descriptions of video and captions is provided. [I]

    How to provide descriptions of all important visual information for multimedia. (Informative)

Guideline 1.1 (text-equiv) Issues

Who Benefits from Guideline 1.1 (Informative)

  • 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 or otherwise transform the presentation of the text to meet their needs (e.g., change the font face, the text size, or the background and foreground colors).

  • 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.

  • Additionally, text alternatives support the ability to search for non-text content and to repurpose content in a variety of ways.

Examples of Guideline 1.1 (Informative)

  • Example 1: an image used as a button.

    A magnifying glass icon is used to link to the search page of a Web site. A screen reader identifies the button as a link and speaks the text alternative, "Search."

  • Example 2: a data chart.

    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, provides a high-level summary of the data comparable to that available from the chart, and provides the data in a table.

  • Example 3: an audio recording of a speech (no video).

    The link to an audio clip says, "Chairman's speech to the assembly." A link to a text transcript is provided immediately after the link to the audio clip.

  • Example 4: a recording of a symphony.

    The link to an audio file says, "Beethoven's 5th Symphony performed by the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra."

  • Example 5: an animation that illustrates how a car engine works.

    An animation shows how a car engine works. There is no audio and the animation is part of a tutorial that describes how an engine works. All that is needed is a description of the image. From "How car engines work: Internal combustion"

  • Example 6: a pair of images used to create a visual effect.

    Two images are used to create curved edges on a "tab" interface. The images do not provide information, functionality, or a sensory experience and are marked such that they can be ignored by an assistive technology.

  • Example 7: an internet radio station.

    A radio station broadcasts over the internet. The station's Web site describes the type of music played, a schedule of the shows, and the "current song" is updated each time the DJ starts a new track. Interviews are recorded and published in the archives. Transcripts of the archived interviews are provided per Guideline 1.2 Provide synchronized alternatives for multimedia.

    Editorial Note: Does the above example help to clarify level 1 success criterion 6 or does it need additional clarification?

  • Example 8: a traffic Web camera.

    A Web site allows end-users to select from a variety of Web cameras positioned throughout a major city. After a camera is selected, the image updates every 2 minutes. A short text alternative identifies the Web camera as, "TraffiCam." The site also provides a table of travel times for each of the routes covered by the Web cameras. The table is also updated every 2 minutes.

Guideline 1.2 Provide synchronized alternatives for multimedia.

Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.2

  1. Captions are provided for prerecorded multimedia. [I]
  2. Audio descriptions of video are provided for prerecorded multimedia [I]

    Editorial Note: Even though there are instances where captions and audio descriptions of video are not required, this version of Guideline 1.2 does not attempt to address the variations. Instead, it assumes more detail is included in the techniques documents and that policy makers will clarify when captions and audio descriptions of video are required.

  3. If multimedia content is rebroadcast from another medium, the accessibility features required by policy for that medium are intact.

Editorial Note: How should we address presentations that contain only audio or only video and require users to respond interactively at specific times during the presentation? Since it is not multimedia, a criterion could be added to guideline 1.1. However, the need is for synchronized alternatives, therefore a criterion could be added to this guideline. Refer to Issue 1272.

Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.2

  1. Real-time captions are provided for live multimedia. [I]

Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.2

  1. Sign language interpretation is provided for multimedia

  2. Extended audio descriptions of video are provided for prerecorded multimedia.

  3. Audio descriptions of video are provided for live multimedia.

Guideline 1.2 (media-equiv) Issues

Who Benefits from Guideline 1.2 (Informative)

  • 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 alternatives:

  • 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.

Examples of Guideline 1.2 (Informative)

  • Example 1: a movie with audio description.

    Transcript of audio based on the first few minutes of, "Teaching Evolution Case Studies, Bonnie Chen" (copyright WGBH and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc.)

    Describer: A title, "Teaching Evolution Case Studies. Bonnie Chen." Now, a teacher shows photographs.

    Bonnie Chen: These are all shot at either the Everglades...for today you just happen to be a species of wading bird that has a beak like this."

    Describer: She hands them each two flat, thin wooden blades

  • Example 2: a captioned tutorial.

    A video clip shows how to tie a knot. The captions read, "(music)

    USING ROPE TO TIE KNOTS

    WAS AN IMPORTANT SKILL

    FOR THE LIKES OF SAILORS, SOLDIERS, AND WOODSMEN."

    From Sample Transcript Formatting by Whit Anderson

  • Editorial Note: Examples to be developed: an animation with soundtrack of music with lyrics, an interactive slideshow, an animation with musical soundtrack..

Guideline 1.3 Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation.

Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.3

  1. Structures and relationships within the content can be programmatically determined. [I]

    How to ensure that structures and relationships in content can be programmatically determined. (Informative)

    Editorial Note: The concepts of "reliable" and "standard" need to be incorporated into the definition of "programmatically."

  2. Emphasis can be programmatically determined. [I]

    How to ensure that emphasis can be programmatically determined. (Informative)

  3. Any information conveyed through color can be programmatically determined. For example, through markup or unique characters that accompany the color coding. [I]

    How to make information presented in color available through context or markup. (Informative)

Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.3

  1. Any information that is conveyed through color is visually evident without having to interpret color. For example, the distinction can additionally be determined through context, characters, or symbols that accompany the color presentation, or through pattern differences such as dotted red vs. solid green lines in a graph. [V]

    How to make information presented in color available without having to interpret markup. (Informative)

Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.3

  1. No level 3 success criteria for this guideline.

Guideline 1.3 (content-structure-separation) Issues

Who Benefits from Guideline 1.3 (Informative)

  • Separating content and structure from presentation allows Web content 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.

Examples of Guideline 1.3 (Informative)

Editorial Note: These examples are improvements on previous drafts, but are HTML-specific. These will be generalized in future drafts.

  • Example 1: A form that mentions in text which required fields are missing.

    When a user submits a form without filling in all the required fields, a message appears that informs the user which fields are missing. The missing fields are also indicated in color to help people with cognitive limitations recognize what fields need attention. Because the message is also available in text, people who cannot see color well will still know which fields they have to correct.

  • Example 2: A bus schedule where the headers have been associated with the cells.

    A bus schedule consists of a table with the bus stops listed vertically and the different trips listed horizontally. Each cell contains the time when that bus will be at that bus stop. Structural markup has been used to associate that cell with both the corresponding bus stop and the corresponding trip.

  • Example 3: A form where the labels for the checkboxes have been associated with the checkboxes.

    In a form where users can select different options using checkboxes, the labels for the checkboxes have been associated with the checkboxes. This benefits different types of users. It allows users who are blind to determine what the checkbox is for. People with limited motor functions can check the checkbox more easily because they can click anywhere on the label instead of just on the checkbox.

Guideline 1.4 Make it easy to distinguish foreground information from background images or sounds.

Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.4

  1. Any text that is presented over a background image, color, or text can be programmatically determined. [I]

Note:

Images of text that meets guideline 1.1 should satisfy this criterion. (Refer to Guideline 1.1 Provide text alternatives for all non-text content. )

Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.4

  1. Text and diagrams that are presented over a background image, color, or text have a contrast greater than X1 where the whiter element is at least Y1 as measured by _____. [V]
  2. Text that is presented over a background pattern of lines which are within 500% +/- of the stem width of the characters or their serifs must have a contrast between the characters and the lines that is greater than X2, where the whiter element is at least Y2. [V]
  3. Users can disable background audio that plays automatically on a page so that it does not interfere with text reading software they may be using. [V]

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.

Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.4

  1. Text is not presented over any background (image, text, color or pattern), or if any background is present, the contrast between the text and the background is greater than X2. [V]
  2. Audio content does not contain background sounds or the background sounds are at least 20 decibels lower than the foreground audio content, with the exception of occasional sound effects. [V]

Note:

A 20 decibel 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.

Guideline 1.4 (visual-audio-contrast) Issues

Who Benefits from Guideline 1.4 (Informative)

  • Individuals with low vision can easily read 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. This will also aid comprehension for individuals with cognitive disabilities who benefit from easy discernment of text. Visual contrast also helps individuals with hearing impairments who are aided by clear visual representation of information

  • 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 music or other background sounds.

Note:

Audio contrast is also known as "signal to noise ratio" by audiologists, where "signal" refers to the foreground and "noise" refers to the background.

Examples of Guideline 1.4 (Informative)

  • 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. This example could also apply to light letters on a dark background.

  • Example 2: 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, most people do not need to rely on captions to understand the dialog.

Principle 2: Interface elements in the content must be operable.

Guideline 2.1 Make all functionality operable via a keyboard or a keyboard interface.

Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.1

  1. All of the functionality of the content, where the functionality or its outcome can be described in a sentence, is operable through a keyboard or keyboard interface. [I]

    Note:

    This includes author-provided accessibility features.

    Note:

    Other interfaces (such as a mouse) can be provided in addition to keyboard operation.

    Note:

    Refer to guideline 4.2 for information regarding user agent support.

Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.1

  1. Wherever a choice between input device event handlers is available and supported, the more abstract event is used. [I]

Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.1

  1. All functionality of the content is designed to be operated through a keyboard or keyboard interface.

Guideline 2.1 (keyboard-operation) Issues

Who Benefits from Guideline 2.1 (Informative)

  • 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.

Examples of Guideline 2.1 (Informative)

  • 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, 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.)

Guideline 2.2 Allow users to control time limits on their reading or interaction.

Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.2

  1. Content is designed so that time-outs are not an essential part of interaction, or at least one of the following is true for each time-out that is a function of the content: [I]
    • the user is allowed to deactivate the time-out or;

    • the user is allowed to adjust the time-out over a wide range which is at least ten times the length of the default setting or;

    • the user is warned before time expires, allowed to extend the time-out with a simple action (for example, "hit any key") and given at least 20 seconds to respond or;

    • the time-out is an important part of a real-time event (for example, an auction), and no alternative to the time-out is possible or;

    • the time-out is part of an activity where timing is essential (for example, competitive gaming or time-based testing) and time limits can not be extended further without invalidating the activity.

Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.2

  1. A method is provided to stop content that blinks for more than 3 seconds. [I]
  2. A method is provided to pause and/or permanently stop dynamic (moving or time-based) content. [I]

Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.2

  1. With the exception of real-time events, content has been designed in a way that timing is not designed to be an essential part of the activity and any time limits in the content would pass level 1, success criteria 1 for this guideline. [V]
  2. Any non-emergency interruptions, such as the availability of updated content, can be postponed and/or suppressed by the user. [V]

Guideline 2.2 (time-limits) Issues

Who Benefits from Guideline 2.2 (Informative)

  • 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 can access content that is updated often in cases where content might not be processed and read before being refreshed or when read out of order by an assistive technology or voice browser.

Examples of Guideline 2.2 (Informative)

  • Examples of content that must meet the success criteria of this checkpoint:

    • automatic refresh,

    • redirection,

    • blinking or scrolling text,

    • dialog that disappears after a short period,

    • shutdown or deactivation of resource 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 content provides an option that allows the user to turn off the blinking.

  • Example 2: a news site that is updated regularly.

    A news site causes its front page to be updated every half 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.

Guideline 2.3 Allow users to avoid content that could cause photosensitive epileptic seizures.

Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.3

  1. Content that violates international health and safety standards for general flash or red flash is marked in a way that the user can avoid its appearance. [V]

Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.3

  1. Content does not violate international health and safety standards for general flash or red flash. [V]

Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.3

  1. Content does not violate international health and safety standards for spatial pattern thresholds or red flash. [V]

Editorial Note: A free tool will be available from the University of Wisconsin's Trace Center that will carry out the above analysis on Web content.

Guideline 2.3 (flicker) Issues

Who Benefits from Guideline 2.3 (Informative)

  • Individuals with photosensitive epilepsy can avoid having seizures triggered by flashing or by spatial patterns.

Guideline 2.4 Provide mechanisms to help users find content, orient themselves within it, and navigate through it.

Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.4

  1. Structures and relationships within the content can be programmatically determined. [I]

    Note:

    Conforming to the first level 1 criterion in Guideline 1.3 Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation. also addresses this guideline at level 1.

    Editorial Note: The working group seeks input about the overlap of criterion for guidelines 1.3 and 2.4.

Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.4

  1. Documents that have five or more section headings and are presented as a single delivery unit include a table of contents with links to important sections of the document. [V]

    How to provide a table of contents with links to important sections. (Informative)

  2. There is more than one way to locate the content of each delivery unit, including but not limited to link groups, a site map, site search or other navigation mechanism. [V]

    How to provide more than one way to locate the content of each delivery unit. (Informative)

  3. Blocks of repeated material, such as navigation menus and document headers, are marked up so that they can be bypassed by people who use assistive technology or who navigate via keyboard or keyboard interface. [V]

    How to mark blocks of repeated material so they can be bypassed. (Informative)

    Editorial Note: General Techniques might include something about satisfying this criterion through metadata, use of a future role attribute, etc.

Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.4

  1. When content is arranged in a sequence that affects its meaning, that sequence can be determined programmatically. [I]

    How to ensure that reading sequence can be determined programmatically. (Informative)

    Editorial Note: The problem is how to specify that this criterion applies to content that is intended to appear as a sequence without requiring a test for intention. It has been suggested that reading order is already covered by the requirement in 1.3 to make structures and relationships within the content programmatically determinable. If the Working Group and other readers share this view, this could be deleted as a separate SC and the accompanying General Technique could be moved to guideline 1.3.

    Editorial Note: The criterion about reading order may be more appropriate under Principle 3: it could be argued that reading order is irrelevant unless it affects the user's ability to understand the content. Reading order in itself is not necessarily an accessibility issue. It becomes an accessibility issue if a user with a disability (such as a visual or cognitive impairment) could not reliably derive a meaningful reading order from the default presentation. If we want to retain this criterion and keep it under 2.4, we need to craft wording that ties reading order to users' ability to operate and use the content. It is not necessarily true that merely exposing structure to the user agent is sufficient to indicate a plausible reading order. The example for the General Technique about reading order is designed to highlight this issue.

  2. When a page or other delivery unit is navigated sequentially, elements receive focus in an order that follows relationships and sequences in the content. [I]

    How to ensure that elements receive focus in an order that follows relationships and sequences in the content. (Informative)

  3. Images have structure that users can access. [I]

    How to provide structure for images. (Informative)

  4. Delivery units have descriptive titles [I]

    How to provide descriptive titles. (Informative)

  5. Text is divided into paragraphs. [V]
  6. Documents are divided into hierarchical sections and subsections that have descriptive titles. [V]

Guideline 2.4 (navigation-mechanisms) Issues

Who Benefits from Guideline 2.4 (Informative)

  • 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 content for the items.

  • 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.

Examples of Guideline 2.4 (Informative)

  • Example 1: documentation for a product.

    Identifying chapters in the structure of a book is appropriate and accepted way 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 difference might be font size and margin indentation when presented visually, and spoken in a different voice or preceded by a sound when presented auditorily.

  • 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.

  • Example 4: a data table.

    Groups of rows or columns are labeled with headers.

  • Example 5: 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.

Guideline 2.5 Help users avoid mistakes and make it easy to correct them. [level 2 guideline]

Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.5

  1. No level 1 success criteria for this guideline.

Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.5

  1. If a user error is detected, the error is identified and provided to the user in text.

  2. If a user error is detected and suggestions for correction are known and can be provided without jeopardizing security or purpose, the error is identified and the suggestions are provided.

  3. Where consequences are significant and time-response is not important, one of the following is true:

    1. Actions are reversible.

    2. Where not reversible, actions are checked for errors before going on to the next step in the process.

    3. Where not reversible, and not checkable, the user is able to review and confirm or correct information before submitting it.

Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.5

  1. Where text entry is required for which there is a known set of less than 75 valid choices and they can be provided without jeopardizing security or purpose, users are allowed to select from a list of options as well as to type the data directly.

  2. If possible for the natural language of the text, an option is provided to check text entries for misspelled words with suggestions for correct spellings.

Guideline 2.5 (minimize-error) Issues

Who Benefits from Guideline 2.5 (Informative)

  • Identifying typing errors helps individuals with writing disabilities and people with dyslexia who often have difficulty writing text in forms or other places that need text input.

  • Certain disabilities make it more difficult to operate input devices, resulting in more input errors. For example, individuals with limited motor functions are more likely to make errors when they operate a mouse or a keyboard. Speech recognition systems may find it more difficult to recognize the speech of individuals with speech disabilities. Features that assist in recognizing and correcting errors benefit individuals with these types of disabilities.

Examples of Guideline 2.5 (Informative)

  • Example 1: Identifying errors in a form submission.

    An airline web site offers a special promotion on discounted flights. The user is asked to complete a simple form that asks for personal information such as name, address, phone number, seating preference and e-mail address. If any of the fields of the form are either not completed or completed incorrectly, the user is warned of the input error. The user is then presented with the same form, all previously and correctly entered information is still available. The user is asked to make corrections to any form field marked with a red arrow or two asterisks. Note: color alone is not used to indicate errors.

  • Example 2: Username and password errors.

    A Web page requires the user to enter both a username and password. If either is incorrect, the user is informed that there was an error but, for security reasons, is not informed as to which field, the username or the password, is in error and suggestions for correcting are not offered.

  • Example 3: An online test.

    A Web site provides an online test for certification in a particular field of study. The test identifies incorrect answers to the user but does not offer suggestions for correcting them. The purpose of the online test is to test the user's knowledge, therefore, providing hints on correct answers would go against the purpose of the Web site.

  • Example 4: Order confirmation.

    A Web retailer offers online shopping for customers. When an order is submitted, the order information, including items ordered, quantity of each ordered, shipping address, and payment method, are displayed allowing the user to inspect the order for correctness. The user can either confirm the order or make changes.

  • Example 5: A selection list to reduce errors.

    A Web retailer offers online shopping for customers interested in fly fishing gear. When the user is asked for his/her country, a pulldown list of countries is offered instead of having the user enter the information by typing. To possibly make things easier, the user is informed that countries are listed in alphabetical order.

  • Example 6: Search engine features.

    A search engine is provided with a variety of search options for different skill levels and preferences. It includes an option to check the spelling of the search terms and offers "best guess" alternatives, query-by-example searches, and similarity searches.

  • Example 7: Spell checking in feedback forms.

    A banking Web site provides a form for customers to submit questions or suggestions. The form user interface includes an optional spell-checking feature for the text input area where the question or suggestion is entered.

Principle 3: Content and controls must be understandable.

Guideline 3.1 Ensure that the meaning of content can be determined.

Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 3.1

  1. The natural language of the document as a whole can be identified by automated tools. [I]
  2. The meaning of abbreviations and acronyms can be programmatically located. [I]

Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 3.1

  1. The meanings and pronunciations of all words in the content can be programmatically located. [I]
  2. The meaning of all idioms in the content can be programmatically determined. [I]
  3. For each foreign language passage or phrase in the body of the content, the language is identified through markup or other means. Foreign passages or phrases are passages or phrases that are in a language other than the primary language of the document. [I]

    Note:

    This does not include use of foreign words in text where such usage is a standard extension of the language.

Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 3.1

  1. Where a word has multiple meanings and the intended meaning is not the first in the associated dictionary(s), then additional markup or another mechanism is provided for determining the correct meaning. [I]
  2. Section headings and link text are understandable when read by themselves or as a group (for example, in a screen reader's list of links or a table of contents). [V]
  3. There is a statement associated with the content asserting that the Strategies for Reducing the Complexity of Content (the following list) were considered. [V]

    Editorial Note: We are still examining methods to make some or all of these testable (which might make them success criteria on their own).

    • In general

      • Organizing material so it is easy to read and use.