Re: Website with known set of issues

> Next year’s European Accessibility Act will only apply to a small
proportion of private sector websites, and I am not aware of any
significant legislation after that

OK, I guess I'm in my own little pond - I'm just used to things being
mildly to pretty reasonably conformant (although that's what I work on, I
don't really notice others too much - I mean sure I might notice, oops bad
contrast there but since I don't use screenreaders or test them and when I
look in the source every now and then I see aria usage I assume mildly
conformant)

That said I thought
>Next year’s European Accessibility Act will only apply to a small
proportion of private sector websites, and I am not aware of any
significant legislation after that

would apply more widely as I understood "e-commerce" was a part of the spec?

On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 8:08 PM Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>
wrote:

> To all intents and purposes, WCAG 2.x conformance is effectively zero. A
> tiny number of websites are fully conformant – I doubt if there are more
> than a few hundred. Perhaps 1% are moderately conformant, perhaps having
> half a dozen non-conformances per page. The other 99% have made no attempt
> at conformance.
>
>
>
> We test a couple of hundred websites a year across a wide range of
> sectors. When we first see them, they typically have 10 to 20
> non-conformances per page. Very, very few clients fix everything we report
> – perhaps 1 or 2 a year. Most stop fixing things when they get down to 5 to
> 10 non-conformances per page. And these are the people who care enough
> about accessibility to get their websites tested professionally. And it’s
> taken 25 years of advocacy and law-making to get there.
>
>
>
> I don’t expect much to change in the coming years. Next year’s European
> Accessibility Act will only apply to a small proportion of private sector
> websites, and I am not aware of any significant legislation after that.
>
>
>
> With regard to WCAG 2.x and 3.x, my (possibly incorrect) understanding is
> that 3.x will not supersede 2.x, but they will run in parallel. 3.x will
> differ substantially in many ways and won’t simply extend 2.x.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* bryan rasmussen <rasmussen.bryan@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2024 6:45 PM
> *To:* Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
> *Cc:* WAI Interest Group discussion list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Website with known set of issues
>
>
>
> I think in this case we might suppose it is more like how OS development
> used to work, that is to say you did not start developing for where the
> hardware was at the time you started but where it would be when you
> shipped.
>
>
>
> With WCAG versions we can sort of see how widespread things can be
> expected to reasonably be based on legal standards, so we might assume
> reasonably widespread compliance with WCAG 2.0 in 2025-2026, might as well
> start pushing now - just my feeling.
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 7:11 PM Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
> wrote:
>
> actually, Steve's comment raises a question.
> I recall last week a post about early reviews of WCAG 3.
>
> May I ask what evaluation method the w3c uses to confirm that enough
> compliance  with current wcAG criteria exists before starting a updated
> set?
> Speaking personally, should not a uniform baseline for end users exists
> before  companies and organizations find themselves faced with changes?
> Just wondering,
>
> Karen
>
>
> On Tue, 21 May 2024, Steve Green wrote:
>
> > Note that that GDS page was created early in 2018, so it predates both
> WCAG 2.1 and 2.2. Another 18 level A and AA success criteria have been
> added since then.
> >
> > Steve Green
> > Managing Director
> > Test Partners Ltd
> >
> >
> > From: Kevin White <kevin@dewoollery.co.uk>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 5:16 PM
> > To: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
> > Cc: WAI Interest Group discussion list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>; Shawn Henry
> <shawn@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: Website with known set of issues
> >
> > Hi Phill,
> >
> > Not sure if it would meet your needs but GDS did testing of
> accessibility tools on a standard set of failures<
> https://alphagov.github.io/accessibility-tool-audit/test-cases.html> that
> they presented in a single page. The association with success criteria is
> clear but not explicitly linked.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > P.s. Would love to update Before/After demo!
> >
> >
> > On 21 May 2024, at 16:40, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com<mailto:
> pjenkins@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Is there a website (or set) with a known set of issues mapped to all the
> WCAG 2.2 Success Criteria?
> >
> > In other words, “this set of pages demonstrates failures for all the
> WCAG Success Criteria”.
> >
> > There is that decades old Before After demo website<
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/Overview.html> created by W3C that was
> an initial attempt to do something like that. However, it is woefully out
> of date.
> > I’ve head that there may be some web pages maintained by a university or
> organization for spot testing or spot demos, but a curated list would be
> very helpful for the community.
> >
> > _______
> > Regards,
> >
> > Phill Jenkins
> > IBM Accessibility, IBM Design
> > Equal Access toolkit and accessibility checker at ibm.com/able/<
> https://www.ibm.com/able/>
> > “Without accessibility, there is no diversity, equity, or inclusion for
> disabled people”
> >
> >
>
>