- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 05:39:49 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Along the same lines as my previous message, this is an analysis of the different disability types whose needs are served by each checkpoint. (previous: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2001JulSep/0548.html) Another thing to add is that certain disability types may have "simpler needs" than others, or have needs which can be expressed in fewer check- points. Such as users with epilepsy, where the principle seems to be "don't trigger episodes by using strobing." But it may not be sufficient, for web design purposes, to merely summarize access by visually impaired users with "don't rely on visual content alone." Here is a look at WCAG 2.0 (working group draft, 14 August 2001): Total: Blind: 81% Color Blind: 19% Low Vision: 47.6% Deaf: 28.6% Low Dexterity: 57.1% Low Comprehension: 66.7% Low Reading Skills: 52.4% Epilepsy: 23.8% N/A: 0% Let's compare those with WCAG 1.0: Blind: 70.8% Color Blind: 10.8% Low Vision: 23.1% Deaf: 9.2% Low Dexterity: 20% Low Comprehension: 24.6% Low Reading Skills: 21.5% Epilepsy: 7.7% N/A: 10.8% This is rather encouraging -- it shows a move toward checkpoints which tend to be more universally applicable and a promising increase in representation for a number of disability types. It also represents a simplification trend, reducing the number of checkpoints considerably (which increases the need to make each checkpoint broader). So, WCAG 2.0 looks like a step forward for making accessibility guidelines which "look like the web". (Meaning: Closer to a more inclusive document than before.) I'm not sure if the same can be said for the Section 508 requirements, though. Let's look at those: Blind: 81.25% Color Blind: 12.5% Low Vision: 43.75% Deaf: 12.5% Low Dexterity: 37.5% Low Comprehension: 6.25% Low Reading Skills: 6.25% Epilepsy: 6.25% N/A: 0% Comparing this with WCAG 1.0 "priority one": Blind: 81.25% Color Blind: 18.75% Low Vision: 25% Deaf: 25% Low Dexterity: 12.5% Low Comprehension: 12.5% Low Reading Skills: 18.75% Epilepsy: 12.5% N/A: 0% Section 508 seems to have mostly adopted the requirements for visual disabilities from WCAG "single-A", but falls behind on cognitive limtations. This is mostly attributable to the fact that WCAG 1.0's "use clearest and simplest language" checkpoint which does not have an equivalent in 508. Some progress seems to have been made for low dexterity but that is a bit misleading since keyboard access is not explicitly required in 508. 508 "looks like the web" less than WCAG 2.0. It's also worth comparing 508 with all of WCAG 1.0, not just the priority one checkpoints; WCAG 1.0 is quoted above (in comparison to WCAG 2.0) and I think this illustrates the danger of policy makers merely assuming that following most or all of the "priority one" checkpoints will allow you to meet the needs of a broad audience. *This is not true.* To meet the needs of a wide audience of people with disabilities, you -must- take many of the actions which WCAG 1.0 rates as priority two or priority three. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com> Technical Developer Liaison Reef North America Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network ________________________________________ BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL. ________________________________________ http://www.reef.com
Received on Friday, 24 August 2001 08:46:46 UTC