Compliance Logos

[BobBobby]

Sounds like Web Accessibility ratings are as easy to manipulate as W3C ratings. The WWW is really the Wild West World when it comes to ratings. I.e. anyone can use any logo they like.

[SEFL]

Sounds like Web Accessibility ratings are as easy to manipulate as W3C ratings. The WWW is really the Wild West World when it comes to ratings. I.e. anyone can use any logo they like.

Ummmm....what?

[BobBobby]

Ummmm....what?Ummmm....yep.

[WebSavvy]

BobBobby, I think you've misunderstood. People who want their sites to be web accessible don't just use any level rating they want to because they can.

WCAG 2.0 just came out as the new working Draft so many sites are validated to WCAG 1.0 and the validators were using WCAG 1.0 as well. Sites evaluated during that period may well have been A/AA/AAA compliant, and their logo on their site reflected their then current standing.

However, due to the new guidelines many sites that were valid under 1.0 are not valid under 2.0. The site owners haven't rechecked their sites against the 2.0 standards.

Thus my comments (in my previous post) about the validators and using a screen reader to make sure.

[BobBobby]

Actually, the misunderstanding is not from me.

What I'm saying is: it seems to me that anyone can use w3c images for ANY rating they like even if the site/pages don't comply.

Most sites that claim to be w3c compliant (and display the logo) actually aren't, yet they are still allowed to display the wc3 logo for all to see.

Kind of hard to take these sort of things seriously with such EASY abuse.

[BobBobby]

However, due to the new guidelines many sites that were valid under 1.0 are not valid under 2.0. The site owners haven't rechecked their sites against the 2.0 standards.

Thus my comments (in my previous post) about the validators and using a screen reader to make sure. That's my point, IF you have to check to ensure validity, what is the point of having compliance logos and rating?

[WebSavvy]

OK, let me say this again ... slowly.

Web accessibility guidelines change due to the fact that assistive technology is always changing. Therefore, as programmatic advances are made in new and emerging technologies that help the disabled to be able to do more, the WCAG guidelines change to reflect this.

People change content in their sites, and when they add something or remove something they might break something in their code and they don't always automatically code to standards -- that's why it's necessary to revalidate.

Automated accessibility validators cannot mimic human behavior, therefore it's actually possible a site may have code that passes a validator but when up against a human user with a screen reader, one or more areas of the site may be inaccessible. It all depends on the type and degree of disability the end-user has.

It's not pointless to have compliance ratings and logos. Those compliance ratings inform a person with disabilities as to what "level" of access they'll be able to enjoy on any given site. They are needed and they are necessary.

[BobBobby]

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.Your words, not mine.

[BobBobby]

OK, let me say this again ... slowly.LOL! You'll have to speak up, I can't hear you :)

Those compliance ratings inform a person with disabilities as to what "level" of access they'll be able to enjoy on any given siteBut you just said that tons of sites are showing a false ratings when you checked.

[WebSavvy]

YES, because they are in compliance with the OLD standards!

Right now I'm in the middle of evaluating over 11,000 sites for web accessibility. These sites all have various ratings (some by the old standards) and I am using both the validator and a screen reader and grading the site going by that and listing it.

That's what I meant -- I have come across tons of sites with AAA listed as their compliance level, and maybe under WCAG 1.0 it was BUT under 2.0 it's no longer an AAA listing, as many are barely A (including UK govt sites!)

Many sites are still AAA because the owner went beyond the necessary requirements for 1.0 to ensure that the site would always be compliant even in when WCAG guidelines change.

More clear now?

[BobBobby]

And how does compliance being outdated help the visitor?

[WebSavvy]

It doesn't. It's up to the owner of the site to revalidate their site to make sure it's now in compliance with WCAG 2.0.

However, the guidelines for WCAG 2.0 are very difficult to understand. Seriously, they are. I'm not even sure if any of the validators are using 2.0 guidelines yet, hence the reason for this thread (opening post).

[BobBobby]

It doesn'tFinally! :jacks:

[WebSavvy]

Please. Just stop. You don't get it, and you will never get it. I'm tired and I don't feel like playing with you anymore.

If you're really keen to learn more about web accessibility do some research. Maybe once you have a better understanding of all the what's and why's -- you might actually grasp what it is I've said. One can only hope ... (yawn)

[BobBobby]

Level AAA Conformance to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG2AAA-Conformance)


Pages bearing this logo indicate a claim of conformance (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance) by the page author or content provider to conformance Level AAA of the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/), including all Level A, AA, and AAA success criteria defined in the Guidelines. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 explain how to make Web content accessible to people with disabilities. Conformance to these guidelines will help make the Web more accessible to users with disabilities and will benefit all users.

Claims are not verified by W3C. Content providers are solely responsible for the use of these logos.

[BobBobby]

I don't feel like playing with you anymore.Nuff said.

[SEFL]

I've split the compliance logo discussion off into its own thread. The reason I was initially confused by what Dave was talking about (and I'm sure most people were) is because it had very little to do with anything Deb was, and because it turned into a debate that really is a separate topic.

Dave, you're right: anyone can use any compliance logo on their site for any reason. They don't even have to comply.

Where you're is wrong is in the implication that there are no consequences or ramifications. Deb's directory provides a very simple example: if someone says they're AAA-compliant...well, Deb's gonna check that. And knowing Deb as I do, she's going to go through the entire site with a fine-toothed comb just to make sure, because she knows that her target users would want nothing less. That's one example.

Another example just came up this past week pertaining to one of my clients. One of his customers found his site via "Mr. Google" bitterly complaining about the client's service offering and the website being inaccessible. This customer happened to be a member and not one, but five separate accessibility organizations in Southern Ontario (I didn't even know there were five of them until yesterday).

The reason he was upset? Certain images didn't have ALT attributes. Makes sense, right? Not when they're background images, and that's all these images were.

So my client took my explanation and forwarded it to the customer (verbatim...gotta give him credit for not trying to interpret it his own way) along with a link to a site. The customer took a look at the site and was much happier with it, claimed it was accessible, loved the site, etc. and so on.

Here's the kicker: the site my client showed the customer was the exact same site the customer was complaining about in the first place, and I hadn't changed a thing!

The site in question does not have any accessibility or W3C compliance logos (I never use those logos since they accomplish nothing). There isn't even a section about accessibility on the site. But this customer was all over my client like white on rice...not that I really blame the customer, but nevertheless it posed a problem. Now, imagine if you will what would have happened had I put an AAA/AA/A logo on this website. That would have brought a whole new degree of nasty to the proceedings I don't think anyone would have wanted.

That, and the Target and to a lesser extent the Disney situation in the States, has shown that creating an inaccessible site carries certain ramifications. The W3C doesn't have to, nor should it, verify claims of compliance...consumer watchdogs, vigilantes, and yes, in some cases people with nothing better to do will take care of that.

This is why I don't even pay attention to compliance logos anymore. There are enough people who pay attention (albeit not for the right reasons all the time) so that I don't really have to.

[BobBobby]

Where you're is wrong is in the implication that there are no consequences or ramificationsSELF, I never implied that, every action has consequences, be it good or bad.

This is why I don't even pay attention to compliance logos anymoreMe neither and the same goes for customer write-ups on any site that has a vested interest in the product/service.