[DRAFT] Web Accessibility Evaluation Report for Citylights
Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG), 28 January, 2006.
- 4.1. Priority 1 Checkpoints
- 4.2. Priority 2 Checkpoints
This report describes the accessibility of the Citylights Web Site for people with disabilities by assessing its conformance with the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0, Level Double-A. The review process is based on the W3C Conformance Evaluation methodology. This report is based on the W3C Template for Accessibility Evaluation Reports and provides comprehensive results from the conformance evaluation.
Conformance evaluation of Web accessibility requires a combination of semi-automated evaluation tools and manual evaluation by an experienced reviewer. This report is a technical assessment of the Web site and did not include involving users with disabilities which could identify additional issues, or help ensure that technical accessibility solutions are applied effectively.
Section 3, Review Process, provides more background on the scope and the methodology used during this conformance evaluation. The detailed results of the review are highlighted in Section 4, Evaluation Results.
2. Executive Summary
This report describes the conformance evaluation of the Citylights Web site conducted on 28 January, 2006. While the Citylights Web Site shows some initial attempts in implementing accessibility requirements, it does not meet WCAG 1.0, Conformance Level Double A. Some of the accessibility barriers identified also affect commonly used Web browsers and therefore exclude a wide range of users from using this site.
A key asset for the Citylights Web site is its consistent and (visually) clear structure. The overall layout incorporates important navigational features and functional design concepts to support an accessible implementation. Moreover, the site is built using templates which will effectively deliver accessibility features onto all the pages once these templates are fixed accordingly.
However, it is also important to note that merely 2 of 33 (~6%) of the required checkpoints were fully implemented, and 31 checkpoints failed (13 further checkpoints are part of conformance level double-A but are not applicable to this specific site). The range of problems on the site mainly include the implementation of the markup code and the scripts. There are also some visual design enhancements necessary to enable the layout and fonts to expand and shrink according to user preferences. These changes do not imply significant impact on the overall look & feel of the Web site.
3. Review Process
The review process used to produce this report is based on the W3C Conformance Evaluation of Web Sites for Accessibility, which is part of the W3C Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility resource suite. The review combines automatic, semi-automatic, and manual testing of Web site to determine if it meets the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0.
After consultation with the stakeholders from "Citylights", the following scope has been selected for the review process:
- Web site reviewed: Citylights - official city portal for citizens of Demoville
- Date of review: 28 January, 2006
- Conformance target: WCAG 1.0 Conformance Level "Double-A" (all WCAG 1.0 Priority 1 and 2 checkpoints must be satisfied)
- Page sample for manual evaluation:
- Template - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/before/template
- Home Page - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/before/index
- News Article - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/before/info
- Facts Page - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/before/data
- Survey Form - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/before/form
- Page sample for automatic evaluation: Entire Web site.
One or more automatic Web accessibility evaluation tools are used to scan the entire Web site. While this automatic scan does not identify all issues, it effectively highlights some of the issues that exist or that need to be manually evaluated by an experienced reviewer.
The representative sample of pages for manual evaluation (as determined by the scope) is examined using the Checklist for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. To assist reviewers in performing these accessibility checks, a selection of Web accessibility evaluation tools and of the following tools may be used:
- Web browsers such as Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Netscape Navigator, Opera, or Safari.
- Specialized browsers such as Lynx or Home Page Reader.
- Assistive Technology such as screen readers or screen magnifiers.
4. Evaluation Results
4.1. Priority 1 Checkpoints
|In General (Priority 1)||Yes||No||N/A|
|1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content). This includes: images, graphical representations of text (including symbols), image map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects, ascii art, frames, scripts, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video.||X|
|2.1 Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup.||X|
|4.1 Clearly identify changes in the natural language of a document's text and any text equivalents (e.g., captions).||X|
|6.1 Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets. For example, when an HTML document is rendered without associated style sheets, it must still be possible to read the document.||X|
|6.2 Ensure that equivalents for dynamic content are updated when the dynamic content changes.||X|
|7.1 Until user agents allow users to control flickering, avoid causing the screen to flicker.||X|
|14.1 Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content.||X|
|And if you use images and image maps (Priority 1)||Yes||No||N/A|
|1.2 Provide redundant text links for each active region of a server-side image map.||X|
|9.1 Provide client-side image maps instead of server-side image maps except where the regions cannot be defined with an available geometric shape.||X|
|And if you use tables (Priority 1)||Yes||No||N/A|
|5.1 For data tables, identify row and column headers.||X|
|5.2 For data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers, use markup to associate data cells and header cells.||X|
|And if you use frames (Priority 1)||Yes||No||N/A|
|12.1 Title each frame to facilitate frame identification and navigation.||X|
|And if you use applets and scripts (Priority 1)||Yes||No||N/A|
|6.3 Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible page.||X|
|And if you use multimedia (Priority 1)||Yes||No||N/A|
|1.3 Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text equivalent of a visual track, provide an auditory description of the important information of the visual track of a multimedia presentation.||X|
|1.4 For any time-based multimedia presentation (e.g., a movie or animation), synchronize equivalent alternatives (e.g., captions or auditory descriptions of the visual track) with the presentation.||X|
|And if all else fails (Priority 1)||Yes||No||N/A|
|11.4 If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page.||X|
4.2. Priority 2 Checkpoints
|In General (Priority 2)||Yes||No||N/A|
|2.2 Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen. [Priority 2 for images, Priority 3 for text].||X|
|3.1 When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images to convey information.||X|
|3.2 Create documents that validate to published formal grammars.||X|
|3.3 Use style sheets to control layout and presentation.||X|
|3.4 Use relative rather than absolute units in markup language attribute values and style sheet property values.||X|
|3.5 Use header elements to convey document structure and use them according to specification.||X|
|3.6 Mark up lists and list items properly.||X|
|3.7 Mark up quotations. Do not use quotation markup for formatting effects such as indentation.||X|
|6.5 Ensure that dynamic content is accessible or provide an alternative presentation or page.||X|
|7.2 Until user agents allow users to control blinking, avoid causing content to blink (i.e., change presentation at a regular rate, such as turning on and off).||X|
|7.4 Until user agents provide the ability to stop the refresh, do not create periodically auto-refreshing pages.||X|
|7.5 Until user agents provide the ability to stop auto-redirect, do not use markup to redirect pages automatically. Instead, configure the server to perform redirects.||X|
|10.1 Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window without informing the user.||X|
|11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when supported.||X|
|11.2 Avoid deprecated features of W3C technologies.||X|
|12.3 Divide large blocks of information into more manageable groups where natural and appropriate.||X|
|13.1 Clearly identify the target of each link.||X|
|13.2 Provide metadata to add semantic information to pages and sites.||X|
|13.3 Provide information about the general layout of a site (e.g., a site map or table of contents).||X|
|13.4 Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent manner.||X|
|And if you use tables (Priority 2)||Yes||No||N/A|
|5.3 Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized. Otherwise, if the table does not make sense, provide an alternative equivalent (which may be a linearized version).||X|
|5.4 If a table is used for layout, do not use any structural markup for the purpose of visual formatting.||X|
|And if you use frames (Priority 2)||Yes||No||N/A|
|12.2 Describe the purpose of frames and how frames relate to each other if it is not obvious by frame titles alone.||X|
|And if you use forms (Priority 2)||Yes||No||N/A|
|10.2 Until user agents support explicit associations between labels and form controls, for all form controls with implicitly associated labels, ensure that the label is properly positioned.||X|
|12.4 Associate labels explicitly with their controls.||X|
|And if you use applets and scripts (Priority 2)||Yes||No||N/A|
|6.4 For scripts and applets, ensure that event handlers are input device-independent.||X|
|7.3 Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid movement in pages.||X|
|8.1 Make programmatic elements such as scripts and applets directly accessible or compatible with assistive technologies [Priority 1 if functionality is important and not presented elsewhere, otherwise Priority 2.]||X|
|9.2 Ensure that any element that has its own interface can be operated in a device-independent manner.||X|
|9.3 For scripts, specify logical event handlers rather than device-dependent event handlers.||X|
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
- Checklist for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
- Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
- Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility
- Evaluation, Repair, and Transformation Tools for Web Content Accessibility
- Selecting and Using Authoring Tools for Web Accessibility
- Review Teams for Evaluating Web Site Accessibility