EU Web Accessibility Observatory Madrid “November” 2009

2 INTECO

3 Web Accessibility Audit Public Administration Websites accessibility audit Accessibility requirements of the Spanish Standard UNE Inclusion of solutions for the problems identified. Technical and executive summaries. Monitoring reports / Periodic reviews Analysis done based on previous reports. Tracks the tasks performed for correction and improvement.

4 Web Accessibility Monitor Based on WCAG Public Web sites studied in three segments Twice per year (three so far) Sample of 10 pages per site (25 in the first and the second year) Accessibility check: Level I: 11 points tested (Level I for WAI-A) Level II: 10 points tested (Level I + II for WAI-AA) Analysis of the results Data consolidation Comparison charts Global evaluation Conclusions

5 INTAV: INTECO Accessibility Validator Automatic Web Accessibility Checker using WCAG 1.0 and UNE standards. Alerts the webmaster when there are changes in the accessibility level of a website. Integrated with the INTECO’s web crawler.

6 Web Accessibility Audit Reports Solutions Advices Requirements Justification Problems

7 LENOX: Proper Language Use Analyzer Semantic Web analyzer for the use of sexist language. Alerts the webmaster when sexist terms are added to a website (only in Spanish). Integrated with the INTECO’s web crawler.

8 EUROPEAN UNION WEB ACCESSIBILITY OBSERVATORY

9 Background: European Union Completed : WAB Cluster EIAO: Large scale accessibility benchmarking service BenToWeb: EARL, WCAG 2.0 Test suites Support-EAM: a European accreditation system CEN Workshop Agreement Continuing: Euracert Quality Label e-Accessibility thematic network (scope is more than web – awarded? ) eGovernment Monitor Network (eGovMoNet) (scope is more than web accessibility)

10 Ideas for the Project Scope: 1. Provide ongoing Automated Web Accessibility Conformance testing 2. Continuous Improvement of : Methods, Metrics, Tests, Tools 3. Verify “quality” of tools and results(are results reliable?)? 4. Provide access to verified? tools to: Partners, Public? 5. Serve as a meeting place for (or pointer to?) news, information and discussion.

11 Summary: Using the best tools available at the time, provide actionable data on the state of "web accessibility" in the EU in a timely and ongoing manner so that decision makers are properly informed.

12 Strategy Use a “loosely coupled” tool chain of Crawler(s?), Validator(s), Report Generator(s), Archiver. Use the Best of breed Allow for updating, testing, comparison, migration. Plan for migration to the future. Provide “hooks” for 3rd party tools and assistance for manual testing

13 Rational: A “loosely coupled” tool chain allows for: INCLUSION of those that meet requirements More adaptability Easier updating, testing, research, migration. Facilitates the Integration of other needs such as Spanish “sexist language”. Opens opportunities for cooperation and sharing

14 Opportunities Archive Pages (selection/all) Results by Tool/page Research Portal tool Fingerprinting DOM Fingerprinting

15 Some Accessibility Validators: how “valid”?

16 Crawlers Harvestman crawler: Heritrix [Internet Archive] : Nutch based [e.g. INTECO]: Bixo [Apache Hadoop cluster, Cascading ] : Bixolabs [Bixo in Amazon’s Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) ]: D-Harvestman [dead?]

17 Challenges Moving “Web Accessibility” requirements Experience highlights current shortcomings (HTML5) Conformance testing follows laws and standards Additional Local Requirements (e.g. Sexist Language) Harmonisation “plus” Continuous conformance Testing Continuous TOOL Testing.

18 Bibliography A comparative test of web accessibility evaluation methods