Web Accessibility Guidelines: The Debate Over Enforcement Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Department of Audio & Visual Arts Ionian University ISIL rd International Seminar on Information Law Corfu

2 Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Overview  Main Questions  Historical Background  WCAG Overview  Technical Description  Basic Principles/Directions  Stakeholders – Beneficiaries  Methods of Evaluation  Arguments In Favour of WCAG Enforcement  People-Oriented  Output-Oriented  Arguments Against WCAG Enforcement  People-Oriented  Output-Oriented  Current Examples  National/International Policies  Organizational Policies (business case)  Points of Discussion  Conclusions

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Main Questions 1.What is the current status of accessibility guidelines in general? 2.What is the current situation concerning the enforcement of WCA guidelines or other related standards? 3.What are the arguments supporting the enforcement of WCA guidelines and the objections to such an enforcement? 4.Is there a middle way out of the debate?

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Historical Background I Landmarks 1994  Tim Berners-Lee founds the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) W3C: Body responsible for coordinating development of Web standards Aim: creating standards to improve the quality of the Web  First meeting of the W3C Advisory Committee Aims:  leading the WWW to its full potential  royalty-free/accessible technology

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Historical Background II 1997  The W3C launches the Web Access Initiative (WAI) WAI: W3C group responsible for developing guidelines which will ensure Web resources are widely accessible. Aim: making the Web accessible to people with disabilities 1999  Launching of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0  WCAG: set of WAI guidelines  WCAG 1.0 becomes a W3C Recommendation 2008  Launching of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0  WCAG 2.0 becomes a W3C Recommendation

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Web Content Accessibility Guidelines An Overview Technical Description  WCAG – Definition  Part of a series of WAI guidelines on providing advice for making Web content accessible, primarily for disabled users, but also for all users.  Other WAI guidelines cover accessible user agents (browsers) and accessible authoring tools.

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Web Content Accessibility Guidelines WCAG  14 guidelines  3 testable priority levels/success criteria: 1.Requirements must be satisfied for one or more groups to access Web content (A) 2.Requirements should be satisfied, otherwise some groups will have difficulty accessing Web content (AA) 3.Requirements may be satisfied, in order to make it easier for some groups to access Web content (AAA)

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Web Content Accessibility Guidelines WCAG  more robust, measurable, technology-independent  more supporting information  4 principles: 1. Perceivable 2. Operable 3. Understandable 4. Robust  12 revised guidelines  Same 3 testable priority levels/success criteria (A, AA, AAA)

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Basic Principles/Directions  Web – Increasingly important  Disabled people – Right to participate (UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities)  Web – Equal access  Web Accessibility

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Stakeholders and Beneficiaries  Around 10 ‐ 20% of the population in most countries have a disability  Web accessibility concerns people operating under permanent or temporary constraints (physical disability, surroundings):  Congenitally disabled people  Temporarily disabled people (injuries)  Seniors (ageing health problems)  People without disabilities (i.e. every user): ▫ People with different needs/preferences ▫ People working under special conditions

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Methods of Evaluation  Objective/Automated (Tools: software programs or online services)  Subjective/Manual Assessment (experts or non-experts)  Inclusive/Semi-automated (combination of the above)

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Arguments In Favour of WCAG Enforcement People-Oriented  Promotion of a basic human right  All users are benefited  State provides active support to disabled people  Organizations put higher priority on accessibility

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Arguments In Favour of WCAG Enforcement Output-Oriented  Web coherence/functionality/universality is enhanced  Organizations/companies open up a new market  Legislation guarantees standardization; standardization ensures:  measurable/assessable output  consistency, credibility, comparability

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Arguments Against WCAG Enforcement People-Oriented  Providing guidelines means “helping”  Priority to education  Increase of awareness

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Arguments Against WCAG Enforcement Output-Oriented  Enforcement of… what?  immature  ineffective  Problem of Evaluation  insufficient  debatable

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Motivation vs Enforcement  Emphasis on the positive aspects/benefits of Web accessibility  Positive PR  Wider audience  Search engine friendly  Emphasis on the negative aspects of inaccessibility  Lose potential users  Bad publicity

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Current Examples National/International Policies I  UN  World Program of Action (1982)  Disability Convention (2006) Countries are required to eliminate barriers and ensure that disabled people can access information and communication technologies. (Article 9)  EU  Co-funded W3C WCAG  Information Society for all (EC Mandate M.376)  e-Accessibility Initiative  EDeAN (European Design for All e-Accessibility Network)

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Current Examples National/International Policies II  US  Section 508 (1998, applying to public sector)  Australia  WCAG conformance in public sector and commercial websites  Canada  WCAG conformance level AA

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Current Examples Organizational Policies (business case)  Widespread awareness of Web accessibility issues  Legal framework drives IT companies towards making accessible products  Agencies developing Web content and Web sites are responsible for understanding laws, guidelines and standards  Where treaties do not exist, there is technical guidance

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Points of Discussion  Current drive towards “mainstreaming” of disabled people  Web accessibility is everybody’s problem  Standards promote internationalization/interoperability  Enforcement does not seem to yield results  WCAG criticized for technical insufficiency  Accessibility means Standards Compliance?

Andreas Giannakoulopoulos Web accessibility guidelines: the debate over enforcement ISIL CORFU Conclusions  Reality proves guidelines enforcement ineffective  Priority to Education  Guidelines: helping tools/step in the way, not a destination  Legal standardization:  Tool to measure accessibility  Not punitive character  Implemented in public sector  The carrot or the stick?  Accessibility and common sense vs Standards  Acceptance of:  Inadequacy of evaluation methods  Relativity of “design for all”

ISIL CORFU