Important note: This Wiki page is edited by participants of the RDWG. It does not necessarily represent consensus and it may have incorrect information or information that is not supported by other Working Group participants, WAI, or W3C. It may also have some very useful information.
From Research and Development Working Group Wiki
[Brief synopsis of 1-2 sentences]
Page author(s): VConway | Vivienne Conway
Other contact(s): Máté Pataki
Accreditation, Accessibility, Certification
There has been discussion about how accessible websites are accredited. Some methods involve an external accreditation groups, using the W3C WCAG 2.0 certificate, and self-accreditation schemes.
Does the fact that a website accreditation necessarily guarantee that a website is accessible? This is probably not the case. We should look at which accreditation schemes are most reliable, and how often a website should be re-evaluated. There is also the problem that websites are evaluated on a page by page basis. Some websites are mostly WCAG 2.0 A compliant, with a number of the pages being at a greater or lesser level of compliance. Information currently states that this website is therefore compliant only to the lowest page level.
- Which accreditation schemes are most effective?
- Is the W3C certificate being misused? If so, how can this be monitored?
- Are there valid external accreditation schemes, and how are they monitored?
- How often should a website be re-evaluated?
"New EU legal framework for accreditation" http://www.ukas.com/technical-information/international-role/New-EU-legal-framework-for-accreditation.asp
"Europa : Web Accessibility Policy" http://europa.eu/geninfo/accessibility_policy_en.htm
"WebAIM: Accessible Site Certification" http://webaim.org/services/certification/
Back to the list of topics.