Skip to content

Dr Scott Hollier - Digital Access Specialist Posts

WCAG 2.1 draft: reflections on the new guidelines and success criteria

For people that work in the web accessibity area, today’s news that the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has now made publically available the first draft of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 public draft is very exciting.  In order for people with disabilities to use computers and Internet-related technologies, two things need to happen: the first is that people with disabilities get the tools they need on the device they want to use to assist them to access content, the second is that content needs to be designed in a way that works with those tool’s.  This discussion looks at the second part of that requirement: what developers need to do to make sure that content is designed in a way that supports the needs of people with disabilities and the assistive technologies they use.

For the benefit of people new to accessibility, the current definitive world standard for this is called the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, published in December 2008.  However the world was very different nine years ago in terms of technology support for people with disabilities.  For example, the first iPhone that people who are blind or vision impaired could use didn’t come out until 2009.  As such the standard needed updating and the first part of that update is WCAG 2.1.

As noted in the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) landing page, “This first draft includes 28 new Success Criteria, three of which have been formally accepted by the Working Group and the remainder included as proposals to provide an opportunity for early feedback.” 

So with today marking our first chance to look at WCAG 2.1, its worth considering two questions; what’s the current thinking of the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AG WG)? and what are the new success criteria being proposed?

WCAG 2.1 – improved inclusivity for people and devices

The first paragraph of the WCAG 2.1 abstract answers the first question, and it’s very much in line with what has been called for in recent years – a greater inclusion of cognitive-related disability support and specific guidance on a range of devices including the specific naming of mobiles and tablets. To quote the abstract:

“Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 covers a wide range of recommendations for making Web content more accessible. Following these guidelines will make content accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity, and combinations of these. These guidelines address accessibility of web content on desktops, laptops, tablets, and mobile devices. Following these guidelines will also often make your Web content more usable to users in general.”

The last point is a particularly good addition.  It’s often argued that accessibity is not just helpful to people with disabilities, but in fact helpful to everyone, and it’s great to see that point made in the draft.

Before moving on to discussion of the specific Success Criteria (SC), there’s a few important points to note about the approach of the AG WG:

  1. They are not currently changing anything in WCAG 2.0.  While this means there’s overlap and redundancy, they are first focusing on the things that WCAG 2.0 does not cover before adjusting the terminology and teaching of the current standard.
  2. Only three of the 28 proposed SC have been adopted by the AG WG.  As such there’s still a lot of room to move and this provides a fantastic opportunity for public feedback.
  3. Compliance with WCAG 2.1 will also result in compliance with WCAG 2.0.  This is referenced in a few places and provides confidence that the final version of WCAG 2.1 will be both effective and compatible with current policy frameworks.

In my opinion the development path is a sensible one.  It makes sense to plug the holes of WCAG 2.0 first, and then renovate the existing standard later.  As with all W3C working groups there’s a lot of moving parts when work is being developed so things can change quickly, and often in exciting ways.

Approved new success criteria proposals

There are currently three SC that have been approved by the AG WG.  They are:

  • 1.4.11 Resize content (Level A): Content can be resized to 400% without loss of content or functionality, and without requiring two-dimensional scrolling except for parts of the content where fixed spatial layout is necessary to use or meaning
  • 1.4.12 Graphics Contrast (Level AA): The visual presentation of graphical objects that are essential for understanding the content or functionality have a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 against the adjacent color(s), except for the following:
    • Thicker
    • Sensory
    • Logotypes
    • Essential
  • 2.2.8 Interruptions (minimum) (Level AA): There is an easily available mechanism to postpone and suppress interruptions and changes in content unless they are initiated by the user or involve an emergency.

The first of these takes into account a common issue on mobiles whereby making content bigger has a habit of breaking the website as even now there’s an assumption that people are viewing websites on desktops with large screens.  With responsive design not being around much in 2008 it’s great to see an SC highlighting the need to ensure that if text is increased it won’t break things. It also addresses the presence of unwieldy scroll bars which become particularly challenging if you are using screen magnification tools on a mobile device.

Graphics contrast is also a great addition, clarifying a long-standing issue with WCAG 2.0 in that the 4.5:1 Level AA contrast is quite clear, but how it specifically relates to graphics is not.  This is now addressed, along with important exceptions such as logos for images that have to have specific colours otherwise content is lost.  My only concern relates to the ‘essential’ point which could be a loophole for people to put anything they like on a website arguing the colours have to be that way, but perhaps this will be further clarified during the review process.  Each of the bullet points for this criteria have additional information which can be viewed at the linked resource.

The final point is one for which I cheer.  With ARIA support becoming more common and a greater ability for developers to take charge of assistive technologies, there’s a lot of ways the process of assistive technology such as a screen reader can be interrupted.  This SC is a logical progression of existing SC that relate to auto-updates and I hope this remains largely unchanged.

For the remaining 25 SC that are proposed but not yet approved by the AG WG, I’ve just noted a few thoughts.  You can read more about the details of the specific SC information by following the respective links.   

Proposed success criteria

Guideline 1.3 additions

There’s one new proposed SC for guideline 1.3:

I agree with ethologic of separating this out from the broader sensory characteristics, but in my opinion more information is needed to explain the scenarios and why WCAG 2.0 doesn’t currently address this already. 

Guideline 1.4 additions

Addressing issues relating to seeing and hearing content featured highly in the update

Starting with linearization, I’m a big fan of this one.  It essentially proposes that content can be viewed as a single column.  In the era of responsive design and mobile use as mentioned earlier, this would be absolutely fantastic and I hope it gets up.

This second SC states that ‘If content can printed’ (I think the word ‘be’ is missing) then you can have some flexibility in how the content is presented.  I can appreciate the reason why this is here but personally I don’t think it’s such a critical issue that it needs to be in WCAG.  I’m conscious that the more SC that are added the more work it will be for developers, and personally I don’t see printing as a priority.

The next SC looks at specific contrast requirements for user interface elements. I can certainly see the logic and importance, but I’d thought this has already large covered in WCAG 2.0.  Would be good to see some additional information on the context.

The Adapting Text SC would be a fantastic addition.  As a high contrast color user its often the case that websites don’t account for user-defined colors and you end up in situations where text gets garbled or you can end up with for example, black text on a  black background.  The specifics of this need some work but I’m a big fan of the principle. 

For the last SC on the list I’m not entirely sure about this one.  The idea is that there’s more control around On Hover and On Focus.  It seems like a logical improvement to On Focus in WCAG 2.0 rather than a standalone SC. 

Guideline 2.1 additions

There’s only one new proposed change to keyboard accessibility SC, but it’s a big one.

This SC adds a requirement that speech input is not obstructed.  This is a great additional and reflects the changing nature of how we are interacting with our devices through features such as digital assistants and there’s clear Internet of Things implications here.  In the long run I suspect the whole guideline’s terminology will need to be changed from ‘keyboard accessible’ to something more broad, but this SC is a great addition and reflects the changing way people with disabilities are interacting with their devices.

Guideline 2.2 additions

There’s two proposed SC relating to timing:

When I saw the timeout criteria I wanted to leap from my chair and punch he air in celebration.  Few things are more frustrating than having websites timeout when you’re trying to complete an online task.  While developers have often tried to address the issue, there’s been little guidance from WCAG as to what is best practice – until now.  I’m not sure on the point about a one week data retention as I can’t see the basis for that specific time period, but I’m very excited about this SC being n there and really looking forward to its refinement as the WCAG 2.1 process continues.  The second SC seems relatively minor by comparison and perhaps this will be folded into an existing WCAG 2.0 SC.

Guideline 2.4 additions

There’s one proposed SC about helping users navigate and find content:

The statement for this SC is ‘Single-character shortcuts are not the only way activate a control, unless a mechanism is available to turn them off or remap them to shortcuts with two or more characters.’  If I understand the concept correctly it seems like a good idea but the language here seems a bit clunky and it’d be good to tidy up the wording.

New proposed guides 2.5 and 2.6 Pointer Accessible and Additional Sensor Inputs

In the current WCAG 2.1 there are two new guidelines proposed to provide specific guidance in WCAG for mobile content.  It makes it easier for users to operate pointer functionality and touchscreen interfaces.  The SC for 2.5 includes:  

These four SC essentially explain how touch interfaces should work, what size area should be allocated for touch to be accessible, how that varies depending on the pointer devices and the accessibility of specific gestures in the content itself, separate from the browser or device interface.  While all these things are important and really highlight why WCAG 2.1 is needed, the standout point for me is touch with assistive technology. 

Its remarkable how often aps work great before I turn on the screen reader on my phone, and how completely inaccessible it becomes once the screen reader is enabled.  While the other SC are quite specific, it’s this broad requirement of AT compatibility that I suspect will be one of the greatest arguments put forward for moving to WCAG 2.1 and it’s my hope that this is adopted by the AG WG as soon as possible.  

In regards to Guideline 2.6, there’s not much detail yet about how the guideline is defined, but the two related SC are as follows:

I like the second SC as it’s amazing how often an app on a smartphone can break if you try to use it in a different orientation to what is expected, especially in the location and use of buttons, some of which disappear completely when the orientation is changed.   

Guideline 3.1 additions

There are three proposed updates to the use of language:

There’s two things I really like about these proposed SC.  Firstly, it’s a good compromise between making the essential things clear such as how to structure instructions and where common language is needed, but doesn’t restrict the actual language of a website.  Secondly, it brings cognitive accessibility to Level A and AA which is long overdue.  In my opinion the focus on improving language and structure in content with some exceptions has the right balance and I’m looking forward to seeing this progressed further.  

Guideline 3.2 additions

There are three updates for helping content to work in predictable ways:

All three of these SC seem like pretty common-sense requirements to me, ensuring consistent and expected operation and likely issues that can cause confusion in a mobile environment such as accidental activation.  Will be interesting to see the specifics as the SC are evolved.

Guideline 3.3 additions

To finish off the current round of updates, we see a number of proposed SC to help users avoid and correct mistakes.

I’m particularly excited to see the last two.  The ability to go back and undo something or repair data in a straightforward manner is a great addition.  I also like the idea that help information is provided although I’d prefer to see this as a Level A requirement.  

Final thoughts on WCAG 2.1

Overall it’s been fantastic to see such a great first step by the AG WG in its development of the first WCAG 2.1 public draft.  Many of the new SC are revolutionary and while I’m sure there’s still a lot of work to go, it’s off to a flying start.  On a personal note as a person with a disability, it’s a wonderful thing to see pretty much everything on my wishlist appear here.

If you want to contribute to the WCAG 2.1 development, the AG WG are accepting public comment by e-mailing public-agwg-comments@w3.org.  Comments close 31 March 2017.

Perth Web Accessibility Camp 2017 Highlights

The Perth web accessibility community descended on the BankWest offices for the fourth Perth Web Accessibility Camp event with over 100 in attendance. With great presentations, a fantastic BBQ lunch and a lot of enthusiasm for access in the room, a great time was had by all. Here’s some of the presentations and points made by speakers that jumped out at me during the day.

Andrew Arch presenting at conference

To start things off, keynote Andrew Arch from the Digital Transformation Agency opened by discussing how government are endeavouring to provide an end-to-end online user experience. From an accessibility perspective a big part of this is due to the Digital Service Standard and point nine which focuses specifically on accessibility. Andrew also discussed the likelihood of Australia adopting the evolving standard focusing on public procurement. If the government were to adopt the standard once it is formalised it would mean that government agencies would purchase accessible equipment which in turn would support the employment of people with disabilities. Fingers crossed 2017 is the year in which this happens.

Sean Gardiner & Richard Giles from Hatchd provided a great insight into their development of the new bus port app. They explained that while the app was created in accordance with the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guideline’s (WCAG) 2.0 standard, it was also imperative that they did user testing which ultimately made sure it functioned well in the real world. Theimportance of user testing was a common theme throughout the day.

Amanda Mace from Web Key IT discussed the benefits of WAI-ARIA and how additional code specifically for assistive technology users can provide significant access benefits to people with disabilities. Matthew Putland from Media Access Australia built on this by explaining the importance of structuring headings in web content so they are logical and sequential. These presentations were great examples of both the importance of standards and also how best practice can improve the user experience.

Caine Chennatt from the Lawrence Wilson Art Gallery at the University of Western Australia discussed a project relating to the creation of 3D printed objects based on 2D pictures, providing an opportunity for people who are blind or vision impaired to interact with the arts in a tactile manner. Rosemary Spark also provided an important perspective on the significance of accessibity in the provision of a flexible workplace.

Two other talks which particularly resonated in terms of food for thought were Vithya Vijayakumare from VisAbility who discussed the significance of the ePub3 standard going forward for digital books and how you can embed media into books such as videos which has huge potential. Julie Grundy wrapped up the day looking at her experience in addressing the accessibility of airline flight systems and mentioned a great quote – accessibility is about quality, not just a checklist.

Scott Hollier presenting at conference

In terms of my involvement, I helped with the overall organisation of the Camp and did a presentation about the future of W3C accessibility standards. The W3C are updating the terminology and tweaking the well-established WCAG 2.0 standard by creating WCAG 2.1 in the short-term while focusing on a more evoled standard in the long run, currently known as Silver. Through my role with the W3C Research Questions Task Force (RQTF) I’ve been providing some research support to these developments so it was great to have a chance to share the information. WCAG 2.1 is scheduled for release in mid-2018 which is remarkably quick for W3C. Silver, however, is very much a long-term project. To highlight the way in which technology is changing, I did a demo of the Google Home in action, a popular digital assistant tool that highlights the current interest in the Internet of Things (IoT).

Finally no Perth Web Accessibility Camp is complete without the Great Debate, a humorous-yet-poignant reflection on topical accessibility issues. This year’s theme was ‘Getting sued is great for accessibility’ and while some great serious and not-so-serious arguments were made on both sides, it’s no surprise that the negative team came out on top as voted by the audience.

To wrap up this article I’d like to acknowledge the extremely hard work of Julie Grundy and Vivienne Conway in making the camp happen, the many sponsors including BankWest and also the generous support of everyone in promoting my book ‘Outrunning the Night’. Which sold a number of copies on the day.

Windows 10 upgrade still free for assistive technology users

Microsoft continues to support the free upgrade to Windows 10 for people that are using assistive technologies in Windows 7, Windows 8 or Windows 8.1.

While the upgrade was freely available to everyone in the first year of the Windows 10 release, Microsoft announced shortly before the end of the free upgrade period in mid-2016 that assistive technology users could continue to have access to free upgrades.

 Windows 10 upgrade page in high contrast

As there is no check by the upgrade tool to confirm if people are using assistive technologies, there has been concerned that the free tool would be scrapped due to people using it regardless of their assistive technology needs. However, as of January 2017, the tool remains available and has been tested to confirm it will still provide the free upgrade.

 Given the large number of accessibility features in Windows 10 including a full-screen magnifier, Narrator screen reader and touchscreen support, it’s great to see Microsoft continuing to help people with disabilities by providing a free upgrade path.  

 The upgrade tool can be downloaded from the Microsoft Windows 10 Assistive Technology Upgrade page.

CES 2017: it’s all about Alexa and the access potential of digital assistants

The world’s largest technology tradeshow, the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) 2017 wrapped up in Las Vegas earlier in the month, and there was one word on the lips of just about everyone there wanting to engage with consumer devices – ‘Alexa’, the digital assistant contained in the Amazon Echo.

Who is Alexa and what’s an Amazon Echo?

The Amazon Echo is a digital assistant launched by Amazon in June 2015. Essentially the Echo takes the form of a box connected to the Internet which is always listening.  You can communicate with it by using the word ‘Alexa’ followed by a command.   Here’s a great YouTube video providing an overview of what the Echo does and how it does it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ6dIPlZc3I

Why is the Echo so popular at CES 2017?

In the United States it’s very popular, and a big part of that is due to its price point.  The smaller yet fully-featured Amazon Echo Dot retails for $USD49.99.  With its relative affordability, manufactures have been eagerly making use of the Echo as an easy interface in the home to drive products.   Examples include the LG Smart InstaView Refrigerator, and the C by GE Lamp with Alexa.  Alexa can even be asked to order food thanks to Amazon Restaurants.

How this relates to access

The reason why the integration of the digital assistant is so significant in regards to accessibity is because it adds one more interface choice for people with disabilities.  For example, if you are blind or vision impaired and can’t see the panel on a washing machine, the ability to provide instructions or ask questions to a digital assistant means that the appliance is now accessible.  Likewise if a person in a wheelchair can’t reach a light switch, being able to ask Alexa to turn on the lights in the kitchen becomes a valuable tool at a relatively low cost.  While it’s still important that traditional options are available such as flicking a light switch, having more ways to interact with devices will continue to support people with disabilities going forward, and the possible uses of digital assistants are only just beginning.  If you’d like to read more about how Alexa has been integrated into the devices there’s a great CNet article featuring all the CES 2017 devices that feature Alexa.

Amazon Echo V Google Home

In Australia the Amazon digital assistant is a little hard to come by, so one option that has recently received a lot of attention is Google’s offering into this space, the Google Home.  Like the Amazon Echo it’s a digital assistant that can be activated by saying ‘Hey Google’ or ‘OK Google’ and then giving a command.  There are both similarities and differences in what it can do with most reviews suggesting the Echo is slightly ahead due to being around longer and having more support, but for people located outside of the US it’s a great option.  Here’s Google’s official promotion video for the Google Home.

https://www.cnet.com/au/news/whats-alexa-up-to-at-ces-heres-a-running-list-ces-2017/

Other new products

In addition to Alexa, there were some other products definitely worth your attention.  One of the ones I thought was particularly interesting was the laptop with three screens by Razer.  As a screen magnifier user, real estate can get pretty tight when zooming in, especially on a small laptop screen.  The idea I can fold out two more screens would provide a lot more space for me to view my work and I really like that idea. 

Speaking of big screens, the other hit of the CES was LG’s ‘wallpaper’ TV which is just 2.67mm thick for the 65-inch model and is so light it can attach to your wall with a few magnets.  Again from a vision impaired perspective, any giant TV with a crisp OLED display that I can almost literally throw on a  wall works for me, but its estimated $AUD12,000 price tag means it’s unlikely I’ll be buying it anytime soon.

Generally products feature at CES appear in our stores around April so it’ll be interesting to see which products make it to Australia.  Fingers crossed as new technologies continue to get supported, accessibility continues to be included.  

Registrations open for 2017 Perth Web Accessibility Camp

This year my home city of Perth, Western Australia is featuring front-and-centre as the Web for All (W4A) 2017 conference comes to town in April, co-located with the International World Wide Web 2017 (WWW2017) conference.  However, before W4A arrives a fantastic event will be held on 8 February – the Perth Web Accessibity Camp.  The Camp is hosted and primarily sponsored by BankWest and registrations are open.

 Now in its fourth year, the Camp is a one day event featuring a variety of presentations and other things relating to disability and technology.  The keynote will be Dr Andrew Arch from the Federal government’s Digital Transformation Agency (DTA), the agency responsible for overseeing the implementation of web accessibility by government in Australia. 

I’ll also be giving a presentation at the event. My topic relates to some of the important developments taking place in W3C as part of my role with the Research Questions Task Force including information on WCAG 2.1 and Project Silver, also known as WCAG 3.0.

Other Speakers feature from organisations such as the University of Western Australia, Web Key IT, Media Access Australia, VisAbility and Simply Accessible.  In addition the entertaining Great Debate returns with the topic ‘Getting sued is great for accessibility’.

The event is fully catered including a BBQ lunch, a sundowner event and hot beverages throughout the day.   Tickets can be purchased for $39.95 and registrations are now open on the Eventbrite website.