W3C

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

W3C Working Draft 8 January 2003

This version:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20030108.html
Latest version:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/
Previous version:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20020828.html
Editors:
Ben Caldwell, Trace R&D Center
Wendy Chisholm, W3C
Jason White, University of Melbourne
Gregg Vanderheiden, Trace R&D Center

Abstract

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 checkpoints. It attempts to apply checkpoints to a wider range of technologies and to use wording that may be understood by a more varied audience.

Status of this document

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

This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use W3C Working Drafts as reference material or to cite them 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 w3c-wai-gl@w3.org. The archives for this list are publicly available.

Patent disclosures relevant to this specification may be found on the WCAG Working Group's patent disclosure page in conformance with W3C 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


Introduction

Purpose

This document outlines design principles for creating accessible Web sites. 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, etc. 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 basically 3 layers to the guidelines information.

1 - Top layer - Overview of Design Principles, Guidelines, Checkpoints

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 5 major Guidelines for accessibility (Perceivable, Operable, Navigable, Understandable and Robust).
  3. The (non-technology-specific) checkpoints for each guideline (21 in total).
  4. Success criteria (normative), and definitions, benefits and examples (all non-normative) for each checkpoint
  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 access guidelines.

Reviewer's Note: These checklists do not yet exist. At the present time the checklists are expected to be non-normative, though no formal decision has been made.

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:

(These 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 code the pages. 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.

Scope

The guidelines cover a wide range of issues and recommendations for making Web content more accessible. They include recommendations to make pages 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 beyond standard usability impacts.

Priorities and Techniques

This WCAG 2.0 Working Draft does not assign priorities to checkpoints, as did WCAG 1.0. Instead, each of the checkpoints has levels of implementation listed for it. There are 3 levels labeled "Minimum", "Level 2", and "Level 3". The main WCAG 2.0 Working Draft document does not include technology-specific implementation requirements or techniques, but it does include links to technology-specific requirements as well as technology-specific examples and techniques.

This Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 is a follow-on and evolution of 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 been improved significantly.

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is working carefully to enable organizations and individuals that are currently using WCAG 1.0 (which remains stable and referenceable at this time) to ensure that they will eventually be able to make a smooth transition to WCAG 2.0. To understand how this eventual transition would be facilitated, please refer to the (draft) Checkpoint Mapping Between WCAG 1.0 and the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft for more detail on current correspondences.

Conformance

In order to claim any conformance to the guidelines it is necessary to satisfy the "MINIMUM" success criteria of every checkpoint. The minimum criteria represent those aspects of the checkpoint requirements which, in the absence of a full implementation, will nonetheless offer substantial benefit to people with disabilities by removing barriers that would otherwise make it difficult or impossible to access the content. The Level 2 and Level 3 criteria build upon this functionality, making the content accessible to people who would not be able to access it, or could do so only with substantial difficulty, if only the minimum criteria had been met.A full discussion of the underlying rationale of the conformance scheme, including the three levels of conformance, is presented in Appendix B.

Sites which go beyond the Minimum level of conformance can claim conformance at higher levels in several ways.

  1. If they meet all of the criteria for Level 2 or Level 3 they can claim conformance at those levels.
  2. If they meet some but not all of the criteria for Level 2 then can claim conformance at Level 1+.
  3. If they meet all of the criteria for level 2 and some but not all of the criteria for Level 3 then can claim conformance at Level 2+.
  4. It is possible and recommended that sites report specifically which criteria they have met within each of the guidelines and checkpoints. This can be done using [Reviewer's Note: method not yet defined].

Overview of Design Principles

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

  1. Perceivable. Ensure that all content can be presented in form(s) that can be perceived by any user - except those aspects of the content that cannot be expressed in words.
  2. Operable. Ensure that the interface elements in the content are operable by any user.
  3. Navigable. Facilitate content orientation and navigation
  4. Understandable. Make it as easy as possible to understand the content and controls.
  5. Robust. Use Web technologies that maximize the ability of the content to work with current and future accessibility technologies and user agents.

Accessible Web content benefits a variety of people, not just people with disabilities. In the physical world, ramps are used by bicycles, people pushing strollers, and people in wheelchairs. Similarly, accessible Web content is usable by a variety of people with and without disabilities. For example, people who are temporarily operating under constrained conditions like operating in a noisy environment or driving their car where their eyes are busy. Likewise, a search engine can find a famous quote in a movie if the movie is captioned.

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 thus 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:

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. A screen reader is an example of an assistive technology that reads the page aloud. There are many other tools 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.


Guideline 1 - Perceivable.
Ensure that all intended function and information can be presented in form(s) that can be perceived by any user - except those aspects that cannot be expressed in words.

Essential to any access to Web content is the ability of the user to have the information presented in a form which they can perceive.

The checkpoints under this guideline impact individuals with sensory disabilities by allowing the information to be transformed and presented in a form which they can perceive. They also impact individuals with cognitive and language disabilities by ensuring that the information is in a format that can be perceived by mainstream and assistive technologies which can read the content to them as well as (increasingly over time) transform and present it in a form which is easier for them to understand.

Checkpoint 1.1 For all non-text content that can be expressed in words, provide a text equivalent of the function or information the non-text content was intended to convey.

Success Criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. non-text content that can be expressed in words has a text-equivalent explicitly associated with it.
  2. non-text content that can not be expressed in words has a descriptive label provided as its text-equivalent.
    • The text equivalent should fulfill the same function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content).
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 2 if:
  1. the text-equivalent has been reviewed and is believed to fulfill the same function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content)
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 3 if:
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:

Definitions (informative)

A text equivalent

Note: Text-equivalents should be easily convertible to braille or speech, displayed in a larger font or different colors, fed to language translators or abstracting software, etc.

Non-text content includes but is not limited to images, text in raster images, image map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), ASCII art, 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. Scripts, applets, and programmatic objects are not covered in this definition and are covered in checkpoint 5.4.

Benefits (informative)

Examples (informative)

Checkpoint 1.2 Provide synchronized media equivalents for time-dependent presentations.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.2 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. an audio description is provided of all visual information in scenes, actions and events (that can't be perceived from the sound track).
    • The audio description should include all significant visual information in scenes, actions and events (that can't be perceived from the sound track) to the extent possible given the constraints posed by the existing audio track (and constraints on freezing the audio/visual program to insert additional auditory description).
  2. all significant dialogue and sounds are captioned
    exception: if the Web content is real-time audio-only, if not time-sensitive (news, emergency, etc.), and not interactive, a transcript or other non-audio equivalent is sufficient.
  3. descriptions and captions are synchronized with the events they represent.
  4. if the Web content is real-time video with audio, real-time captions are provided unless the content:
    • is a music program that is primarily non-vocal
  5. if the Web content is real-time non-interactive video (e.g. a Webcam of ambient conditions), an accessible alternative is provided that achieves the purpose of the video. If the author's purpose is to provide real-time information, a media equivalent is provided that conforms to checkpoint 1.1, or a link is provided to content elsewhere which conforms to checkpoint 1.1 (e.g. a link to a weather Web site).
  6. if a pure audio or pure video presentation requires a user to respond interactively at specific times in the presentation, then a time-synchronized equivalent (audio, visual or text) presentation is provided.

exception: if content is rebroadcast from another medium or resource that complies to broadcast requirements for accessibility (independent of these guidelines), the rebroadcast satisfies the checkpoint if it complies with the other guidelines.

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.2 at Level 2 if:
  1. the audio description has been reviewed and is believed to include all significant visual information in scenes, actions and events (that can't be perceived from the sound track) to the extent possible given the constraints posed by the existing audio track (and constraints on freezing the audio/visual program to insert additional auditory description).
  2. captions and Audio descriptions are provided for all live broadcasts that are professionally produced.
  3. if Web content is an interactive audio-only presentation, the user is provided with the ability to view only the captions, the captions with the audio, or both together.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.2 at Level 3 if:
  1. a text document (a "script") that includes all audio and visual information is provided.
  2. captions and Audio descriptions are provided for all live broadcasts which provide the same information.
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:

Definitions (informative)

A time-dependent presentation is a presentation which

Media equivalents present essential audio information visually (captions) and essential video information auditorily (audio descriptions).

Benefits (informative)

People without disabilities also benefit from the media equivalents.

Note: Time-dependent presentations that require dual, simultaneous attention with a single sense can present significant barriers to some users. Depending on the nature of the of presentation, it may be possible to avoid scenarios where, for example, a deaf user would be required to watch an action on the screen and read the captions at the same time. However, this would not be achievable for live broadcasts (e.g. a football game). Where possible, provide content so that it does not require dual, simultaneous attention or so that it gives the user the ability to effectively control/pause different media signals.

Examples (informative)

Checkpoint 1.3 Make all content and structure available independently of presentation.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.3 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. any information that is conveyed through presentation formatting is also provided in either text or structure.
  2. the following can be derived programmatically (i.e. through assistive technology compatible markup or data model) from the content without interpreting presentation.
    1. any hierarchical elements and relationships, such as headings, paragraphs and lists
    2. any non-hierarchical relationships between elements such as cross-references and linkages, associations between labels and controls, associations between cells and their headers, etc.
    3. any emphasis
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.3 at Level 2 if:
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.3 at Level 3 if:
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:

Definitions (informative)

Content is the information or meaning and function.

Presentation is the rendering of the content and structure in a form that can be sensed by the user.

Structure includes both hierarchical structure of the content and non-hierarchical relationships such as cross-references, or the correspondence between header and data cells in a table.

Benefits (informative)

Examples (informative)

Checkpoint 1.4 Emphasize structure through presentation(s), positioning, and labels.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.4 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. the structural elements present have a different visual appearance or auditory characteristic than the other structural elements.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.4 at Level 2 if:
  1. the structural emphases are chosen to be distinct for different major display types (e.g. black and white, small display, mono audio playback).
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.4 at Level 3 if:
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:

Note: Because the form and origin (including letters, art, historical documents, etc) of content varies so greatly, specific criteria for the type and amount of emphasis to be provided can not be standardized. Objective success criteria cannot therefore be formulated that would apply across media and documents. Advisory recommendations are however listed below to provide guidance in emphasizing the structure of content. See also the techniques documents for the different technologies.

  1. for visual presentations, use font variations, styles, size and white space to emphasize structure.
  2. use color and graphics to emphasize structure.
  3. for auditory presentations, use different voice characteristics and/sounds for major headings, sections and other structural elements.
  4. if content is targeted for a specific user group and the presentation of the structured content is not salient enough to meet the needs of your audience, use additional graphics, colors, sounds, and other aspects of presentation to emphasize the structure.
  5. provide a table of contents or navigation map of the document.

Note: Ensure that the structural and semantic distinctions are provided in the markup or data model. Refer to checkpoint 1.3.

Benefits (informative)

Presentation that emphasizes structure:

Examples (informative)

Checkpoint 1.5 Ensure that foreground content is easily differentiable from background for both auditory and visual presentations.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.5 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. no text content is presented over a background picture, color or pattern that seriously interferes with readability unless the background picture or pattern can be easily removed.
  2. prepared audio presentations do not have background sounds that seriously interfere with foreground auditory content.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.5 at Level 2 if:
  1. content that might create a problem has been run through a simulator for major types of color blindness and has been found to remain easily readable
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.5 at Level 3 if:
  1. there are no background pictures or patterns behind foreground content
  2. background sounds are at least ?? db lower than foreground content. [Reviewer's Note:the exact decibel level has not yet been determined.].
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:

Benefits (informative)

Examples (informative)

Checkpoint 1.6 Provide information needed for unambiguous decoding of the characters and words in the content.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.6 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. text in the content is provided in Unicode or sufficient information is provided so that it will be automatically mapped back to Unicode.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.6 at Level 2 if:
  1. passages or fragments of text occurring within the content that are written in a language other than the primary natural language of the content as a whole, are identified, including specification of the language of the passage or fragment.
  2. abbreviations and acronyms are clearly identified where they occur. (See also checkpoint 4.3.)
  3. symbols such as diacritic marks that are found in standard usage of the natural language of the content, and necessary for unambiguous interpretation of words, are present or another standard mechanism for disambiguation is provided.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.6 at Level 3 if:
  1. the primary natural language of the content is identified at the page level.
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:

Note: This checkpoint addresses the need for authors to provide sufficient information so that text can be identified correctly by technologies used to render the text (e.g. voice synthesizers) so that the words can be accurately produced and perceived. This checkpoint does not deal with providing definitions or expanded text for words, abbreviations, foreign phrases etc. These are covered under checkpoint 4.3 since they deal with understanding of the content.

Definitions (informative)

Natural languages are those used by humans to communicate, including spoken, written, and signed languages.

Benefits (informative)

Examples (informative)


Guideline 2 - Operable.
Ensure that the interface elements in the content are operable by any user.

Also essential to accessibility is the ability to be able to operate all of the interface elements on the page without requiring the use of specific input devices.

This guideline impacts individuals who are blind, individuals who have low vision and have trouble with eye-hand coordination input devices, individuals with physical disabilities who cannot handle direct pointing devices accurately, and individuals with language and learning disabilities who would like to use speech input now or in the future.

Checkpoint 2.1 Ensure that all of the functionality of the content is operable through character input to the content or user agent.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.1 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. content uses only event handlers that are designed to be operable through character input.
    • Note: refer to checkpoint 5.3 for information regarding user agent support.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.1 at Level 2 if:
  1. wherever a choice between event handlers is available and supported, the more abstract event is used.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.1 at Level 3 if:
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:

Definitions (informative)

Character input is defined as those characters that can be mapped to the character set of the W3C Character Model (which is based on Unicode).

Benefits (informative)

Examples (informative)

Checkpoint 2.2 Allow users to control any time limits on their reading, interaction or responses unless control is not possible due to the nature of real-time events or competition.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.2 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. at least one of the following is true for each time limit:
    1. the user is allowed to deactivate the time limits,
    2. or the user is allowed to adjust the time limit over a wide range which is at least 10 times the average user's preference,
    3. or the user is warned before time expires and given at least 10 seconds to extend the time limit,
    4. or the time limit is due to a real-time event (e.g. auction) and no alternative to the time limit is possible,
    5. or the time limit is part of a competitive activity where timing is an essential part of the activity (e.g. competitive gaming or time based testing).
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.2 at Level 2 if:
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.2 at Level 3 if:
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:

Definitions (informative)

Real-time events are those that are based on the occurrence of events in real-time where the events are not under the control of the author.

A competitive activity is an activity where timing is an essential part of the design of the activity. Removal of the time element would change the performance of the participants. Versions of the activity (e.g. test) that have no time basis or time limits might be preferred and may be required for some venues but this would require a complete redesign of the activity (e.g. test) and may change the character and validation methodology and would therefore not fall under these guidelines.

Benefits (informative)

People with reading disabilities, cognitive disabilities, and learning disabilities often need longer than most people to read and comprehend written text. People with physical disabilities might not be able to move quickly or accurately enough to interact with moving objects.

Content that is updated often might not be processed and read in time or in the proper order by an assistive technology or voice browser.

Examples (informative)

Examples of content that requires a response within a timed interval:

Checkpoint 2.3 Avoid causing the screen to flicker.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.3 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. At least one of the following is true:
    1. content was not designed to flicker (or flash) in the range of 3 to 49 Hz.
    2. Reviewer's Note: We would like to include a criteria here which would state that a test that was conducted and the pages passed. No test or tool exists yet though. We're looking into how such a test and/or tool might be designed.
    3. if flicker is unavoidable, the user is warned of the flicker before they go to the page, and as close a version of the content as is possible without flicker is provided.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.3 at Level 2 if:
  1. animation or other content does not visibly or purposely flicker between 3 and 49 Hz.
  2. content that might create a problem has been tested [using XYZ tool]; only pages with unavoidable flicker remain and appropriate warnings along with a close alternative presentation have been provided for these pages.
  3. (tougher test - that would make pages pass with even slower equip. Equip might be old or just slow for other reasons)
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 2.3 at Level 3 if:
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:

Reviewer's Note: Trace is currently in the process of exploring an automated flicker testing tool.

Benefits (informative)


Guideline 3 - Navigable.
Facilitate content orientation and navigation

Key to effective use of Web content is the ability to obtain and keep one's orientation within a document and/or Web site, and the ability to efficiently move about in the site or document.

Checkpoint 3.1 Provide structure within content.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.1at the Minimum Level if:
  1. the following minimum structure elements are present.
    1. titles on major sections of long documents
    2. paragraphs
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.1 at Level 2 if:
  1. the content has been reviewed, taking into account the additional ideas listed below, and is believed to contain as much structure as is possible and appropriate
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.1 at Level 3 if:
  1. information is provided that would allow an assistive technology to determine at least one logical, linear reading order
  2. diagrams are constructed in a fashion so that they have structure that can be accessed by the user.
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension

Note: Because the form and origin of content (including letters, poetry, historical documents, etc.) varies so greatly, specific criteria for the type and amount of structure to be put into content can not be standardized. Objective success criteria cannot therefore be formulated that would apply across media and documents. Advisory recommendations are, however, listed below to provide guidance in adding key structural elements into the content. See also the techniques documents for the different technologies.

  1. break up text into logical paragraphs.
  2. provide hierarchical sections and titles, particularly for longer documents
  3. reveal important non-hierarchical relationships, such as cross-references, or the correspondence between header and data cells in a table, so that they are represented unambiguously in the markup or data model.
  4. divide very large works into sections and or chapters with logical labels.
  5. others?

Definitions (informative)

The structure of content represents changes in context. For example,

  1. A book is divided into chapters, paragraphs, lists, etc. Chapter titles help the reader anticipate the meaning of the following paragraphs. Lists clearly indicate separate, yet related ideas. All of these divisions help the reader anticipate changes in context.
  2. A bicycle is divided into wheels and a frame. Further, a wheel is divided into a tire and a rim. In an image of the bicycle, one group of circles and lines becomes "wheel" while another group becomes "frame."

Benefits (informative)

When the logical structure is provided in markup or a data model,

Examples (informative)

Checkpoint 3.2 Provide multiple methods to explore sites that are more than two layers deep.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.2 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. sites that have more than two layers have at least one other method for exploration besides using the links on the home page. (A home page and one layer of pages linked off of it would be two layers)
  2. a link to the alternate exploration method(s) is provided on the home page.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.2 at Level 2 if:
  1. sites that have documents that span multiple files either provide the documents as a single file or provide a search function which would allow the user to search for a word across only the files that make up that document.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.2 at Level 3 if:
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:

Definitions (informative)

A site navigation mechanism is a mechanism for easily orienting and moving about within the site. Site navigation mechanisms include but are not limited to:

Benefits (informative)

Checkpoint 3.3 Use consistent but not necessarily identical presentation.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.3 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. key orientation and navigational elements are generally found in one or two locations or their locations are otherwise predictable.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.3 at Level 2 if:
  1. the content has been reviewed, taking into account the additional ideas listed below, and it has been concluded that key orientation and navigational elements are generally found in one or two locations, or their locations are otherwise predictable
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.3 at Level 3 if:
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:
  1. place navigation bars in a consistent location whenever possible
  2. similar layout for user interface components should be used for sections or whole site,
  3. similar user interface components should be labeled with similar terminology
  4. use headers consistently
  5. use templates for consistent presentation of sections or whole site
  6. pages with similar function should have similar appearance and layout

Definitions (informative)

Presentation includes, but is not limited to:

Benefits (informative)

Checkpoint 3.4 Provide consistent and predictable responses to user actions.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.4 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. where inconsistent or unpredictable responses are essential to the function of the content (e.g. mystery games, adventure games, tests, etc.) the user is warned in advance of encountering them.
  2. wherever there are extreme changes in context, one of the following is true:
    1. an easy to find setting, that persists for the site visit, is provided for the user to deactivate processes or features that cause extreme changes in context or
    2. extreme changes in context are identified before they occur so the user can determine if they wish to proceed or so they can be prepared for the change
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.4 at Level 2 if:
  1. the content has been reviewed, and it has been found that where inconsistent or unpredictable responses are essential to its function (e.g. mystery games, adventure games, tests, etc.), the user is warned in advance of encountering them
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.4 at Level 3 if:
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:
  1. controls that look or sound the same should be designed to act the same,
  2. conventions likely to be familiar to the user should be followed,
  3. unusual user interface features or behaviors that are likely to confuse the first-time user should be described to the user before they are encountered.

Definitions (informative)

Mechanisms that cause extreme changes in context include:

Common user actions include:

Common responses to user actions include:

It is important that responses to user actions be predictable and sensible to the end user and that interactions are consistent, both throughout the site and with commonly used interaction metaphors used throughout the Web.

Benefits (informative)

Note: Providing consistent and predictable responses to user actions is important feedback for the user. This lets them know that your site is working properly and encourages them to continue interacting with the content. When the user receives an unexpected response, they might conclude that something is wrong or broken. Some people might get so confused they will not be able to use your site.

Examples (informative)

Reviewer's Note: Some of these examples are very brief. Should they be expanded and clarified with further details?

Checkpoint 3.5 Provide methods to minimize error and provide graceful recovery.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.5 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. if an error is detected, feedback is provided to the user identifying the error.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.5 at Level 2 if:
  1. the content has been reviewed and is believed to have incorporated error prevention and recovery methods that are considered to be effective and appropriate
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 3.5 at Level 3 if:
  1. where possible, the user is allowed to select from a list of options as well as to generate input text directly
  2. errors are identified specifically and suggestions for correction are provided where possible
  3. checks for misspelled words are applied and correct spellings are suggested when text entry is required.
  4. where consequences are significant and time-response is not important, one of the following is true
    1. actions are reversible where possible
    2. where not reversible, actions are checked for errors in advance.
    3. where not reversible, and not checkable, a confirmation is asked before acceptance
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:

Benefits (informative)

Examples (informative)


Guideline 4 - Understandable.
Make it as easy as possible to understand the content and controls.

To help people understand the information you are presenting, consider the various ways that people learn. Keep in mind the variety of backgrounds and experiences people will bring to your site. Using language, illustrations, and concepts that they are likely to know, highlighting the differences and similarities between concepts, and providing explanations for unusual terms can all facilitate understanding.

Checkpoint 4.1 Write as clearly and simply as is [appropriate / possible] for the purpose of the content.

Reviewer's Note: This item is under discussion. There is consensus for the existence of the checkpoint but not for the form of the success criteria. We do not therefore have something for the draft at this time. There is a list below of items that are being explored for inclusion either as success criteria or as Advisory Recommendations. We are also compiling a longer list (approx 50 items) of different ideas that relate to this checkpoint.

This checkpoint is very difficult and the group is wrestling with a number of problems. Among them:

  1. It is very difficult to determine what makes writing clear and simple for all topics.
  2. Some content is derived from other sources and is copyrighted so it cannot be altered.
  3. Some materials or topics cannot be communicated accurately in simple language.
  4. There are some cases where the form is specific to the intent, (poetry, exposition )
  5. Since some people can not understand the content no matter how simply it is written, it is not possible to make any content accessible to everyone. Therefore, we are having difficulty finding specific objective criteria that could be applied across all types of content and sites.

Comments, suggestions and contributions to the discussion and work on this topic are also solicited. Refer to the issues list for more information.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.1 at the Minimum Level if:
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.1 at Level 2 if:
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.1 at Level 3 if:
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:

Partial list of items being explored for inclusion as success criteria or advisory recommendations

  1. content under site control is written as clearly and simply as the author feels [appropriate / possible] for the purpose of the content.
  2. the content has been reviewed and is believed to be written as clearly and simply as is [appropriate / possible] for its intended purpose
  3. summaries and/or simpler forms are provided for key pages or sections of the content.
  4. provide an outline or a summary for your document.
  5. break up long paragraphs into shorter ones, with one idea per paragraph.
  6. break up long sentences into shorter ones.
  7. provide accurate unique page titles.
  8. ensure that headings and link text are unique and that they make sense when read out of context.
  9. provide definitions for any jargon or specialized terminology used in your document.
  10. provide explanations of figurative, metaphorical, or idiomatic uses of language (for example, 'haven't seen you in a coons age' or 'the sight tore my heart out').
  11. language should be used that your intended audience ought to be familiar with.
  12. when introducing new concepts or terms, they should be defined or annotated in language that the audience is expected to be familiar with, or definitions or explanations should be linked to that might be easier to understand.

Benefits (informative)

Checkpoint 4.2 Supplement text with non-text content.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.2 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. authors have included non-text content to supplement text for key pages or sections of the site where they felt it was appropriate.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.2 at Level 2 if:
  1. the content has been reviewed and it is believed that text has been supplemented with non-text content to the extent deemed appropriate by the author
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.2 at Level 3 if:
  1. non-text content has been added to the site for key pages or sections specifically to make the site more understandable by users who cannot understand the text only version of the site.
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:

Note: Supplementing text with non-text (e.g. graphics, sound, smell, etc) is useful for all users. However there are no clear guidelines as it relates to disability. Specific objective criteria that could be applied across all types of content are therefore not possible. Advisory recommendations are, however, listed below to provide guidance in this area. See also the techniques documents for the different technologies.

Reviewer's Note: Do we have any items to add here or do we just include examples below?

Definitions (informative)

Non-text content - includes images, text in raster images, image map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects, ASCII art, 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.

Reviewer's Note: Is this definition adequate?

Benefits (informative)

Note: Designers need to be cautious in deciding when to use illustrations. Reading a picture is probably a learned activity that is easier for some than others. Some users skip the pictures; others read only the pictures. Designers must also recognize that visual conventions are not universal and that individuals develop their own mental schema and expectations in interpreting visual information.

Examples (informative)

Checkpoint 4.3 Annotate complex, abbreviated, or unfamiliar information with summaries and definitions.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.3 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. acronyms and abbreviations are defined the first time they appear.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.3 at Level 2 if:
  1. the content has been reviewed, taking into account the additional ideas listed below, and it is believed that complex, abbreviated or unfamiliar information has been annotated appropriately
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.3 at Level 3 if:
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:
  1. provide a definition or link (with the first occurrence) of phrases, words, acronyms, and abbreviations specific to a particular community.
  2. provide a summary for relationships that may not be obvious from analyzing the structure of a table but that may be apparent in a visual rendering of the table.
  3. if contracted forms of words are used such that they are ambiguous, provide semantic markup to make words unique and interpretable.

Definitions (informative)

Content is considered complex if the relationships between pieces of information are not easy to figure out. If the presentation of the information is intended to highlight trends or relationships between concepts, these should be explicitly stated in the summary.

Examples of complex information:

Content might be unfamiliar if you are using terms specific to a particular community. For example, many of the terms used in this document are specific to the disability community.

Benefits (informative)


Guideline 5 - Robust.
Use Web technologies that maximize the ability of the content to work with current and future accessibility technologies and user agents.

Checkpoint 5.1 Use technologies according to specification.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.1 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. for markup, except where the site has documented that a specification was violated for backward compatibility, the markup has passed validity tests of the language (whether it be conforming to a schema, Document Type Definition (DTD), or other tests described in the specification), structural elements and attributes are used as defined in the specification, accessibility features are used, and deprecated features are avoided.
  2. for Application Programming Interfaces (API's), programming standards for the language are followed.
  3. accessibility features and API's are used when available.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.1 at Level 2 if:
  1. for markup, the markup has passed validity tests of the language (whether it be conforming to a schema, DTD, or other tests described in the specification), structural elements and attributes are used as defined in the specification, accessibility features are used, and deprecated features are avoided.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.1 at Level 3 if:
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:

Reviewer's Note: Are protocols relevant to this checkpoint? If so, why, and should we require that they be used according to specification? Obviously there are interoperability advantages in doing so, but is this pertinent to accessibility?

Benefits (informative)

Examples (informative)

Checkpoint 5.2 Ensure that technologies relied upon by the content are declared and widely available.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.2 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. a list of technologies and features, support for which is required in order for the content to be operable, has been determined and is documented in metadata and / or a policy statement associated with the content.
    • Note: When determining your list of technological requirements, consider that assistive hardware and software is often slow to adapt to technological advances, and the availability of assistive technology varies across natural languages. Verify that assistive technology compatible with the technologies you choose is available in the natural language(s) of your content.
  2. the content is still usable when features not on the required list (for example, scripting and stylesheets) are turned off or not supported.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.2 at Level 2 if:
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.2 at Level 3 if:
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:

Definitions (informative)

A technology is a

A feature is a specific component of a technology, for example an element in a markup language or a function call in an Application Programming Interface. Typically, a given feature may only be available in specific versions of the technology, and thus may need to be noted explicitly in the required list.

Benefits (informative)

Benefits of determining and documenting baseline user agent requirements:

Benefits of designing for backward compatibility:

Examples (informative)

Checkpoint 5.3 Choose technologies that are designed to support accessibility.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.3 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. the technology or combination of technologies chosen:
    1. support device independence
    2. include accessibility features
    3. have publicly documented interfaces for interoperability
    4. make use of operating system accessibility features (either directly or via the user agent) supported by assistive technologies in the natural language(s) of the content
    5. are implemented in user agents and/or proxies in the natural language(s) of the content
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.3 at Level 2 if:
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.3 at Level 3 if:
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:

Benefits (informative)

Checkpoint 5.4 Ensure that user interfaces are accessible or provide an accessible alternative.

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.4 at the Minimum Level if:
  1. any applications with custom user interfaces conform to at least Level A of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. If the application cannot be made accessible, an alternative, accessible solution is provided.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.4 at Level 2 if:
  1. the interface has been tested using a variety of assistive technologies and preferably real people with disabilities who use assistive technologies to determine that assistive technologies can access all information on the page or hidden within the page.
    Reviewer's Note:
    It would be possible to comply with the checkpoint without carrying out tests (either with users or with assistive technologies). Conversely, it is possible to conduct tests, but still fail to meet the checkpoint (with respect to assistive technologies that were not tested, for example). Should this success criterion be deleted?
  2. device-independent access to functionality is provided
  3. accessibility conventions of the markup or programming language (API's or specific markup) are used
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.4 at Level 3 if:
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension:

Benefits (informative)


Appendix A: Glossary

Reviewer's Note: Should we include only the definitions of terms appearing in the guidelines or is there some subset of key terms from the glossary that should also be included? We also need to make sure that the glossary definitions are the same as the definitions which appear in the guidelines themselves. For now, a simple list of the terms that are defined in this document are included below. Definitions for each term will be included at a later date.

  1. text equivalent
  2. Non-text content
  3. time-dependent presentation
  4. Media equivalents
  5. captions
  6. audio descriptions
  7. Content
  8. Presentation
  9. Structure
  10. Natural languages
  11. Character input
  12. Real-time events
  13. competitive activity
  14. structure
  15. site navigation mechanism
  16. Presentation
  17. Mechanisms that cause extreme changes in context
  18. Non-text content
  19. complex
  20. unfamiliar
  21. technology
  22. feature

Appendix B: Explanation of Conformance Levels and Success Criteria

The Three Levels of Conformance

The effect of the three levels of conformance defined in these guidelines may be characterized as follows.

If Web content satisfies a checkpoint at the first conformance level (i.e., "minimum"), then the barriers to access which the checkpoint was designed to address will have been minimally overcome for at least some people with disabilities. The quality of access thus provided is not necessarily high, and there may well be people with disabilities to whom the content remains inaccessible due to issues relevant to the checkpoint, despite the attainment of minimal conformance.

At level 2, a more demanding standard of access is achieved. Often, this is assured by requiring, in success criteria at this level, that the access-related features of the content be reviewed for quality and completeness. In undertaking such reviews, it is recommended, though not required for purposes of conformance, that consistent processes be followed and that, if possible, these should include evaluation of the content by users with disabilities, for example as part of a testing procedure. To guide designers and evaluators in developing content and reviewing it for accessibility, the additional ideas section that appears under most checkpoints, lists various factors which greatly enhance the level of access provided. These factors are not in themselves testable (see below), but they should be taken into account in designing content and assessing its quality, as required by the success criteria at level 2 of the guidelines.

At level 3, the highest possible standard of access is attained along the dimension identified in the checkpoint. The purpose of implementing a checkpoint at level 3 is typically to optimize the content for use by people with specific requirements or expectations. For this reason, there may be particular types of content for which conformance to a given checkpoint, at level 3, is not feasible. Nevertheless, implementors are strongly encouraged to meet level 3 success criteria wherever possible. Moreover, there are some people with disabilities who may only be able to access the content if it conforms to level 3 of one or more particular checkpoints. [Perhaps we need an example here?]

Testability

All success criteria in these guidelines are testable, according to the following definition. A success criterion is considered testable if:

  1. There exist, at least in principle, automated testing procedures which can reliably determine whether or not the requirement has been satisfied
    or
  2. It is believed that at least ninety percent of informed human evaluators, in assessing content, would agree as to whether the requirement has been met.

There nonetheless exist requirements, or factors of importance to accessibility, which are not testable according to the above definition. These have been placed in the additional ideas sections of relevant checkpoints, and should be taken into account not only in developing Web content, but also, as noted above, in evaluating its degree of accessibility to people with disabilities.

Appendix C: Contributors

Participants in the WCAG Working Group

Appendix D: The differences between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0

Since the release of WCAG 1.0 in May 1999, the WCAG Working Group has received feedback on priorities of checkpoints, the usability of the set of documents, and requests for clarifications on the meaning of specific checkpoints and what is needed to satisfy them. Thus, it is intended that WCAG 2.0, when it eventually becomes a W3C Recommendation:

For a checkpoint by checkpoint comparison, refer to the Checkpoint Mapping Between WCAG 1.0 and the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft.

Improvements in WCAG 2.0

We hope that WCAG 2.0 will have several improvements over WCAG 1.0. While the primary goal of WCAG 2.0 is the same as WCAG 1.0 (to promote accessibility of Web content) additional goals for WCAG 2.0 include improvements that will:

  1. Ensure that requirements may be applied across technologies
  2. Ensure that the conformance requirements are clear
  3. Ensure that the deliverables are easy to use
  4. Write to a more diverse audience
  5. Clearly identify who benefits from accessible content
  6. Ensure that the revision is "backward compatible" with WCAG 1.0

For more information about the intended improvements in WCAG 2.0 Working Draft, please refer to Requirements for WCAG 2.0.

Appendix E: References

Reviewer's Note: Links within the document will be turned into references and the links to those documents will be listed here as references. They are inline for the time being.