Older Users and Web Accessibility Changelog

Published Version: http://www.w3.org/WAI/older-users/developing

About

In some situations, developers are tasked to create Web sites optimized for older users. Often they are not aware of the relationship between the accessibility needs of older users and the needs of people with disabilities. In fact, they may not even be aware of the existence of standards for Web accessibility at all. This resource would explain to them how they could benefit from implementing existing Web accessibility guidelines, and how to use them to create accessible Web sites for older users.

Scenarios

• Jane DeVeloper has been told to make her website work well for older users. This document should show her how to use WCAG as her guide for doing so. Jane has a sister Jessica, also a web developer:
  • Jane needs to design her website for older people; she is not aware of accessibility or WCAG
  • Jessica knows about accessibility and WCAG; she wants to get information specifically on designing for older users
• The web manager at Acme insurance wants to better meet the needs of older people as one of their key customer groups. This doc should help him integrate the requirements of old people into their ongoing accessibility work.
• Researcher looking to develop guidelines/recommendations for older web users. This document should demonstrate how WCAG 2.0 covers the accessibility requirements.

Purpose, Goals, Objectives

Rationale:

• Many web developers:
  • do not appreciate the relevance of the WAI guidelines for older people
  • do not know about the accessibility requirements of older users with changing abilities
  • do not understand the importance of the WCAG 2.0 advisory techniques
• Some independent ‘senior friendly’ guidelines have been developed which parallel WAI guidelines, but fragment standardization efforts

Objective:

• Underline the relevance of the WAI guidelines for older users
• Provide web developers with information about the importance of WCAG 2.0 for older users
• Highlight the relevance of advisory techniques from WCAG 2, especially for people who do not use assistive technology
• Contribute to the harmonization of web accessibility rather the development of separate recommendations for older users
• Catch people focusing on older audience and show that WCAG provides what they need (and by the way, make it accessible to everyone while you’re at it)

Audience

Primary:

• Web developers (including web application programmers, website designers, information architects, content writers and editors, etc)
  • primary group - people developing for older people and unaware of WCAG
  • secondary group - accessibility aware, but looking for older people guidance

Secondary:

• Website procurers and commissioners
• Policy makers
• Managers & other decision makers
• Advocates and older peoples’ organizations

Scope

Will:

• Highlight aspects of WCAG 2.0 of particular importance to older users with accessibility needs due to ageing
• Provide tips and best-practices for website development, including WCAG 2.0 sufficient & advisory techniques
• Point to further resources about website development, especially those developed through WAI-AGE

Will not:

• Be a step-by-step guide to accessible development
• Repeat material already included in other WAI documents (but will cross reference them, especially WAI-AGE ones, as appropriate)

Approach

Initial outline and ideas:

• Introduction
  • stress overlap of requirements for older users and people with disabilities
  • consider mentioning:
    • many previous studies made recommendations WRT older people that are covered or paralleled by WCAG 2.0
    • many of the identified requirements for older web users are met by advisory techniques
• Background
  • stress importance of WAI guidelines (refer Lit Review)
    • mention the importance of the browser and UAAG for people who don’t use assistive technologies
  • point to How People with Disabilities Use the Web
  • point to Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization: Overview
• Requirements / Mapping / @@
  • mapping of needs and requirements with WCAG 2.0 drawn from WAI Guidelines and Older Web Users: Findings from a Literature Review (draft) and related documents
    • probably simplified - maybe by GL/SC and particular technique of additional importance
• Implementation (tips and best practices)
  • mention the importance of content authors, writers, editors, and others preparing content in addressing requirements of older users
  • mention importance of authoring tools (include CMS) in achieving web accessibility - point toSelecting and Using Authoring Tools for Web Accessibility
  • Mention possibility of utilising WAI-ARIA (e.g. to make sure the user notices small ajax-created page changes/updates)
  • mention importance of site design and information architecture in addressing requirements of older users
  • reference BAD as an example of good implementation
  • point to Involving Users in Web Projects for Better, Easier Accessibility
  • point to Implementation Plan for Web Accessibility
  • point to Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility
  • point to Developing Organizational Policies on Web Accessibility
  • point to Why Standards Harmonization is Essential to Web Accessibility

Title Options

WCAG for Older Users (technical page):

• Primary ideas
  • Developing Websites for Older People
  • Developing Websites for Older People:
    • Applying the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0
    • How Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Applies
    • How WCAG 2.0 Improves Websites for Older People
    • How WCAG 2.0 Applies to Older People
    • Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 has it Covered\
    • How WCAG 2 Covers it\
    • Using WCAG 2 to Meet the Needs\
    • How WCAG 2 covers what you need to know\
    • How WCAG 2 Addresses their Needs\
    • Using WCAG 2 to Address their Needs
    • Improving Usability Through Accessibility
    • Guidelines for Meeting the Needs of Older Web Users
    • Meeting Their Accessibility Needs
    • How WCAG 2 Meets Their Accessibility Need
  • Optimizing Websites for Older People
  • Older People and Web Design
  • Older People and Web Design: Applicability of WCAG 2 guidelines
  • Meeting the Requirements of Older Web Users
• Other thoughts:
  • Developing Websites Suitable for Older People
  • Developing Accessible Websites for Older People
  • Designing Websites for Older Users, People with Disabilities, and All/Everyone
  • best practice design …
  • top tips for …
  • applicability of WAI guidelines for older people
  • Applicability of WCAG 2 guidelines to older users
  • Designing for Older Users and Web Accessibility
  • Older Users Needs Met with Web Accessibility
  • Accessibility and older users/people

EOWG Brainstorm (technical page OR landing page)

See also title ideas for Older People land page below

References

WAI-AGE task force and EOWG Discussions:

• EOWG teleconference 24 September 2010
• WAI-AGE TF teleconference 8 September 2010
• EOWG teleconference 3 September 2010
• WAI-AGE TF teleconference 11 August 2010
• EOWG teleconference 6 August 2010
• WAI-AGE TF teleconference 28 July 2010
• EOWG teleconference 23 July 2010
• EOWG teleconference 25 June 2010
• EOWG teleconference 18 June 2010
• WAI-AGE TF teleconference 2 June 2010
• EOWG teleconference 28 May 2010
• EOWG teleconference 21 May 2010
• WAI-AGE TF teleconference 19 May 2010
• WAI-AGE TF teleconference 5 May 2010

Related documents:

• Web Accessibility for Older Users: A Literature Review
• Needs for older users (2008)
• WAI Guidelines and Older Web Users: Findings from a Literature Review (2009)
• Comparative requirements analysis for older web users (2008)
• WCAG 1.0 checkpoints – mapping to ageing recommendations (2008)
• Additional requirements suggested by ageing recommendations (2008)
• Requirements identified from targeted studies (2008)
• BAD-TF: Implementing WAI-AGE Requirements (2009)

Open Issues

• consider later adding a complete list of Techniques applicable - maybe create a separate page and link to to it later on (EOWG 25 June 2010)
• DONE - consider later restructuring the document along the lines of “the types of needs older users have, then show how WCAG SC apply to those under that” [this is closer to the approach in http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/comparative.html]
  • tried with 4-Aug-2010 draft (trial at Requirements Grouping trial below)
  • adopted and progressed to final draft (Sept 2010)
• DONE - overlap between this document’s introductory material and the older peoples landing page
• reconsider combining Pop-ups and Page Refresh (and Text Size with Text presentation)
• adding expand/collapse functionality - add to published version when functionality finalised (final draft has draft functionality)

ChangeLog

Changes 22 September 2010

• addressed EOWG survey responses
• removed expand/collapse functionality for the public release

Changes 9 September 2010

• addressed WAI-AGE TF actions from 8/Sept - added ‘reasons’ to “Navigation and location” and to “Error Prevention” background sentences

Changes 6 September 2010

• addressed actions from EOWG 3 Sepetember 2010
• considered feedback from Shawn (2 & 3 September 2010)
• refined the introductory sections with assistance from Shawn and Shadi
• refined the group headings and explanatory sentences with assistance from Shawn and Shadi
• reduced the numbers of techniques listed to a maximum of 5 or 6 in most groups
• added Expand/Collapse functionality

Changes 13 August 2010

• edited the introduction to the page
• renamed “Applying WCAG 2” to “How WCAG 2.0 Applies to Older People”
  • edited the introduction to the section
  • reordered some of the requirements topics after discussion in TF
• renamed “About the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0” to “How WCAG 2.0 Applies to Older People”
• removed the section “Understanding the Needs of Older People”
  • part incorporated into introduction
  • part placed in Web Accessibility and Older People: Meeting the Needs of Ageing Web Users
  • part will incorporated into the accessibility-usability document
• all requirements/needs categories in “Applying WCAG 2” completed

Changes 10 August 2010

• refinement of requirements/needs categories
• focusing of what success criteria to list as examples (max 7)
• referred reader to other techniques for the SC listed
• added in links to Lit Review as appropriate

Changes 4 August 2010

• additional editing of introductory sections for clarity
• heading refinement for clarity
• restructured document under POUR by requirements of older people

Changes 21 July 2010

• Removed technology specific techniques were appropriate general techniques exist (retained H2 & H44 as there is no general technique about target size)
• Clarified the Lit Review follow-up reading for researchers and moved to the first section with the link to the Presentation.
• Moved “Additional Resources for Implementing Accessibility” section to the end of the document
• Additional word-smithing with Shawn’s help

Changes 29 June 2010

• From EOWG 25/June discussion:
  • Changed title from “Developing Websites for Older People: The Applicability of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0” to “Developing Websites for Older People: Applying Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0”
  • open - move “additional resources” to end of doc as H2?
  • Added another argument ([Some older people don’t think of their age-related impairments as disabilities]{.listintro}, …) to follow “… [variety of reasons]{.listintro}” in the section “Understanding the Accessibility Needs of Older People”
  • Elaborated the first para in the section “Using WCAG 2.0 to Improve Accessibility for Older People”
  • Added overview sentence for each Guideline that didn’t have an intro.

Changes 23 June 2010

• From EOWG 18/June actions:
  • DONE - added mention of WCAG into a subheading for the page
  • DONE - changed H3 from “Resources for Implementing Accessibility” to “Additional Resources for Implementing Accessibility”
  • DONE - shortened the opening sentence of section 3
  • done - removed in-line links associated with success criteria explanation
    • NB retained for now as numeric links to aid internal review - [remove after review]{.open}
  • DONE - listed SC with number then short name, e.g. “a.b.c - short name”
  • DONE - listed GLs as “Guideline a.b short name”
• edited all SC rationales to be more readable and explanatory (hopefully :)

Changes 16 June 2010

• Changed structure to
  • Introduction (no visible heading)
  • Understanding the accessibility needs of older users
  • Using WCAG 2 to improve accessibility for older people
    • Resources for Implementing Accessibility
  • Recommended WCAG 2 Techniques
• Edited “understanding” to include a bit more background to help people relate to older people’s impairments
• Changed all the SC discussion to give an older people’s reason for implementing, and just pointing to selected, highly relevant, techniques
• open:
  • wording style for rationale/explanations
  • grouping/ordering of SC

Changes 1 June 2010

• Changed structure to
  • Introduction
  • Using WCAG 2
  • Additional Resources
  • WCAG 2 Requirements Appendix
• Expanded the Introduction to try and better address the requirements
• Tried to further clarify that this is not ‘in addition’ or ‘instead of’ WCAG 2.0, but a selection of techniques that will optimise a site that meets WCAG for older peoples’ requirements
• Changed (progressively) the tabular layout in the Appendix to a less check-listy bulleted list layout
• Changed the Guidelines to <h4> and the SC to <h5>

{#x100526}Changes 26 May 2010

• changed H2 heading “Older Web Users’ Accessibility Requirements” > “Background”
• changed H2 heading “WCAG 2.0 Best Practices for Older Users” > “Technical Requirements”
• tables of techniques - changed Techniques column heading from “Best practice WCAG 2.0 techniques relevant to older web users” to “WCAG 2.0 Techniques particularly relevant to older web users” (and removed the “AAA” background)
• Minor editorial changes to paragraphs in first three sections

{#x100525}Changes 25 May 2010

• edited “Introduction” to be clearer that WCAG 2.0 is required
• changed H2 heading “WCAG 2.0 and Older Web Users” > “Older Web Users’ Accessibility Requirements”
  • edited section to be stronger about “WCAG 2.0 addresses the accessibility requirements of older web users”
• added H2 heading “WCAG 2.0 Best Practices for Older Users”
  • added intro paragraph to stress that WCAG still needs to be met, and the listed techniques are to help optimise for odler users
  • demoted P/O/U/R headings to H3 level (with linked list for navigation)
• tables of techniques
  • changed Techniques column heading from “Additional techniques relevant to older web users” to “Best practice WCAG 2.0 techniques relevant to older web users”
  • changed advisory techniques flag to “(future link) [advisory]” or just “[advisory]” if technique is linked
  • prefaced “A” and “AA” techniques with “Meet all the sufficient techniques for this SC paying particular attention to the following:”
  • added grey background to AAA SC
  • prefaced “AAA” techniques with “Consider the following techniques if applicable:”
• EOWG 21 May Actions:
  • DONE - recommend meeting AA, and here are some techniques to help optimize the design (maybe in Intro)
  • DONE - consider calling the table RHS column “best practice (techniques)”
  • DONE - make it clear that all the techniques listed are from WCAG 2.0 (to counter the assumption that the non-linked ones are not)
  • DONE - scenario option? - someone designing own Guidelines/Recommendations for older users, proof that WCAG covers what they would have put down anyway [added to Scenarios]
  • DONE - considering wording “optimizing for older users”
  • DONE - one purpose is to catch people focusing on older audience that WCAG provides what hey need (and by he way, make it accessible to everyone while you’re at it) [added to Objectives]

{#x100520}Changes 20 May 2010

• rationalized material between this document and the “landing page” draft
• restructured document as:
  • Introduction
  • WCAG 2.0 and Older Web Users
  • Perceivable Requirements
  • Operable Requirements
  • Understandable Requirements
  • Robust Requirements
  • Additional Resources
• added in pointers to WCAG 2.0 materials
• added in pointers to WAI-IG
• added in WCAG 2.0 levels to SC in tables
• refined techniques listings in tables

{#x100512}Changes 12 May 2010

• structured document as
  • Intro
  • Background
  • Requirements
  • Further actions
• drafts for Intro & Background & Further Actions
• draft inclusion of WCAG material in Requirements

{#x100506}Changes 6 May 2010

• Outline drafted with headings and points to include

** {#backgd}Background from WAI-AGE Deliverables:** {#background-from-wai-age-deliverables .listintro}

Rationale:

This document describes how to use existing Web accessibility guidelines to create Web sites for older users. It highlights the relationship between the accessibility needs of older users and the needs of people with disabilities, and guides the readers to more in-depth resources such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, the WAI-AGE Literature Review documents, or other relevant resources.

Proposal:

In some situations, developers are tasked to create Web sites for older users. Often they are not aware of the relationship between the accessibility needs of older users and the needs of people with disabilities. In fact, they may not even be aware of the existence of standards for Web accessibility at all. This resource would explain to them how they could benefit from existing Web accessibility guidelines, and how to use them to create accessible Web sites for older users.

Requirements Groupings option

A second attempt to organise material by the types of needs older users have, then show how WCAG 2.0 meets those needs. Trying the approach and presentation style used in Shared Web Experiences: Barriers Common to Mobile Device Users and People with Disabilities.

Groupings based on WAI Guidelines and Older Web Users: Findings from a Literature Review plus meeting identified impairments. Techniques drawn from early draft of Developing Websites for Older People (June 2010). Need to emphasize that any success criteria not listed still need to be met!

Questions:

1. Is this ‘requirements’ approach working? Is the organisation/categorisation good? (Too many? Too few?)
2. Is the level of explanation of each requirement sufficient?
3. Might it be appropriate to link to the Lit Review for each requirement?
4. How best to include success criteria that don’t readily fit into the proposed categories?
5. @@

Presenting the Success Criteria (or Guidelines) within Impairment & Needs Groupings

A first attempt to organise material by the types of needs older users have, then show how WCAG 2.0 meets those needs.

Advantages of this approach:

• better meets requirements of non-WCAG familiar developer or researcher thinking about older people
• good for people new to accessibility - approaching from a design/development perspective
• de-abstracts WCAG 2.0 some to make it more approachable
• more educational

Disadvantages of the approach:

• might reinforce tackling accessibility for just one disability
• doesn’t follow existing WCAG 2.0 structure for those familiar with WCAG
  (note that we hope to have different slices/presentations integrated in How to Meet Quick Reference at some point)

Groupings might be:

• Vision decline / Visual perception (example below)
• Hearing decline / Auditory requirements
• Motor control & Dexterity issues (link size, keyboard use)
• Cognitive decline (memory, concentration, understanding)
  [including understand the organization of a page and site, minimal distractions and unexpected things happening]
• Inexperience (does this go with Cognition?)
• Older equipment (??)
• @@ what is missing?

Alternative Success Criteria Rationale Expressions

Examples of different ways of expressing the SC rationale - ‘meeting this criterion will …’ vs. putting the impairment and implications first.

Option 1: Meeting this SC will …

Sensory Characteristics - Success Criterion 1.3.3 (A) {#sensory-characteristics—success-criterion-1.3.3-a .listintro}

• Meeting this criterion will benefit older people experiencing sensory declines who may not see or hear well.

Timing adjustable - Success Criterion 2.2.1 (A) {#timing-adjustable—success-criterion-2.2.1-a .listintro}

• Meeting this success criterion will improve usability for older people whose vision decline makes reading difficult, or whose cognitive decline affects their concentration or short-term memory.

On Focus - Success Criterion 3.2.1 (A) {#on-focus—success-criterion-3.2.1-a .listintro}

• Meeting this criterion will increase accessibility for older people experiencing declining cognitive abilities or [ experiencing difficulty with forms]{.listintro}.
• The advisory techniques will benefit those older people observed to experience difficulties with new browser windows, for example:
  • Giving users advanced warning when opening a new window. (future link) [advisory]

Option 2: Older people experience X with Y implication, so do Z

Sensory Characteristics - Success Criterion 1.3.3 (A) {#sensory-characteristics—success-criterion-1.3.3-a-1 .listintro}

• Older people experiencing sensory declines who may not see or hear well will benefit from this criterion.

Timing adjustable - Success Criterion 2.2.1 (A) {#timing-adjustable—success-criterion-2.2.1-a-1 .listintro}

• Many older people experience vision decline that can make reading difficult, and might also experience various cognitive declines affecting their concentration or short-term memory. These impairments can mean that some older people might need longer to read, understand and complete online tasks than others.

On Focus - Success Criterion 3.2.1 (A) {#on-focus—success-criterion-3.2.1-a-1 .listintro}

• Older people can experience declining cognitive abilities and [have been observed to sometimes experience difficulty with forms]{.listintro} so using “activate” rather than “focus” as a trigger for changes of context and not causing persistent changes of state or value when a component receives focus can be helpful.
• Older people have been observed to experience difficulties with new browser windows, so providing advanced warning and only using these when when best from an accessibility perspective is good practice.

— end Alternative Success Criteria Rationale Expressions —

</div>