Please find attached the PAS78 in Htm format. Johan Pretoria South Africa ________________________________ From: vicsireland-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:vicsireland-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Dunleavy Sent: 04 July 2006 09:17 To: vicsireland@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [vicsireland] Re: UK Guide to Good Practice Hi, Where can one download the HTML version of PAS 78: a guide to good practice in commissioning accessible websites? --Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: Frank Mulcahy <mailto:fmulcahy@xxxxxx> To: vicsireland@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; irl-dean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 10:30 AM Subject: [vicsireland] UK Guide to Good Practice Dear All, Apologies for cross posting. PAS 78: a guide to good practice in commissioning accessible websites PAS 78: A guide to good practice in commissioning accessible websites' is for those responsible for commissioning or maintaining public-facing websites and web-based services. The guidance is available in Word and PDF formats. One electronic copy of the guidance is available free per individual or business. The guidance can be read or searched online, or printed. PAS 78 was developed by the British Standards Institution (BSI) and sponsored by the DRC. The guide is available at: http://www.drc-gb.org/pas <http://www.drc-gb.org/pas> Best wishes, Frank Mulcahy, 'Franmar', 2 Castle Village Court, Celbridge, Co. Kildare Ireland Tel.: +353 (0)1 627 1314 Mobile/Cell Phone: +353 (0)87 2344 934 E-mail: fmulcahy@xxxxxx or frankmulcahy2005@xxxxxxxxxxxTitle: PUBLICLY AVAILABLE SPECIFICATION
PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE SPECIFICATION PAS
78:2006 Guide
to good practice in commissioning accessible websites ICS 35.240.30 PAS 78:2006 This
Publicly Available Specification comes into effect on 8 March 2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 ISBN0 580 46567 5
PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 i Contents Page Forewordii Introduction 1 1Scope 5 2Normative references 5 3Terms and definitions 5 4General principles 11 4.1
Development of an accessibility policy 11 4.2
Upholding W3C guidelines and specifications 11 4.2.1
General 11 4.2.2
Content formats 11 4.2.3
Authoring tools 11 4.3
Conformance checking 12 4.4 Involving disabled people in the
requirements gathering and conceptual design process 12 4.5
Regular testing by disabled people 12 4.6
Additional accessibility provisions 12 5How disabled people use websites 13 5.1
General 13 5.2
Operating systems 13 5.3 Access technology and other
considerations for blind and partially sighted people 14 5.4 Access technology and other
considerations for deaf and hard of hearing people 15 5.5 Access technology and other
considerations for people with learning disabilities 15 5.6 Access technology and other
considerations for people with cognitive impairments (eg
dyslexia) 16 5.7 Access technology and other
considerations for people with motor impairments 16 6Defining the accessibility policy for the website 17 6.1
General 17 6.2
Content of the accessibility policy 17 6.3
Publicly available accessibility policy statement 19 6.4
Accessibility guidelines 19 PAS 78:2006 ii © BSI 8 March 2006 7Web technologies 21 7.1
Common web technologies 21 7.2
Structural languages 22 7.3
Style sheets eg CSS 22 7.4 Client side scripting and
programming languages eg _javascript_ and Java 23 7.4.1
Object models 23 7.5
Plug-in rich media formats 23 7.5.1
General 23 7.5.2
Portable Document Format (PDF) 24 7.5.3
Flash 24 7.5.4
Audio-video content 25 7.6
Visual-orientated anti-robot tests 26 8Accessibility testing and maintenance 26 8.1
General 26 8.2
Creating a test plan 28 8.3
Determining technical accessibility 28 8.3.1
Automated testing 28 8.3.2
Validation 29 8.3.3
Testing with assistive technology 29 8.4
Determining usable accessibility 29 8.4.1
Expert review 30 8.4.2
Conformance inspection 30 8.4.3
User testing 31 8.4.3.1
Why is user testing necessary? 31 8.4.3.2
User testing methods 31 8.4.3.3
Budgetary considerations 32 8.4.3.3.1
Sample sizes 32 8.4.3.3.2
User recruitment 32 8.4.3.3.3
Using specialized evaluators 32 8.5
Maintaining accessibility 33 9Contracting web design and accessibility auditing
services 34 9.1
Choosing a website developer 34 9.2
Agencies providing web accessibility consultancy 35 PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 iii Annex A (informative) Suggested user
profiles include: 36 Annex B (informative) Possible
criteria for determining success 37 Annex C (informative) Suggested questions for suppliers 38 Annex D (informative) Accreditation 40 Annex E (informative) Various
references 41 Annex F (informative) Contracting usability testing services
44 Annex G (informative) How to select a CMS system 45 Bibliography 47 Standards56 Useful websites56 Relevant publications57 Index50 PAS 78:2006 iv © BSI 8 March
2006 Foreword This Publicly Available Specification (PAS) has been
developed by the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) in collaboration with the
British Standards Institution (BSI). No copying without permission of BSI
except as permitted by copyright law. Acknowledgement is given
to the following organizations that were consulted in the development of this
specification. Abilitynet British Broadcasting Corporation
(BBC) Cabinet Office (e-Government Unit) Cxpartners
(representing the Usability Professionals Association) IBM RNIB (Royal National Institute of the
Blind) Tesco.com Usability Professionals Association
(UPA) Wider comments from other interested parties were invited by
BSI. The expert contributions made by the organizations and individuals
consulted in the development of this Publicly Available Specification are gratefully
acknowledged. Please note that during the production of this PAS Macromedia
was bought by Adobe and all resources regarding Flash accessibility will
eventually be available at access.adobe.com. This Publicly Available
Specification does not replace, contradict or supplement any of the World Wide
Web Consortium (W3C) guidelines or specifications. This PAS is vendor neutral
and product neutral. Generic terms are used in preference to brand names to
ensure impartiality. PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 v Summary of pages This document comprises a front cover, an inside front cover,
pages i to v, a blank page, pages 1 to 56, an inside
back cover and a back cover. The BSI copyright notice displayed in this document indicates
when the document was last issued. This Publicly Available Specification does not purport to
include all the necessary provisions of a contract. Users are responsible for
its correct application. This Publicly Available
Specification has been prepared and published by BSI, which retains its
ownership and copyright. BSI reserves the right to withdraw or amend this
Publicly Available Specification on receipt of authoritative advice that it is
appropriate to do so. This Publicly Available Specification will be reviewed at
intervals not exceeding two years, and any amendments arising from the review
will be published as an amended Publicly Available Specification and publicised
in Compliance with this
Publicly Available Specification does not of itself confer immunity from legal
obligations. This Publicly Available
Specification is not to be regarded as a British Standard. blank PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 1 Introduction Why make your website accessible to
disabled people? The introduction of the
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) [1] is only one reason why it is in
the interest of website commissioners to develop accessible websites.
Accessible websites also have the potential to widen a website?s current
audience and reach new ones: ? The Family Resources Survey [2] found that there are almost
10 million disabled people in the ? Research undertaken by the DRC ?The Web: Access and
inclusion for disabled people? [3] has confirmed that people without
disabilities are also able to use websites that are optimized for accessibility
more effectively and more successfully. ? Content developed upholding World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
guidelines and specifications can be more easily transferred to other media,
such as interactive TV, mobile phones and handheld computers. ? Accessible content, for example where a text equivalent is
provided for graphical elements, is highly visible to search engines, often
leading to higher rankings. Ensuring accessibility can
also be a source of good publicity, as social inclusion results in a fairer
world with equality of opportunity. Further business benefits achieved by
making websites accessible are given at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/benefits.html. The main focus of this
document is the commissioning of public-facing (internet) websites but the
principles can also be used by commissioners of intranet or extranet websites. It is important to note
that not all web developers will have practical accessibility design experience
and/or accessibility expertise; see Clause 9 for advice on how to find
suitable web developers. PAS 78:2006 2 © BSI 8 March 2006 The Disability Discrimination Act
1995 (DDA) The DDA and the secondary
legislation applied within It is not possible to
provide a definitive specification for a fully accessible website which will
satisfy the requirements of the DDA, however the guidance set out in this
Publicly Available Specification represents what the Disability Rights
Commission (DRC) believes to be good practice. The Disability Rights Commission
(DRC) The DRC is an independent
body established in April 2000 by an Act of Parliament to stop discrimination
and promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. The DRC?s goal is ?a society where all disabled people can
participate fully as equal citizens?. In 2002, the DRC published
a Code of Practice entitled ?Rights of Access ? Goods, Facilities, Services and
Premises? [4] to accompany Part 3 of the DDA. The Code makes explicit reference
to websites as ?services? in accordance with the DDA?s
definition of the term. At the time of publication the DRC were updating the
Part 3 Code of Practice. The DRC Formal Investigation into
website accessibility In April 2004, the DRC
published the report of their Formal Investigation into web accessibility in
the PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 3 The DRC has concluded that
there is a need for best practice guidance on the process of commissioning
accessible websites. This Publicly Available Specification has been
commissioned to provide guidance to website commissioners on: ? the
steps that should be taken to commission accessible websites ? the
W3C guidelines and specifications to be adopted ? the role of the guidelines and
specifications, software tools and user testing within the development life
cycle. Another important finding
of the Formal Investigation involved accessibility testing. All the websites
surveyed were tested using automated conformance testing tools (see 3.5);
however subsequent user testing with disabled participants uncovered further
instances where websites did not uphold the W3C guidelines and specifications.
Therefore it can be concluded that automated testing alone cannot provide a
complete testing solution. Ensuring accessibility The web will only be truly
accessible when all of the following work in harmony, using the relevant W3C
guidelines and specifications: ? website developers ensure that
their web content upholds W3C?s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
(see 3.22) ? website developers ensure that any non-W3C formats used on
the website incorporate accessible design elements or follow accessible design
guidelines applicable to that format ? authoring tool developers ensure
that their products produce web content that upholds WCAG ? browser developers ensure that
their products uphold W3C?s User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) ? operating system (OS) developers provide accessibility
features within their operating system, and work with access technology
developers to ensure their products work in harmony PAS
78:2006 4
© BSI 8 March 2006 ? software developers, disability advocacy groups (such as AbilityNet, RNIB (Royal National Institute of the Blind))
and public sector organizations (such as BBC and the Government) provide advice
to disabled people on how to optimize their computer setup ? educators and training
organizations that provide training on web design include accessible web design
in the curriculum of design courses. The DRC recommends a
combined approach to accessibility testing, including as essential requirements:
? the application of W3C guidelines
and specifications (in particular WCAG) ? testing conformance to guidelines and specifications (in
particular WCAG, see Clause 8) ? user testing with potential users,
including disabled users (see Clause 8), during the design and
development stages of the website development. Summary for commissioning an
accessible website a) Consider what the site should do
and for whom: ?
write the accessibility policy/specification (see Clause 6). b) Consider who is going to create
it, and how accessibility can be assured: ? investigate the reputation of those
designing and developing the site and the guidelines/processes they uphold (see
Annex C). c) Consider how the web developers
are going to create and maintain the website: ? investigate whether the website
will be created and maintained manually, using a CMS, or by using an automated
web application (see 6.5.3) ? ensure that a plan is in place to
maintain levels of accessibility during the website lifecycle (see 8.5). d) Consider how accessibility will be
tested (see Clause 8). PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 5 1 Scope This Publicly Available
Specification outlines good practice in commissioning websites that are
accessible to and usable by disabled people. It gives recommendations for: ? the management of the process of,
and guidance on, upholding existing W3C guidelines and specifications; ? involving disabled people in the
development process and using the current software-based compliance testing
tools that can assist with this. It is applicable to all
public and private organizations that wish to observe good practice under the
existing voluntary guidelines and the relevant legislation on this subject and
is intended for use by those responsible for commissioning public-facing
websites and web-based services. 2 Normative references The following referenced
documents are indispensable for the application of this document. For dated
references, only the edition cited applies. W3C guidelines and
specifications available at http://www.w3.org/ 3 Terms and definitions 3.1 access
technology hardware or
software used to adapt or make computer systems and services accessible to a
disabled person NOTE 1 Examples include
the provision of screenreaders and text-to-speech
systems; screen-magnification software; tactile braille
display, trackballs, touch pads/screens etc; alternatives to standard computer
mice, keyboards, switches and voice-recognition software. NOTE 2 Also
referred to as assistive technology, adaptive technology. 3.2 accessibility ability of
people with disabilities to perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with
websites PAS 78:2006 6 © BSI 8 March 2006 3.3 Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines published by the W3C
WAI 3.4 authoring tool software that
generates web content 3.5 automated
conformance testing tools software
tools used, without direct human intervention, to assess whether authoring of a
website upholds guidelines and specifications 3.6 Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) languages
designed to specify what document elements should look like, eg colours, borders, spacing, font style NOTE 1 Also
referred to as style sheets. NOTE 2 Typically
used to define what pages should look like eg
colours, borders, spacing, font style. Aural CSS enable web authors to define
how their pages should be read aloud by screenreaders
that support them. NOTE 3 Also
referred to as content production system (CPS). 3.7 cognitive
impairment decline in
mental functioning, ranging from mild impairment, such as lack of
concentration, to extreme impairment including increased problems with
distraction, exhaustion by tasks that require mental energy, or problems with
handling complex information NOTE In more extreme
impairment, people may have difficulties with the sleep/wake cycle, changes in
mood, or disorganized thinking and speech. PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 7 3.8 content
management system (CMS) software that
is used to create, modify, delete and archive content NOTE Typically a CMS is
also used as a way of publishing content to a website. 3.9 disability <DDA> physical or
mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on [a
person?s] ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities NOTE The
above definition is that included in the 1995 DDA and is the one that would be
considered by a County or Sheriff's Court judge when ruling on a case of
potential disability discrimination. See also impairment (3.12). 3.10 Flash rich
media programming format that allows web developers to add animation,
multimedia and interactive applications to websites NOTE 1 Flash content (.swf files) is viewed through a user agent plug-in called
the Flash Player. NOTE 2 Flash file formats
and authoring tools are proprietary. 3.11 heuristics guidelines or
rules that are used to guide the process of evaluation 3.12 impairment physical,
sensory or mental or cognitive impairment NOTE 1
Physical impairments include motor impairments; sensory impairments
affect the senses, such as sight and hearing; cognitive and mental impairments
include learning disabilities and mental health problems. NOTE 2 Some
people might have a number of impairments. NOTE 3 Impairments can
differ in degree. PAS 78:2006 8 © BSI 8 March 2006 3.13 interoperability the
ability of software and hardware on different machines from different vendors
to share data 3.14 learning
disabilities cognitive
impairment affecting the way someone learns, communicates or does some everyday
activities NOTE A
learning disability affects someone?s intellectual and social development all
their life. 3.15 mark-up code used
to structure, identify and format content on websites, eg
HTML 3.16 plug-in additional
piece of software users need to download to enable them to view non-HTML content
(such as PDF files, Flash or Java) in their browser 3.17 Portable Document Format (PDF) file
format for the distribution of content that retains the formatting and layout
it was given at its creation and can be viewed on different computers and platforms
via a specialized reader or via a browser plug-in (see 7.5) NOTE 1 A useful feature of
PDF files is that they look exactly the same for all senders and receivers of
document regardless of hardware or software used. NOTE 2 PDF files are
viewed through a plug-in. NOTE 3 PDF is a
proprietary but published specification. Documentation about PDF and
accessibility can be found at access.adobe.com. PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 9 3.18 usability extent to
which a [website] can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals
with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use [adapted
from ISO 9241-11:1988, definition 3.2] 3.19 user
agent software
(including web browsers and plug-ins) that retrieves and renders internet content
or services, including text, graphics, sounds, video NOTE 1 Examples include
media players (including Adobe Flash Player for Flash content) and other
software that renders web content (including Adobe Acrobat Reader for PDF
content). NOTE 2 Access technology
might sometimes be considered a user agent. 3.20 User Agent Accessibilty Guidelines
(UAAG) User Agent Accessibility
Guidelines published by the W3C WAI NOTE The
version of UAAG in use at the time of publication is 1.0. 3.21 W3C see also
World Wide Web Consortium (3.29) 3.22 W3C/WAI guidelines accessibility
guidelines (ATAG, WCAG and UAAG) published by the W3C WAI 3.23 W3C specifications documents
published by the W3C that define and describe all aspects of how to code
different types of web mark-up PAS 78:2006 10 © BSI 8 March 2006 3.24 Web Accessibility Initiative (W3C WAI) body of
the W3C that, in coordination with organizations around the world, pursues
accessibility of the web through five primary areas of work: ? technology
? guidelines
? tools ? education
and outreach ? research
and development. 3.25 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines published by the W3C WAI NOTE The
version of WCAG in use at the time of publication is 1.0. 3.26 webpage template pre-defined
generic page format that is used to create web pages 3.27 website
commissioner individual or
organization responsible for commissioning the creation of a website or web
content 3.28 website
developer individual or
organization responsible for designing and building a website or web content 3.29 World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) international
consortium of organizations that develops interoperable technologies
(specifications, guidelines, software and tools) to lead the web to its full potential PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 11 4 General principles 4.1 Development of an
accessibility policy Website commissioners
should develop and document an accessibility policy in accordance with Clause 6. 4.2 Upholding W3C guidelines and specifications 4.2.1 General The website should uphold
WAI guidelines and referenced W3C specifications to ensure interoperability and
accessibility to disabled people. 4.2.2 Content formats 4.2.2.1 Web
commissioners should give careful consideration to the proposed formats used to
design and deliver web content eg PDF (see 7.5.2),
_javascript_/ECMAScript (see 7.4) or Flash (see 7.5.3). 4.2.2.2 Content
formats that are not covered by WCAG eg PDF and Flash
should only be used if it is determined that these are the most appropriate
formats for content delivery in each case (for example if they enhance
understanding and functionality for a group of users at whom the material is
primarily aimed) and used in accordance with available authoring tool guidance. 4.2.2.3 When
non-compliant content is provided, or content that is only available in certain
modalities, accessible and equivalent alternatives should be provided. 4.2.2.4 Common
Office file types such as word processing and spreadsheet documents should be
authored in accordance with the accessible authoring techniques available for
these formats. 4.2.3 Authoring tools 4.2.3.1 Website
commissioners should ensure that authoring tools that uphold ATAG (see 6.4.3)
are used for the creation of web content wherever possible. 4.2.3.2 In
the choice and procurement of tools the commissioners should require suppliers
to list any deviations from ATAG. NOTE At the time of
publication, no single authoring tool that supports all ATAG Priority 1
checkpoints is known. PAS 78:2006 12 © BSI 8 March 2006 4.3 Conformance checking 4.3.1 Website commissioners
should not rely solely on automated conformance testing tools to assess
conformance with the relevant W3C guidelines and specifications (see Clause 8). 4.3.2 Automated
tools may be used as part of the validation process, but additional manual
checks and user testing with disabled people are essential to be confident that
the website is accessible to disabled people. 4.3.3 Where
content on the website is being supplied by a third party the website
commissioner should ensure that this content has also been included in all
conformance testing. 4.4 Involving disabled people in the requirements gathering
and conceptual design process Website commissioners
should ensure that requirements are gathered from disabled people at the
earliest stage and that the methods chosen accurately capture these users?
particular requirements. You should seek expert help to facilitate this. NOTE The
best method for gathering these requirements will depend on a number of
factors, including how easy it is to recruit and elicit useful data from people
with different disability profiles (see Clause 8). 4.5 Regular testing by disabled people Website commissioners
should conduct user testing with disabled participants to ensure that their
websites are accessible and usable by disabled people (see Clause 8). 4.6 Additional accessibility provisions Additional accessibility
provisions are not essential and should never replace upholding W3C guidelines
and specifications. NOTE 1 It
is more appropriate for website commissioners and developers to view these as a
supplementary enhancement that users might choose to employ if a website
upholds W3C guidelines and specifications. NOTE 2 Additional
accessibility provisions can be useful where the anticipated users of the
website are prohibited from using the accessibility feature in their browser?s
operating systems due to local administration policies. PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 13 5 How disabled people use websites 5.1 General 5.1.1 A
range of access technologies have been developed that enable disabled people to
use computers and access websites. 5.1.2 It is
not necessary for website developers to be experts in the use of the vast range
of technologies and techniques deployed by disabled people to access and use
websites. General consideration should be given to the fact that disabled
people might rely upon a range of alternative input and output devices on a
website that is authored in conformance with W3C guidelines and specifications. 5.1.3 Web
commissioners should ensure that the website upholds the W3C guidelines and
specifications. Web commissioners may consider providing additional
accessibility versions eg low graphics versions and
easy-to-read versions that further help disabled users who do not have
sufficient access technologies to help them access the website. NOTE 1 It
is the responsibility of the disabled user or their purchasing agent (eg an employer) to ensure that access technology and
techniques purchased and deployed uphold W3C (UAAG) guidelines and
specifications. NOTE 2 W3C WAI has
published a collection of pointers to information and, where possible,
demonstration versions of alternative browsing methods. The document is called
?Alternative web browsing? [http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/Browsing/]. NOTE 3 Attention is drawn
to the W3C draft document ?How People with Disabilities Use the Web? found at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/pwd-Use-web. 5.2 Operating systems 5.2.1 Most
disabled people experience mild to moderate impairments and do not require
specific access technology to access websites. Many benefit
from features within their operating system that enable them to alter screen
colours and text sizes, control the size of the mouse pointer, control the
flash rate of the cursor, etc. PAS 78:2006 14 © BSI 8 March 2006 5.2.2 The
BBC, along with disability and technology charity Abilitynet,
has published a website to inform disabled people of changes they can make to
their operating system to optimize accessibility:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/accessibility]. NOTE 1 Microsoft publishes
detailed information on changes that can be made to the Windows operating
system: [http://www.microsoft.com/enable/]. NOTE 2 Apple publishes
detailed information on changes that can be made to the Mac operating system:
[http://www.apple.com/accessibility/]. NOTE 3
Detailed information on changes that can be made to Linux can be found
at: [http://lars.atrc.utoronto.ca/] [http://accessibility.kde.org/]
[http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gap/]. 5.3 Access technology and other considerations for blind and
partially sighted people Blind and partially
sighted people might use any of a number of different techniques to help them
access websites: a) Screenreader
software reads web mark-up and translates it into audible, synthetic speech
accessible via computer speakers or a headset. Screenreaders
can also be used to translate web mark-up into output for braille
display hardware. b) Partially sighted people might use
screen magnification software to magnify their view of the whole web page, or
use facilities in the browser or operating system to magnify the size of the
text or override the foreground and background colours on web pages with ones
which help them read the text. c) People who have some form of
colour-blindness will benefit from website designers ensuring that all
information which is conveyed using colour on web pages is available without
colour, for example from context or mark-up. A useful technique in testing this
is to view your pages in black and white, and check if all of the information
is still conveyed. These people may also override the foreground and background
colours on web pages with ones which better allow them to read the text. PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 15 5.4 Access technology and other considerations for deaf and
hard of hearing people 5.4.1 There are two types of
deaf people within the deaf community: a) Deaf people for whom English is
not their first language. These people benefit from clear and appropriate language
or the provision of material in British Sign Language. b) Deaf and hard of hearing people
for whom English is their first language who will benefit from captioning of
any audio materials. 5.4.2 Signing avatars (computer
animations) are currently being developed to allow the creation and delivery of
sign language content on the web. Avatars can be used for other purposes,
including virtual personalities to which the user might relate in a more
natural way, and lip speaking avatars. NOTE 1 Deaf Connexions has
a prototype signing avatar, developed in conjunction with RNID, available for
download: [http://www.deafconnexions.org.uk/]. NOTE 2 Deaf and hard of
hearing people do benefit from the use of textphone,
instant messaging and email customer services. 5.5 Access technology and other considerations for people
with learning disabilities 5.5.1 People
with learning disabilities benefit from the ability to increase text size, use
of clear and appropriate language and images, and clear and consistent design
in navigation on websites. 5.5.2 There
is specific text to speech software and symbolizing software designed to help
people with certain learning disabilities or cognitive impairment. PAS 78:2006 16 © BSI 8 March 2006 5.6 Access technology and other considerations for people
with cognitive impairments (eg dyslexia) The cognitive disability
audience is diverse and includes individuals who have a learning disability.
Such disabilities affect the way a person learns and communicates.
?easy-to-read? has no precise definition and no clear specification but it is a
generic term for accessible methods of communicating with people with learning
disabilities. There are differing views on what this means for websites,
including whether ?easy-to-read? should be a separate channel. The basic
features are: ? use of simple, concise content ? a sensory focus considering use of
colour, use of typefaces, use of larger type, avoiding the use of capital
letters ? the use of ?speech enablement? or
specifically available sound files ? simple layout and use of images /
illustrations or symbols to support the text ? clear links to home page and
contact details. NOTE 1 Mencap
has published ?Am I making myself clear ? Mencap?s
guidelines for accessible writing?: [http://www.mencap.org.uk/download/making_myself_clear.pdf]. NOTE 2 Attention is also
drawn to ?Guide to making your website more accessible?:
[http://www.mencap.org.uk/html/accessibility/accessibility_guides.htm#2]. 5.7 Access technology and other considerations for people
with motor impairments People with motor
impairments might use alternative input and output devices to read web content
including but not limited to: ? alternatives to the standard
computer mouse ? pointing devices to input via the keyboard ? voice recognition software. NOTE Further
details: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/accessibility/]. PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 17 6 Defining the accessibility policy for the website 6.1 General 6.1.1 The
website commissioner should ensure that an accessibility policy is in place for
the website and this policy should be prominently displayed on the website. NOTE The
accessibility policy for each website can be adapted from an existing
organizational policy. 6.1.2 The
accessibility policy should outline the accessibility targets that will be set
and any measures that will be taken to broaden access (see 6.2). 6.1.3 The
accessibility policy should be referenced in tender and contract documents and
contain requirements for contractors undertaking the development and
maintenance of the website. 6.1.4 All
contractors should be asked specifically to commit to helping the organization
meet its accessibility policy and this should be reflected in all contracts. 6.1.5 There
should be a summary of the accessibility policy available on the website (see 6.3). 6.2 Content of the accessibility policy 6.2.1 Website commissioners
should include a declaration of accessibility on the website. 6.2.2 The
declaration should avoid jargon and be written in clear and appropriate
language so that people understand its implications. 6.2.3 The
declaration should reference the W3C guidelines and specifications that the
website upholds. NOTE Where
self-awarded logos are used, these should only be displayed when the website
conforms to the standards indicated and conformance should be checked on a
continuous basis. PAS 78:2006 18 © BSI 8 March 2006 6.2.4 The
content of the accessibility policy should include the following: a) A description of the disabled
users to be consulted during the development of the website (see Annex A for
user profiles). b) An explanation of the core tasks
users should be able to achieve on the site eg buy a
book and the criteria for determining success (see Annex B). c) A description of the process to be
used for developing and maintaining content to meet the needs of these users,
including: 1) identifying
user needs 2) developing
the website to meet those needs 3) measuring
the performance of the website in meeting those needs. d) Details of the accessibility level
to be upheld (eg ?conformance to W3C WAI WCAG 1.0
Level AA?). e) If an area or element of the
website is unlikely to be accessible to people with particular impairments, an
explanation should be provided of: 1) any
repairs to be made to improve accessibility, along with a reasonable estimate
of when the repairs will be made, 2) how
disabled people can access this information or these services via alternative
means. f) If neither e) 1)
or e) 2) are possible, an explanation of why it is considered reasonable
for the area to remain inaccessible. NOTE Attention is drawn to the DRC?s ?Code of Practice ? Rights of Access, Goods,
Facilities, Services and Premises?. g) Contact details (eg email, postal, telephone, textphone
and typetalk) for requesting further information
about the accessibility policy. NOTE Advice on the provision of textphone facilities is provided by RNID (Royal National
Institute for Deaf People). h) Provision for users to lodge
suggestions, comments and complaints with the website commissioner. PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 19 6.3 Publicly available accessibility policy statement 6.3.1 A
summary of the accessibility policy should be made available on the website.
This summary should include information on how to access details of optimizing
the website user experience, eg how to change the
screen colours and text sizes followed by an outline of the information covered
in 5.3. NOTE Details of how to
optimize the user experience of websites can be found at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/accessibility. Website commissioners may consider linking
to this site. 6.3.2 This
summary should also provide contact details (eg
email, postal, telephone, textphone and typetalk) for requesting further information about the
accessibility policy and provision for users to lodge suggestions, comments and
complaints with the website commissioner. 6.4 Accessibility guidelines 6.4.1 General W3C WAI publishes three
sets of guidelines which, when applied in combination, increase the likelihood
of sites being accessible for disabled people. Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG): [http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG] Authoring Tool
Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG): [http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG] User Agent Accessibility
Guidelines (UAAG): [http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG] 6.4.2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 6.4.2.1 WCAG are the most important accessibility guidelines for web
commissioners to be aware of, as they are considered to be the de facto
standard for accessible web design. 6.4.2.2 WCAG
comprises a set of checkpoints ranked into three conformance levels, with
priorities 1, 2 or 3, according to W3C WAI?s view of
their relative importance in enabling web access. Conformance with all the
checkpoints in a conformance level (and those above it) qualifies a site for
the designation Conformance Level A, AA or AAA. PAS 78:2006 20 © BSI 8 March 2006 6.4.2.3 Commissioners
should specify the WCAG Conformance Level in their accessibility policy (see
Clause 6). NOTE W3C WAI has published
resources to assist website developers in the application of WCAG. These include: a) Checklist of checkpoints for WCAG
1.0 [http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html] b) Techniques for WCAG 1.0
[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/] c) Web content accessibility
guidelines [http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php] d) Additional resources
[http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/] 6.4.3 Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 6.4.3.1 ATAG are the guidelines for authoring tool developers. 6.4.3.2 Website
commissioners using an authoring tool or CMS to develop their website should strive
to use one that upholds ATAG. 6.4.3.3 Website
commissioners commissioning an authoring tool or CMS to create or maintain
their site should ensure that it upholds ATAG, so that its output is
accessible. NOTE 1 W3C WAI has
published a set of companion techniques to help software developers implement
ATAG in their products: [http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10-TECHS/]. NOTE 2 W3C WAI has
published a document to assist website developers in procuring authoring tools
that uphold ATAG: ?Selecting and using authoring tools for web accessibility?
[http://www.w3.org/WAI/impl/software.html]. NOTE 3 W3C WAI has
published ?Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Overview?
[http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/atag.php]. 6.4.4 User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 6.4.4.1 UAAG are the guidelines for user agent developers. PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 21 6.4.4.2 Website
commissioners should aim to develop websites that are usable and accessible on
a reasonable range of web browsers and operating systems. For examples of
current browsers please see
[http//:www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/newmedia/technical/browser_support.shtml]. 6.4.4.3 Website
commissioners should ensure that web developers are aware of UAAG. Web
developers should promote the use of UAAG by designing web content that upholds
W3C guidelines and specifications, so that browsers that uphold the UAAG
guidelines will provide an accessible experience. 6.4.4.4 User-agent
(or functionality) detection scripts and work arounds
will be necessary so that a similar experience is provided for users of popular
browsers that do not uphold W3C guidelines and specifications. NOTE 1 It
is not the responsibility of the website commissioner to ensure that the
browser used upholds W3C guidelines and specifications, including UAAG. NOTE 2 It
is the responsibility of user agent developers to comply with UAAG. NOTE 3 Browsers that do
not uphold W3C guidelines and specifications might not interpret
standards-compliant mark-up correctly. NOTE 4 W3C WAI has
published ?User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Overview?
[http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/uaag.php]. 7 Web technologies 7.1 Common web
technologies 7.1.1 All
relevant W3C guidelines and specifications should be used (see 6.4). 7.1.2 Content
should be separated from presentational attributes. NOTE This
allows users to view the same content in different presentational styles, eg one website could be viewed using a number of CSS, one
of which is designed for users with low vision. 7.1.3 Content
should be coded using structural languages (see 7.2). 7.1.4 Presentational
attributes should be coded using style sheets (see 7.3). 7.1.5 Any
website that relies on scripting languages such as _javascript_ should be tested
thoroughly. PAS 78:2006 22 © BSI 8 March 2006 7.1.6 Event
driven behaviours should be coded using DOM (see 7.4.1). 7.2 Structural languages These are languages
designed to specify the structure of a document and its contents. It is
recommended that the full semantics of the language is used in the coding of
web pages. The W3C-recommended (current) specifications include: Hypertext Mark-up Language
(HTML) 4.01 [http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/] NOTE This
is generally used as a development format. Extensible Hypertext
Mark-up Language (XHTML) 1.0 [http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/] NOTE This
can be used as the format for mobile phone browsers. Extensible Mark-up
Language (XML) 1.0 [http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/] NOTE This
is generally used for structuring data. Scalable Vector Graphics
(SVG) 1.1 [http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/] NOTE This
is generally used for graphics and maps (Flash can also be used for these
purposes). Mathematical Mark-up
Language (MathML) 2.0 [http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML2] NOTE Generally
used for mathematical equations. 7.3 Style sheets eg CSS 7.3.1 Using
CSS allows presentation attributes (eg colours,
borders, spacing, font style, etc) to be coded. 7.3.2 The
W3C-recommended (current) specification for CSS is Level 2, which offers the
ability to layout page designs without using html tables
[http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2]. 7.3.3 Style
sheets are also implemented as XSL. NOTE Browser support
issues may arise as a result of using CSS Level 2. PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 23 7.4 Client side scripting and programming languages eg _javascript_ and Java These are languages used
to create scripts, or sets of instructions, that can control various elements
of a web document, such as the user interface, styles, and HTML mark-up. The
core language of this type is _javascript_, referred to as ECMAScript
by the ECMA Standards Organization: ECMAScript-262 (third
edition)
[http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm] NOTE 1 Due to
accessibility issues with client-side scripting languages such as _javascript_ it
is worth investigating whether the same functionality can be provided using server-side
scripting languages such as ASP or PHP. NOTE 2 _javascript_ is not
considered a W3C technology. 7.4.1 Object models These are platform and
language-neutral interfaces that specify how the content, structure, and
appearance of a document can be updated with scripts or other programs. They
provide a standard set of objects for representing HTML and XML documents, a
standard model of how these objects can be combined, and a standard interface
for accessing and manipulating them. The W3C-recommended (current)
specifications are: Document Object Model
(DOM) Level 1 (core) [http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1] DOM Level 2 (core)
[http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-2-Core] 7.5 Plug-in rich media formats 7.5.1 General 7.5.1.1 There
are a number of rich media formats, in addition to plain HTML pages, that
website developers may use. 7.5.1.2 The
user might require additional user agents (plug-ins) in order to play content
in these formats. In this case, website commissioners should ensure website
developers provide access to information in clear and appropriate language that
explains why additional user agents (plug-ins) are required to read content,
how to download and install them, and how to operate them. PAS 78:2006 24 © BSI 8 March 2006 7.5.1.3 When
new technologies or versions are proposed web commissioners should consider
waiting until those technologies are supported by updates in assisted
technologies before implementing those technologies on their websites. NOTE This
information is available at BBC Webwise ?Plug-in
information sheets? [http://www.bbc.co.uk/webwise]. 7.5.2 Portable Document Format (PDF) 7.5.2.1 As
PDF is not a W3C technology, technically its use does not uphold WCAG (at the
time of publication); however Adobe has stated its intention that future
versions of PDF and its user agent (plug-ins) will be designed in accordance
with the principles of WCAG. 7.5.2.2 PDF
accessibility relies on the Tagged PDF specification, which only became
available with Acrobat 5 and can be found in the PDF Reference Manual,
available at: [http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/index_reference.html] NOTE 1 Website developers
using PDF authoring tools that do not conform to Adobe?s accessibility
guidelines may use Acrobat to make the content of the PDF accessible
retrospectively. This applies to legacy PDF content generally. NOTE 2 At the time of
publication, Adobe stated its intention that future versions of PDF will uphold
the forthcoming WCAG 2.0, which is anticipated to be format-neutral. Further
information and guidelines on accessible PDF content authoring are available at
[http://www.adobe.com/accessibility]. NOTE 3 A working group in
which Adobe and other organizations participate under the sponsorship of AIIM
(Association for Information and Image Management) is developing a standard for
authoring accessible PDF content entitled ?PDF/UA?. At the time of publication,
this document was in draft format only. 7.5.3 Flash 7.5.3.1 From
version 6 Flash Player and the authoring tool (Adobe Flash MX), functionality
for creating more accessible content was included. PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 25 7.5.3.2 Website
commissioners should ensure that developers consider the accessibility of any
Flash content and use the Flash authoring tool in combination with the
supporting content and techniques documents provided by Adobe. 7.5.3.3 Website
commissioners should ensure Flash content is specifically tested for
accessibility. NOTE The Adobe
Accessibility resource centre includes detailed information on accessibility
standards, authoring techniques, tutorials and examples:
[http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/accessibility/]. 7.5.4 Audio-video content 7.5.4.1 Website
commissioners should ensure that developers consider the accessibility of any
audio or video content on the website. This is usually achieved using captions
or subtitles and audio descriptions of the visual track. NOTE Audio description is
an additional narration that describes all significant visual information such
as body language, facial _expression_, scenery, action, costumes
? anything that is important to conveying the plot of the story, event or
image. For more information see http://www.rnib.org.uk/audiodescription. 7.5.4.2 Including
transcripts should also be considered. 7.5.4.3 Website
developers should strive to uphold WCAG 1.0 guidelines in providing these
alternatives in synchronization with the presentation. NOTE 1
Captioning software exists to produce captions (subtitles) for most
audio-visual formats, eg CPB/WGBH?s
free MAGpie software: [http://ncam.wgbh.org/webaccess/magpie/]. NOTE 2 There
is varying support for accessibility amongst media player formats. PAS 78:2006 26 © BSI 8 March 2006 7.6 Visual-orientated anti-robot tests Website commissioners
should ensure that security measures for websites do not make it impossible for
disabled people, in particular blind and partially sighted people, to use the
site. For example, if registration or sign-on to an online service requires the
use of sight to view and entering a passcode (this
method is known as ?Turing test? or ?Captcha?) it
should be noted that a person with impaired sight including a screenreader user will require an alternative method of
accessing the service that does not rely on human sight. NOTE For more information
on options available to increase web accessibility in this area see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-turingtest-20031105/. 8 Accessibility testing and maintenance 8.1 General 8.1.1 Measurable success
criteria should be created from the website?s accessibility policy (see Clause 6),
such as: ? conformance criteria, eg all pages must conform to WCAG ?AA? ? assistive technology support, eg Screen readers, voice input technologies etc ? assessment criteria, eg task success rates or user satisfaction for disabled
people. 8.1.2 All
organizations, regardless of size, should ensure that those testing the website
are different from those developing it. 8.1.3 Website
commissioners should develop a test plan (see 8.2) and ensure that all
testing is documented and reported upon. 8.1.4 Website
commissioners should allocate time and resources within the development plan
for any necessary rework to be undertaken. 8.1.5 How
and when the website is tested for accessibility should be documented as part
of the overall quality plan. PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 27 8.1.6 Website
commissioners should test for accessibility compliance throughout the website?s
design lifecycle. The earlier accessibility problems are found, the easier and
cheaper they are to fix. The key stages for testing are: ? Requirements: Learn what elements work and identify areas
for improvement by running accessibility validations, user evaluations or
expert reviews of your existing site or competitor sites. ? Design: Evaluate early designs with users using technically
accessible prototypes; expert reviews of early designs can be conducted to
identify potential problems. NOTE Evaluating webpage templates
before building the site is a much more effective way of ensuring that WCAG is
being upheld. ? Build: Validate code against W3C guidelines and
specifications and check using assistive technologies; identify usability
issues with user tests; predict usability and accessibility problems with
expert reviews. ? Maintenance: New pages and changes to existing pages should
be tested for accessibility. Small changes, such as adding a new graphic, or writing a new paragraph should, as a minimum, be
tested for conformance to WCAG ?AA?. Large changes that affect important tasks
within the interface, ie how a user logs onto a site
or buys a product, should undergo user testing. 8.1.7 Comprehensive
evaluation of web site accessibility should involve a combination of
conformance with the technical requirements of WCAG, and user testing of
accessibility features. NOTE 1 W3C WAI has published
a document that describes approaches for preliminary review of website
accessibility and conformance evaluations, including general procedures and
tips for evaluation during website development and for the ongoing monitoring
of established websites: ?Evaluating websites for accessibility?
[http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/]. This document was in the process of being
updated at the time of publication. NOTE 2 W3C WAI has
published information about evaluation, repair, and transformation tools useful
for website developers: ?Evaluation, Repair, and Transformation Tools for Web
Content Accessibility? [http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/existingtools.html]. PAS 78:2006 28 © BSI 8 March 2006 8.2 Creating a test plan 8.2.1 Website commissioners
should develop an accessibility test plan that enables the accessibility
targets to be achieved and performance measured, eg
to achieve the usability success criteria, early user evaluations may be needed
to identify any design issues. 8.2.2 The
accessibility test plan should clearly state: ? which
accessibility testing methods will be used ? how
the method supports the accessibility targets ? when
during the project lifecycle the tests will take place ? how
the test results will be documented ? how
the test results should be interpreted. 8.3 Determining technical accessibility Approaches for determining
technical accessibility include: ? Automated testing to determine whether the website upholds
W3C guidelines and specifications. ? Validation testing of code to determine whether it upholds
W3C guidelines and specifications; tools include validators
for html and style sheets (see 8.3). ? Assistive technology tool testing to determine whether the
website can be accessed using the tools commonly used by disabled users (see 8.3.3). 8.3.1 Automated testing Website commissioners
should ensure that website developers are aware of the capabilities and
limitations of commercially available automated testing tools. NOTE Although
these tools check for a relatively small proportion of the WCAG guidelines,
they can be useful for analysing a whole site for technical accessibility. PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 29 8.3.2 Validation Website commissioners
should ensure that website developers begin the evaluation and repair process
by validating their mark-up against W3C guidelines and specifications. W3C?s Mark-up Validation
Service should be used [http://validator.w3.org/]. W3C CSS Validation Service
should be used to evaluate the validity of any CSS
[http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/]. 8.3.3 Testing with assistive technology 8.3.3.1 Testing
with assistive technology checks whether a range of assistive technologies can
read and interact with web content and activate any controls. 8.3.3.2 If a
website conforms to WCAG, assistive technologies should work with the site.
Although it is not the responsibility of the website commissioners to change
their code to make an assistive technology work correctly they may wish to
provide work arounds if they exist. 8.3.3.3 Assistive
technology tool tests can provide a relatively quick way for a tester with
specialist knowledge of the tools to assess the website?s technical
accessibility. However, these tests do not assess the usability of the
interface; if a technical accessibility problem is found, it may not be obvious
where the problem lies. In this case, a conformance inspection is the only way
of testing compliance (see 8.4.2). NOTE There
are assistive technology resources available for all budgets from free software
available on the web through to professional consultants. 8.4 Determining usable accessibility Approaches for determining
usable accessibility include: ? Expert reviews, involving specialists in usability and
accessibility, to evaluate the website in order to find potential problems (see
8.4.1). ? Conformance inspections to determine the WCAG conformance
level for the website or check that it meets a specified WCAG conformance level
(see 8.4.2). ? User testing to identify any usability and accessibility
problems they may have (see 8.4.3). PAS
78:2006 30
© BSI 8 March 2006 8.4.1 Expert review 8.4.1.1 Reviews
can be conducted on early designs and finished code and can be relatively quick
and inexpensive. They are useful for identifying quality and consistency issues
not typically identified during user testing. However, they do not find the
same type or number of problems as user testing; they can identify problems
that real users would not experience; and the quality of the findings is
directly related to the skill and experience of the experts. 8.4.1.2 There
are a number of different types of structured review processes, including
heuristic evaluation, where an interface is inspected against a set of
heuristics or guidelines, and a cognitive walk-through, where evaluators step
through a series of actions with a goal of completing a typical user task.
Experts can use assistive technology in their evaluation. NOTE Specialist training
is required in the use of assistive technologies to make sure they are using
the technologies in the appropriate way as a disabled person would. 8.4.2 Conformance inspection 8.4.2.1 Conformance
inspection is a systematic manual review of each webpage against WCAG
guidelines as specified, which typically follows a validation test and involves
reviewing each piece of content and control. 8.4.2.2 Conformance
inspections provide a single method for determining whether a website upholds
WCAG. However, they are time consuming and require an expert in accessibility,
usability and website code due to individual interpretations of WCAG. 8.4.2.3 Due
to the amount of effort that is required to inspect a page to a specified WCAG
level, web commissioners could consider an approach that involves inspecting a
sample number of pages on the site. This sample should include pages with high
usage or involve critical functions such as form filling. PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 31 8.4.3 User testing 8.4.3.1 Why is user testing necessary? User testing involves
recruiting a set of representative users and asking them to attempt to use the
website to achieve a set of representative tasks. It provides the best evidence
of the website?s accessibility as: ? people are unpredictable: how
disabled users interact with a website is often different from the assumptions
of website developers; user testing often uncovers unexpected requirements ? people are adaptable: designs that
appear problematic may be usable in reality ? website developers become familiar
with the features of their design solutions and frequently fail to notice
problems that disabled users will experience ? website developers have different and sometimes conflicting
goals to users, often user testing evidence is needed to qualify the relative
merit of different design approaches ? website developers have computing
skills, but may have limited knowledge of alternative computing environments;
user testing provides real and often new insight into how different types of
users access the web ? business objectives can sometimes
conflict with the accessibility of the website eg
third party delivered content such as advertising. 8.4.3.2 User testing methods 8.4.3.2.1 User
testing should include users from a range of disabilities and preferences,
including a mix of beginners and experienced web users using a range of
assistive technologies. 8.4.3.2.2 Website
commissioners should include user testing in any procurement and tender
documentation and ensure that all user testing conforms to BS EN ISO
13407:1999, Human-centred design processes for interactive systems. 8.4.3.2.3 The
expense of conducting user testing can mean that budgetary considerations only
allow a very small sample; this can provide erroneous results which should be
treated with due caution. PAS 78:2006 32 © BSI 8 March 2006 8.4.3.2.4 A
number of ethical and practical issues should be taken into account before
embarking on user testing with disabled people. NOTE Both the Usability
Professionals Association (UPA) (see http://www.upassoc.org/) and Market
Research Society (see http://www.mrs.org.uk/standards/guidelines.htm) have
Codes of Conduct covering how consultants and researchers should conduct
themselves. 8.4.3.3 Budgetary considerations 8.4.3.3.1 Sample sizes If more than one user
experiences the same problem during testing, this provides stronger evidence
that the problem will affect a significant number of users. Consideration
should be given to the expense of larger sample sizes versus confidence in the
results. 8.4.3.3.2 User recruitment Website commissioners may
contract a recruitment agency to recruit users who exactly match the required
criteria. This ensures the right user profiles are met and the randomness of
the selection process provides added confidence in the results; however this
service can be expensive and time consuming and will need to be repeated for
each round of testing. Website commissioners may
convene a regular panel of users. This is less expensive and quicker to set up.
However, these users will eventually develop expertise in using websites in
general, and how the website to be tested works, making them less likely to
experience the same usability problems as novice users. 8.4.3.3.3 Using specialized evaluators There are many specialized
usability groups with trained evaluators who can run user tests following this
rigorous method. This ensures confidence that the recommendations have been
based on data derived from a proven method and trained observers can not only
identify usability problems, but explain why users are having difficulties.
However, such evaluations can be expensive and take time to set up. PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 33 A less expensive
alternative is for an internal evaluator, who has not been involved in the
design or development of the website, to sit beside selected users as they
attempt to use it. The evaluator should not simply show a website to users and
ask them what they think of it. They should ask users to perform given tasks to
complete. They should observe whether they have any difficulties such as
navigational issues, use of site search or system ambiguity. Although focus groups are
less expensive to run and easier to set up, they are inappropriate to use to
identify usability errors. If they are used, the results will be less reliable
because an untrained evaluator might not realize the underlying user problems,
might attach more significance to a problem than there really is or allow
personal opinions to get mixed into the results. It is also difficult to ensure
that users feel at ease and confident to talk about the problems they are
having with the interface. An untrained evaluator may inadvertently prevent the
users from communicating problems they are experiencing. 8.5 Maintaining accessibility 8.5.1 Website
commissioners should ensure a regular programme of accessibility testing after
the website launch to maintain the desired level of accessibility, which should
include: ? Benchmarking the site against the accessibility policy by
running user evaluation or conformance inspections to identify accessibility
problems ? Running tests using assistive technology with new tools or
new versions of tools ? Testing the accessibility of new and changed pages ? Enabling feedback to be provided by all users. 8.5.2 Web
commissioners should ensure awareness of any new specifications, devices,
technologies, user behaviour and expectations that would change accessibility
requirements. PAS 78:2006 34 © BSI 8 March 2006 9 Contracting web design and accessibility auditing services 9.1 Choosing a website developer 9.1.1 It is
not possible to provide a definitive specification for a fully accessible
website which will satisfy the requirements of the DDA. Website commissioners
should therefore be sceptical if contracting companies declare that they will
create websites that are ?DDA-compliant? or ?compliant with the law?.
Conversely, website commissioners should not require a web designer to design a
website that is ?DDA-compliant? or ?compliant with the law?. Until case law has
been established such claims cannot be made or honoured. 9.1.2 There
is currently no nationally recognized system of accreditation (see Annex
D) for website developers who claim to create accessible websites that uphold
W3C guidelines and specifications. Website commissioners should therefore
perform their own reference checks until they are satisfied that the website development
contractor has competence and experience in developing accessible websites that
uphold W3C guidelines and specifications (seeAnnex
C). 9.1.3 Checks
should include: ? a review of previous work ? references from previous clients ? a practical knowledge of PAS 78 ? a practical knowledge of W3C
guidelines and specifications ? an appreciation of the
implications of ?The Disability Discrimination Code of Practice (Goods,
Facilities, Services and Premises)? 2002 edition(see
http://www.drc-gb.org/uploadedfiles/documents/2008223drccoprightsofAccess.doc) ? familiarity with assistive
technologies. PAS
78:2006 ©
BSI 8 March 2006 35 9.2 Agencies providing web accessibility consultancy There is currently no
accreditation board for web accessibility consultancy services in the Website commissioners
should refer to the guidance in 9.1 when commissioning accessibility
consultants. PAS 78:2006 36 © BSI 8 March 2006 Annex A (informative)Suggested user profiles include: A.1 Vision impairment Users
with severe vision impairment, eg users of screen
reader software. Users
with medium vision impairment, eg users of
magnification software. Users with mild vision
impairment, eg users who might enlarge text in the
browser with high contrast and use Windows' colour preferences. NOTE Because
there are three main types of colour blindness it is unlikely that all problems
would arise in user testing. A.2 Mobility Users with severe motor
difficulties, eg users with Motor Neurone disease who
might use switch access and an on-screen keyboard to interact with a computer. Users with severe motor
difficulties, eg users who are quadriplegic who might
use voice recognition software. Users with medium motor
difficulties or upper limb disorder, eg users who
might only use a keyboard, a mouse being too difficult to use. Users with mild motor
difficulties, eg users who might use a mouse or
equivalent adaptive technology but who might have fine mouse control
difficulties. A.3 Cognitive and learning Users with medium
dyslexia, eg users who might change site colours and
text formatting, and who in many cases might supplement this with text to
speech software for reading sections of text (such as TextHelp). Users with mild to medium
learning or cognitive disabilities, eg users who
might use a symbol browser to convert web pages to symbols or have no special
access methodologies and rely on someone else assisting them. NOTE Not
all people with a learning disability read symbols. It is a language that has
to be learnt, in a similar way to sign language. PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 37 A.4 Deaf and hard of hearing British Sign Language
(BSL) users are especially relevant if there is multimedia content on the site
or language issues. Non-BSL
deaf or hard of hearing users. Annex B (informative)Possible criteria for determining success B.1 Common website tasks Tasks will depend on the
aims of the website, but examples might include: a) Find out how to contact the organization
via email, phone or letter (for any site) b) Find out what services are
available on the site (eg a sitemap, for any site) c) Find out a commonly searched-for
bit of information (for information sites) d) Buy a product in a reasonable
length of time (for an e-Commerce site) e) Successfully learn the thing you
went to the site for (for learning/education sites). B.2 Criteria for determining success Criteria for determining
success should include: a) Effectiveness: ? How
often can disabled users complete each task? (task
completion rate) ? How
well can they complete each task? (degree of
completion, error rates) b) Efficiency: ? How much effort does it take to
complete each task? (number of keystrokes/clicks, time
taken, pauses) PAS 78:2006 38 © BSI 8 March 2006 c) Satisfaction: ? What is an appropriate experience?
(different for education, banking, entertainment,
buying products) ? Does the experience fit with your
brand values? ? Perceived efficiency. ? Perceived effectiveness. Annex C (informative)Suggested questions for suppliers C.1 General ? Describe how your solution will meet the accessibility
targets as outlined within our accessibility policy. C.2 Requirements and design process ? Describe how your design process follows ISO 13407 Human-centred
design processes for interactive systems. ? Provide a description of how requirements will be gathered
from users and how the needs of disabled users will be taken into account. ? Provide an explanation of how your process will deliver an
accessible design. ? Describe how you will validate early designs with users,
including disabled users, and how feedback will be taken forward within your
design process. C.3 Packaged applications ? If your solution includes a packaged application that
generates web pages, describe how your proposed package will ensure generated
web pages meet the accessibility targets outlined within our accessibility
policy. ? Describe any scenarios where the package application will
not generate compliant WCAG [level] web pages and what will be done to correct
this non-compliance. ? If your solution includes a package application that
provides web-based application screens that will be used by employees, describe
how these interfaces will meet the targets outlined within our accessibility
policy. PAS
78:2006 ©
BSI 8 March 2006 39 ? Describe any scenarios where the package application will
not generate compliant WCAG [level] web-based application screens and what will
be done to correct this non-compliance. ? Where possible provide evidence that the packaged
application has been tested for accessibility, including the methods that were
used. C.4 Development ? Describe the technologies that will be used to build the
website and how these technologies will support our accessibility targets
defined within the accessibility policy. ? If non-W3C technologies are used, provide a justification
for using these technologies and how equivalent accessible functionality will
be provided. ? Describe how your development process supports the creation
of an accessible website. C.5 Content creation ? If rich-media formats will be used, describe how these
formats will be made accessible. ? If rich-media formats will be used that are not accessible,
provide a justification for why these formats will be used and describe how
equivalent accessible content will be provided. C.6 Testing ? Explain how accessibility testing is included as part of
the overall test plan. ? Provide a description of the accessibility test plan, and
provide a rationale for the methods that have been included. ? Describe the accessibility testing methods and the list of
accessibility test tools that will be used as part of the accessibility
testing. ? List the usability testing techniques that are appropriate
for this project and describe which standards will be followed and what
measurements will be taken. PAS
78:2006 40
© BSI 8 March 2006 ? Describe the deliverables from the accessibility test plan
and how the findings will be represented. ? Describe the process for correcting designs and code as a
result of accessibility testing. C.7 Maintenance ? Describe the governance process for ensuring that the
website will remain accessible and usable. ? Describe the process for getting feedback from users who
are using the site, including the process for making changes as a result of
user feedback. ? Describe the process for evaluating how the website can be
improved for usability and accessibility. Annex D (informative)Accreditation There is currently no D.1 EuroAccessibility Consortium
(EA) Recognition of the danger
posed by fragmentation of web accessibility services and advice across A primary objective of EA
is the creation of an ?e-accessibility mark? or accreditation scheme for
websites, based on harmonized web accessibility methodologies. NOTE Website commissioners
may refer to the EA website for the latest information:
[http://www.euroaccessibility.org/]. D.2 Support-EAM (Supporting the creation of an
e-Accessibility Quality Mark) Support-EAM (Supporting
the creation of an e-Accessibility Quality Mark) is a project of the Sixth
Framework Programme of the European Commission (EC). PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 41 The objective of Support-EAM
is to create an e-Accessibility Quality Mark for Web services, as part of the
EC Action Plan eEurope 2005: An information society
for all. Harmonization of Web
Accessibility evaluation methodologies will result in a unified methodology
that will allow the assessment of websites against the recommendations of W3C
WAI. Support-EAM began on 1
October 2004 for 18 months. Seven partners are involved in Support-EAM from
seven European countries, including the The project refers to the
Council Resolution on ?eAccessibility? ? improving
the access of people with disabilities to the Knowledge Based Society
(doc. 5165/03), inviting the Commission and the member states ?to consider
the provision of an ?eAccessibility mark? for goods
and services which comply with relevant standards for eAccessibility?. For
further information visit http://www.support-eam.org/. In the absence of a W3C,
UK Government or EU-recognized e-accessibility mark it should be noted that the
Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB), who is a member of EA and a
member of WAI, has developed the ?See it Right? accreditation mark for website
accessibility. NOTE Website commissioners
may refer to the RNIB website for more information:
[http://www.rnib.org.uk/wac/]. D.3 W3C WAI resources Website commissioners and
developers should refer to the W3C WAI document ?Evaluating websites for
accessibility? for information about benchmarking and quality assurance:
[http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/]. Annex E (informative)Various references E.1 Relevant industry bodies The Usability
Professionals' Association (UPA): supports those who promote and advance the
development of usable products, reaching out to people who act as advocates for
usability and the user experience [http://www.upassoc.org/]. PAS 78:2006 42 © BSI 8 March 2006 Web
Standards Project (WaSP): a grassroots coalition
campaigning for standards that ensure simple, affordable access to web
technologies for all [http://www.webstandards.org/]. World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C) and Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI): in coordination with
organizations around the world, pursues accessibility of the web through five
primary areas of work: technology, guidelines, tools, education and outreach,
and research and development [http://www.w3.org/wai/]. E.2 Other relevant research,
projects, guidelines and initiatives eEurope 2005 Action Plan:
launched at the Seville European Council in June 2002 and endorsed by the
Council of Ministers in the eEurope Resolution of
January 2003. It aims to develop modern public services and a dynamic
environment for e-business through widespread availability of broadband access
at competitive prices and a secure information infrastructure.
[http://www.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/2005/]. e-Government Unit
(eGU): a unit within the UK Government Cabinet Office
that works with other government departments to deliver efficiency savings by
improving the delivery of public services by joining up electronic government
services around the needs of customers.[http://e-government.cabinetoffice.gov.uk]. NOTE The eGU publishes guidelines for the design of European Design for All
e-Accessibility Network (EDeAN): established in July
2002 in accordance with one of the specific goals of the eEurope
2002 Action Plan: ?to ensure the establishment and networking of national
centres of excellence in design-for-all and create recommendations for a
European curriculum for designers and engineers?.
[http://www.e-accessibility.org/]. European Internet
Accessibility Observatory (EIAO): a project that will assess the accessibility
of European websites and participate in a cluster developing a European
Accessibility Methodology. [http://www.eiao.net/]. IBM: the technology
solutions provider publishes developer guidelines to help website commissioners
(and developers) understand why and what they need to do to make their
technology and information accessible to people with disabilities.
[http://www.ibm.com/able/guidelines/]. PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 43 BenToWeb:
aims to support the European public and private sector to implement the
recommendations of the eEurope 2005 Action Plan by
providing benchmarking tools that support the W3C guidelines and
specifications. Their objectives are: to develop and assess test-suites for
benchmarking of web accessibility evaluation and repair; to support W3C WAI in
the improvement of the Evaluation and Repair Language (EARL) and the activities
of the Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group to be able to cope with large
scale evaluations and complex statistical analysis. [http://www.bentoweb.org/]. E.3 Further sources of independent
information and advice Abilitynet:
provides free information and advice, individual assessment of technology
needs, the supply of assistive technology with free support, a programme of
awareness education, and consultancy for employers on system and workstation
adaptations. [http://www.abilitynet.org.uk/]. British Dyslexia
Association: Aims to influence government and other institutions to promote a
dyslexia friendly society. [http://www.bda-dyslexia.org.uk]. Disability Rights
Commission (DRC): an independent body established by an Act of Parliament to eliminate
discrimination and promote equality of opportunity for disabled people.
[http://www.drc-gb.org/]. Mencap: The
Royal National Institute
of the Blind (RNIB): the Royal National Institute
for Deaf People (RNID): the largest charity representing the nine million deaf
and hard of hearing people in the Scope: A disability
organization in PAS 78:2006 44 © BSI 8 March 2006 Annex F (informative)Contracting usability testing services F.1 Questions for suppliers ? Which usability testing techniques are appropriate for this
project, eg interviews, surveys, focus groups, expert
reviews and testing with real users? ? What standards are followed and what measurements will be
taken? ? Can the supplier work to recognized ISO standards? ? What users will the supplier test? ? Will helpful and accurate answers be generated? ? How usable will the deliverables be? ? Can the deliverables be tailored to meet needs? ? Do the deliverables contain analysis, illustrations, raw
data, and recommendations? ? Are the deliverables easy to digest: are findings
prioritized and grouped meaningfully? ? Can the supplier provide support in the understanding and
uptake of findings? F.2 Criteria for assessing responses ? Can the supplier discuss the relative benefits of a range
of methods? ? Can the supplier give examples of previous successes of
different methods? ? Can the supplier distinguish between different types of
real-user testing and advise accordingly? ? Does the supplier offer a range of expert review options? ? Can the supplier discuss the appropriateness of
measurements and standards? ? Does the supplier use meaningful and actionable
measurements? ? Can the supplier discuss the limitations of measurements in
terms of statistical significance? ? Can the supplier provide screening documents for user
recruitment, and justify their inclusions? PAS
78:2006 ©
BSI 8 March 2006 45 ? Does the supplier understand the importance of sample size,
in relation to needs? ? Does the supplier focus on demonstrated problems and not
users? feelings? ? Does the supplier use closed questions or lead users? ? Does the supplier use meaningful scenarios to test the
website? ? Can the supplier work to technical and commercial
constraints, where appropriate? ? Can the supplier suggest actionable solutions, not just
state problems? Annex G (informative)How to select a CMS system A Content Management
System (CMS) enables controlled update of the content of websites where many
pages of content are published and/or many people are involved in the workflow
processes needed to create and publish that content. Modern CMS applications
use templates (HTML styles that will surround the content to give each page the
same look and feel). If the templates are not accessible then neither will the
website be on which they are used. Here are the following
criteria that should be checked when selecting a CMS application: ? Are the CMS templates ?free-form? (that is, can have any
HTML and CSS style in it) and you are not limited in ways that prevent you
writing the templates to be accessible? ? When inserting non-text content such as images, does the
CMS application enable content creation staff to add accessible attributes such
as the ?ALT? attribute of the image tag? ? Does the CMS application write any code (such as _javascript_) that would undermine accessibility? ? Are the CMS control screens (usually HTML pages themselves)
accessible? ? Several major CMS applications use flow diagrams which can
be created when building a workflow ? are these diagrams accessible? PAS
78:2006 46
© BSI 8 March 2006 ? Many CMS applications offer the ability to transform files
such as word processing documents, email, spreadsheets and databases into HTML
? but is it accessible? This is very important if
automated transforms are to be used in the CMS workflows. ? Does the software manufacturer of the CMS application
warrant that accessible web pages can be created by their system (as long as
templates are accessible)? ? Does the CMS application have ways of testing for
inaccessible content (for example, a content writer may add HTML or script
inside their text which could ?confuse? a browser or other accessible
technology and make that page inaccessible)? ? Many CMS applications offer Application Programming
Interfaces (APIs) and either scripting or full programming languages to
completely customize workflows for your organization. Dynamic web page creation
using such facilities is powerful but be sure that those who develop against
these APIs have a full understanding of accessibility issues. PAS
78:2006 ©
BSI 8 March 2006 47 Bibliography [1] [2] Family Resources
Survey 2003/04. [3] Disability Rights
Commission. The Web: access and inclusion for disabled people (2004). [4] Disability Rights
Commission. Code of Practice ? Rights of Access, Goods, Facilities, Services
and Premises, The Stationery Office Bookshop. Standards ISO 9241-11:1998 Ergonomic
requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) ? Part 11:
Guidance on usability. ISO 16071:2003 Guidance on accessibility for human-computer
interfaces. ?Guidelines for standards
developers to address the needs of older persons and persons with disabilities?
? Cen/CENELEC Guide 6 ? edition 1 published January
2002. Useful websites Abilitynet
http://www.abilitynet.org.uk/ Adobe
http://www.adobe.com/ Becta
(British Educational Communications and Technology Agency)
http://www.becta.org.uk/industry/advice/advice.cfm?section=2&id=4360
(Website accessibility guide) Disability
Rights Commission http://www.drc-gb.org/ How people with
disabilities use the web http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/drafts/PWD-Use-Web/ IBM
http://www.ibm.com/ Macromedia
http://www.macromedia.com/ Mencap
http://www.mencap.org.uk/accessibility Microsoft
http://www.microsoft.com/ PAS 78:2006 48 © BSI 8 March 2006 Royal
National Institute of the Blind (RNIB) http://www.rnib.org.uk/ TechDis
http://www.techdis.ac.uk/index.php?p=9 Usability
Professionals Association (UPA) http://www.ukupa.org.uk Useit.com
http://www.useit.com/ W3C
Web Accessibility Initiative (W3C WAI) http://www.w3.org/wai/ Web
Standards Project (WaSP) http://webstandards.org/ World
Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://www.w3.org/ Relevant publications Am I making myself clear ?
Mencap?s guide to accessible writing, 2002. Braun, K., Gadney, M., Haughey, M., Roselli, A., Synstelien, D.,
Walter, T., Wertheimer, D. (2002) Usability: the site speaks for itself. British Bankers
Association Accessible e-banking: making your online service accessible to all
(2001). Gybels,
Guido (2004) Deaf and Hard of hearing users and Web accessibility. Howell, J. (2000) Get the
message online: making websites accessible to blind and partially sighted
people. Keates, S.
and Clarkson, J. (2003) Countering design exclusion: an introduction to
inclusive design. Keates, S.,
Clarkson, J., Langdon, P. and Robinson, P. (Eds)
(2004) Designing a more inclusive world. Krug, S. (2000) Don?t make me think! A common sense approach to web
usability. MCCAWS What Every Web Site
Owner Should Know About Standards: A Web Standards Primer http://www.maccaws.org/kit/primer/. PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 49 Nielsen,
J. and Tahir, M. (2001) Homepage usability: 50
websites deconstructed. Nielsen, J. (2000)
Designing web usability. Paciello,
M.G. (2000) Web accessibility for people with disabilities. Pernice Coyne, K. and Nielsen, J.
(2001) How to conduct usability evaluations for accessibility: methodology
guidelines for testing websites and intranets with users who use assistive
technology. Spool, J., Scanlon, T., Schroeder, W., Snyder, C. and DeAngelo, T. (1999) Web site usability: a developer?s
guide. Thatcher,
J., Bohman, P., Burks, M., Lawton Henry, S., Regan,
B., Swierenga, S., Urban, M.D. and Waddell, C.D.
(2002) Constructing accessible websites. Velleman, E.
and Snetselaar, H. (2000) Site seeing: the
development of an accessible website or web-based multimedia product. Zeldman, J.
(2003) Designing with web standards. PAS 78:2006 50 © BSI 8 March 2006 Index A Abilitynet E.3 access
technology 3.19 for blind and partially
sighted people 5.3 for deaf and hard of hearing
people 5.4 definition 3.2 for people with cognitive
impairments 5.6 for people with learning
disabilities 5.5 for people with motor
impairments 5.7 accessibility and changes to operating systems
5.2 definition 3.1 maintenance see maintenance testing see testing accessibility
auditing services 9 accessibility
consultants 9.2 accessibility
guidelines 3.22, 6.4 additional
provisions 4.6 upholding 4.2 see also User Agent
Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG); Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) accessibility
policies content 6.2 defining 6 development 4.1 public availability 6.3 accreditation
9.1.2, Annex D adaptive
technology see access technology assistive
technology see access technology assistive
technology tool testing 8.3.3 audio
description 7.5.4.1 audio-video
content 7.5.4 auditing
services 9 Aural CSS (Cascading Style
Sheets) 3.6 Authoring Tool
Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 3.3, 6.4.3 upholding 4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2 PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March 2006 51 authoring
tools 4.2.3 definition 3.4 automated
conformance testing tools 3.5, 4.3.2 automated
testing 8.3.1 B BenToWeb E.2 blind
people access technology for 5.3 and security measures for
websites 7.6 see also vision impairment British Dyslexia
Association E.3 British Sign Language
(BSL) users A.4 budgetary
considerations for user testing 8.4.3.2.3, 8.4.3.3 C ?Captcha?
7.6 captioning
software 7.5.4.3 Cascading Style Sheets
(CSS) 3.6, 7.3 client side
scripting and programming languages 7.4 CMS definition 3.8 selection of Annex G cognitive
impairment access technology for 5.6 definition 3.7 user profiles A.3 see also learning
disabilities cognitive
walk-through 8.4.1.2 colour-blindness 5.3,
A.1 Common Office file types
4.2.2.4 conformance
checking 4.3 see also automated
conformance testing tools conformance
inspection 8.4.2 consultancy
services for web accessibility 9.2 content
creation, questions for suppliers C.5 content
formats 4.2.2 PAS 78:2006 52 © BSI 8 March
2006 content
management system see CMS content
production system (CPS) 3.6 CSS (Cascading Style
Sheets) 3.6, 7.3 D Deaf Connexions 5.4.2 deaf
people access technology for 5.4 user profiles A.4 definitions,
terms and 3 design
process, questions for suppliers C.2 development,
questions for suppliers C.4 disability definition 3.9 see also impairment; learning
disabilities Disability Rights
Commission (DRC) E.3 disabled people involvement of 4.4 regular testing by 4.5 use of websites 5 dyslexia A.3 E e-accessibility
Quality Mark D.2 e-Government Unit
(eGU) E.2 ?easy
to read? 5.6 ECMAScript 7.4 eEurope 2005 Action Plan E.2 EuroAccessibility
Consortium (EA) D.1 European Design for All
e-Accessibility Network (EDeAN) E.2 European Internet
Accessibility Observatory (EIAO) E.2 expert
review 8.4.1 F Flash 3.10, 4.2.2.2, 7.5.3 Flash Player 3.10, 7.5.3.1 focus
groups 8.4.3.3.3 PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March
2006 53 H hard of
hearing people access technology for 5.4 user profiles A.4 heuristic
evaluation 8.4.1.2 heuristics,
definition 3.11 I IBM E.2 impairment definition 3.12 see also cognitive
impairment; motor impairments; vision impairment industry
bodies E.1 internal
evaluators 8.4.3.3.3 interoperability,
definition 3.13 J _javascript_ 7.4 L learning
disabilities access technology for 5.5 definition 3.14 user profiles A.3 M Macromedia Accessibility
resource centre 7.5.3.3 maintenance 8.1,
8.5 questions for suppliers C.7 mark-up,
definition 3.15 Mencap E.3 mobility,
user profiles A.2 motor
impairments, access technology for 5.7 O object
models 7.4.1 operating
systems, changes to optimise accessibility 5.2 PAS 78:2006 54 © BSI 8 March
2006 P packaged
applications, questions for suppliers C.3 partially
sighted people access technology for 5.3 and security measures for
websites 7.6 see also vision impairment PDF (Portable Document
Format) 3.17, 4.2.2.2, 7.5.2 physical
impairments 3.12 see also motor impairments plug-in rich
media formats 7.5 plug-ins,
definition 3.16 programming
languages, client side scripting and 7.4 publicly
available accessibility policy statements 6.3 R requirements,
questions for suppliers C.2 Royal National Institute
of the Blind (RNIB) E.3 Royal National Institute
for Deaf People (RNID) E.3 S sample
sizes for user testing 8.4.3.3.1 Scope E.3 screen
magnification software 5.3 screen
reader software 5.3 security
measures for websites 7.6 ?See it Right?
accreditation mark D.2 self-awarded
logos 6.2.3 sensory
impairments 3.12 see also blind people; deaf
people signing
avatars 5.4.2 specialised
evaluators 8.4.3.3.3 spreadsheet
documents 4.2.2.4 structural
languages 7.2 style
sheets 3.6, 7.3 success,
criteria for determination of Annex B suppliers,
suggested questions F.1, Annex C supportEAM D.2 PAS 78:2006 © BSI 8 March
2006 55 T technical
accessibility, determination 8.3 terms and
definitions 3 test
plans 8.1.3 creation of 8.2 testing 8 key stages 8.1.6 questions for suppliers C.6 for technical accessibility
8.3 for usable accessibility 8.4 textphone facilities 6.2.4 ?Turing test? 7.6 U UAAG (User Agent
Accessibility Guidelines) 3.20, 6.4.4 usability,
definition 3.18 Usability Professionals'
Association (UPA) E.1 usability
testing services, contracting Annex F usable
accessibility, determination 8.4 user
agent, definition 3.19 User Agent Accessibility
Guidelines (UAAG) 3.20, 6.4.4 user
profiles Annex A user
testing 8.4.3 budgetary considerations 8.4.3.2.3,
8.4.3.3 by disabled people 4.5 ethical and practical issues
8.4.3.2.4 methods 8.4.3.2 reasons for 8.4.3.1 recruitment for 8.4.3.3.2 V validation
8.3.2 vision
impairment user profiles A.1 see also blind people visual-orientated
anti-robot tests 7.6 PAS 78:2006 56 © BSI 8 March
2006 W W3C (World Wide Web
Consortium) 3.29, E.1 W3C specifications 3.23 and additional accessibility
provisions 4.6 upholding 4.2 W3C WAI (Web Accessibility
Initiative) 3.24, E.1 W3C WAI (Web Accessibility
Initiative) resources D.3 W3C/WAI guidelines see
accessibility guidelines web
accessibility consultancy services 9.2 Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 3.25, 6.4.2 upholding 4.2.2.2 web
design, contracting 9 Web Standards Project (WaSP) E.1 web
technologies 7 webpage
template, definition 3.26 website
commissioners 3.27 website
developers 3.28, 5.1.2 choosing 9.1 and the need for user testing
8.4.3.1 word
processing 4.2.2.4 World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C) 3.29, E.1 |