WCAG 2.0 current working Draft

[WebSavvy]

On 11 Dec 2008 WCAG 2.0 became the working Draft. Does anyone know if any of the accessibility validators are using the 2.0 standard in their tools or are they all still operating under 1.0 guidelines?

I've been trying to find out for days now without much luck. Any input/help, would be great. Thanks!

[SEFL]

I don't have any input, since the only validator I knew of that was that BOBBY thing that IBM bought and buried.

I do have a suggestion though: you probably know the differences between 2.0 and 1.0 a lot better than anyone else (including me by a longshot). Is there anything you can code for a test that would either validate to 1.0 and not 2.0 or vice versa?

[WebSavvy]

Hey Adam, there is another validator that I know of (and use)
Cynthia Says (http://www.contentquality.com/fulloptions.asp)

Plus there's also Total Validator (http://www.totalvalidator.com/)

Cynthia will evaluate the code on the site and break it up into checklists by priority level.

The first section (priority 1) = A
The second section (priority 2) = AA
The third section (priority 3) = AAA
and the last part is for Section 508 compliance.

In other parts of the world, they don't have 508 (that's a US thing) but they do have PAS. I am not familiar with PAS guidelines, but I know Chris Hirst is.

As far as me coding something that would be able to validate a site for WCAG 2.0 -- I wouldn't even know where to begin. I'd have to give it some serious thought.

Right now I'm half way through validating 11,000+ sites for A/AA/AAA compliance for our new web accessibility format. So, I'm really busy :(

[WebSavvy]

I thought this might be useful and informative reading for any of you that may be interested. Apparently WebAIM did a survey among 1100 screen reader users, and have put the data into a nice little chart:

Survey of Preferences of Screen Readers Users (http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey/)

I have been offline since May '08 because of an accident, so I didn't know about this survey until now. It would have been really nice to participate in it though. Maybe if they do another one, I'll be able to participate in it then.

[SEFL]

I know this is a serious thing, but there's a part that just made me laugh:

Web 2.0


How accessible are typical Web 2.0 and dynamic web applications to you? Response % of Respondents
Very accessible 4%
Somewhat accessible 24%
Not very accessible 16%
Not at all accessible 2%
I don't know 54%

The majority of respondents don't know how accessible these technologies are, or quite possibly, they didn't know what we were asking.

That one line summed up Web 2-point-D'OH! better than any marketing effort ever could.

[g1smd]

How accessible was the survey? Some people may not have been able to complete it? Just sayin'.

[WebSavvy]

I have no idea how accessible the survery was nor how it was actually conducted. Jared (guy that did it) may have sent the survery via email to those that offered to participate.

If it was done via email, I'd say it was probably pretty accessible. Even if it was conducted via a web form on the WebAIM site, Jared does a pretty good job of making his site accessible.

I've come across tons of sites that claim they're AAA rated but in truth, they barely pass A level compliance. The problem is that a lot of the validators can't do what a real screen reader can. In order to test a site for compliance you must use a validator to highlight potential problems AND check the site with a screen reader.

As far as I know, Jared uses a screen reader for testing purposes to make sure his site is fully web accessible to the extent that he can make it.

I use a screen reader all the time because I have to, and I have no problems accessing WebAIM. However, there are numerous other sites I do have trouble accessing because they require JS to be enabled in order for the site to function, and well ... screen readers don't do JS.