Re: Website with known set of issues

I'm thinking most "entertainment websites" it will apply to - because (my
theory)

1. entertainment websites tend to have sales for that site integrated in
the website. Thus also e-commerce.

2. In at least some relatively big cases that I am aware of in European
sites those entertainment sites are bundled with telephony services etc.

I expect it to improve because of Web developer needs to be able able to
say I can do WCAG compliant site to be able to get a job in any of those
sectors. Developers often create push for things - but again that is my
theory as to what the real world results will be.


On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 9:25 AM Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>
wrote:

> The EAA specifies the electronic products and services to which it
> applies. Leaving aside the physical products, it applies to communication
> services, audiovisual media services, transport service information and
> ticketing services, consumer banking services (but not business banking,
> apparently), e-books, e-commerce services and emergency services.
>
>
>
> It doesn’t apply to anything else, so it wouldn’t apply to the W3C
> website, and it wouldn’t apply to my company’s website, or indeed any of
> our competitors other than the few that sell online. It doesn’t apply to
> B2C information or entertainment websites. It appears not to apply to some
> B2C interactive services such as job boards.
>
>
>
> There are exemptions for online maps and mapping services, some
> third-party content and archives, also for documents and audiovisual
> content published before 28 June 2025.
>
>
>
> I agree that the 2018 public sector regulations have made a massive
> difference, and that next year’s law will make a big difference in the
> specified sectors, but the law does not apply to a vast number of websites,
> so I don’t expect those to improve.
>
>
>
> In fact, the public sector regulations haven’t even caused an improvement
> in the quality of work done by most developers. Our experience has been
> that they still churn out inaccessible websites like before, and only fix
> those covered by the regulations. Websites outside the regulations are as
> inaccessible as before.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Marc Haunschild (Accessibility Consulting) <
> marc.haunschild@t-online.de>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2024 10:38 PM
> *To:* Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>
> *Cc:* bryan rasmussen <rasmussen.bryan@gmail.com>; Karen Lewellen <
> klewellen@shellworld.net>; WAI Interest Group discussion list <
> w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Website with known set of issues
>
>
>
> Why the EAA should only apply to a small portion of websites?
>
>
>
> All online B2C services will have to be accessible.
>
>
>
> Also there is a transparent development of the next step.
>
>
>
> The underlying European norm 301 549 will be updated a year later.
>
>
>
> Given that we had about a dozens of changes in laws (at least in Germany,
> some already in the EU) during the last 20 years - each stricter than the
> one before - I don’t see the end of the road yet.
>
>
>
> Fines are around 100.000 euro and can be given multiple times and it’s
> also possible that competitors sue each other. Of course everything is new
> and a lot will depend on the decisions made by judges, but actually we see
> a huge raise of interest and awareness.
>
>
>
> Also in the public sector, where a huge update came in 2018/2021. I think
> that’s a decent progress.
>
>
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
>
>
> Marc Haunschild
> https://accessibility.consulting/ - a web designed for ALL!
>
>
>
> Am 21.05.2024 um 20:40 schrieb Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk
> >:
>
> 
>
> 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”
> >
> >
>
>