W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: WCAG 1.0 or 2.0?

From: Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:25:45 -0400
Message-ID: <453798F9.8000109@msu.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

I'm sure this won't be news to most everyone on the list, but for those 
who are new to accessibility issues...I've found the following to be a 
good approach to evaluating a site for accessibility:

1. Validate the site's code using a validator (like W3C's);
2. Run the site through a checker (like WebXACT, WAVE, etc.) to identify 
obvious (and code-based issues);
3. Check the site manually for proper use of headings, alt tags, link 
phrases, JavaScript alternatives, CSS-less presentation, etc., which can 
be facilitated by using the WebAccessibility Toolbar from AIS (IE or 
Opera), the Firefox Accessibility Extension and/or U of Illinois' 
Functional Accessibility Evaluator;
4. Run the site through JAWS and see how it sounds and works.

Building an accessible site can be facilitated by turning on the 
accessible tags preference in Dreamweaver. Retrofitting is more of a 
challenge.

Of course, the place to begin building or retrofitting a site is with 
understanding user expectations and how they plan to use the site, and 
to include persons with disabilities in the design process. :-)

Mike Elledge
Assistant Director
Usability & Accessibility Center
Michigan State University

Jon Ribbens wrote:
> John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
>   
>> Slavish adherence to a guideline does not an accessible site make -
>> the easiest example to cite is the requirement for ALT text on
>> images: all too often we see sites that "pass" because the content
>> creator used "<img src="path to file" alt="graphic" />" -
>> technically a pass, but practically useless.
>>     
>
> While I agree with much of what you said, the above is incorrect. The
> guideline says "provide a text equivalent" - and in your example, the
> text is clearly not an equivalent, so it does not pass the checkpoint,
> even "technically".
>
>
>   
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2006 15:25:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:31 UTC