Talk:Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Accessibility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Accessibility, a group of editors promoting better access for disabled or otherwise disadvantaged users. For more information, such as what you can do to help, see the main project page.AccessibilityWikipedia:WikiProject AccessibilityTemplate:WikiProject AccessibilityAccessibility Disability Web Content Accessibility Guidelines is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability Computing: Websites Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (assessed as Mid-importance). Internet This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Is there a consenus on the use of the Social model of disability? Should "disabled users" be changed to "users with a disability"? Drlurch 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The terminology is not the same in every country and has evolved over time. "Disabled users" does not necessarily imply a medical model but is also used by people who find that society, not their impairment, disables them. ChristopheS (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Businesses that have an online presence should provide accessibility to disabled users. Not only are there ethical and commercial justifications[23] for implementing the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, in many jurisdictions, there are also legal reasons. If a business's website is not accessible, then the website owner could be sued for discrimination.[24]" This implies that websties must follow the WCAG, whereas I believe no law requires websties to follow the WCAG specifically, only that they are accesible to disabled users. Following the WCAG is only one way to achieve this. If there is a legal requirement to follow the WCAG, I would like to know, and if there isn't, clarification is needed. Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Correct, WCAG2 itself is not law, and when referenced by legislation, most often only applies to government or public sector websites, meaning websites funded by or part of a government. However, whether or not it applies to any particular site or individual depends, and one should understand their regional laws as they apply to them.

That said, there are specific instances to be aware of. For instance the FAA sites WCAG2 compliance as a requirement for at least 25% of kiosks at airports. The US Access Board 508 rules specify WCAG2, however they also specify a number of exceptions, an important one is "alternate facilitation", which allows for an alternate standard to be used provided the goal of actual accessibility is achieved or exceeded.

In the US, the ADA does not specify WCAG2. And there is a lack of case law supporting WCAG2, particularly at the federal level. The Winn-Dixie case was vacated by the 11th Court, thus is not citable case law and moot.

The important point though, is that what is legal is actual accessibility. And if you are not actually accessible, that's where a civil suit might be brought. Myndex talk   19:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Should the WCAG Samurai links be maintained? Or should they be frozen to an archive from 2008 or so?

The WCAG Samurai site seems to have been hijacked. The content is still there, but it's now hidden behind a load of SEO sales content - which isn't even accessible.

Given the poor achievement of the WCAG generally, I'd like to see the role of the Samurai much expanded here (WCAG itself is not a good goal for reaching accesibility), but not at the cost of plugging whoever is now running the site. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

WCAG 2 is the current standard. Levels A and AA even have been integrated into the European standard EN 301 549. WCAG Samurai was one person's crusade and isn't more than a historical footnote now. Even Joe Clark no longer maintains it. ChristopheS (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cabanehippopotamus (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Cabanehippopotamus (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am a Wikipedia editor, I am also a co-author of WCAG3 and the creator of the APCA. It was brought to my attention that there was an entry on this page that did not accurately reflect the draft status of WCAG3. I updated the entry to correctly reflect the current status, which is a working draft in development and not an official recommendation.

The concerns raised by those who brought the issue to my attention was that the way the entry had been written appeared to sound as if WCAG3 was the current recommendation.  Myndex talk   20:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

newp= newp.pkID; or newp.pkID =newp; 5.200.100.65 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Are the above colors WCAG compliant? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Assuming (i) a black foreground; (ii) your browser maps lightblue to #add8e6; and (iii) the last row of the first table has #f8f9fa as its background colour, try these links:

• https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=ffcccc
• https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=C2B280
• https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=ADDFAD
• https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=add8e6
• https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=ffecb2
• https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=f8f9fa
• https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=f88379
• https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=f7e98e
• https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=addfad
• https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=ffe4c4
• https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=add8e6
• https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=f0f8ff

In some browsers you may need to click the "back" button more times than expected.

The relevant accessibility guideline is at WCAG 2.0 section 1.4. note that whilst Level AA is mandatory, level AAA is optional. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately WCAG 2.x contrast is not accurate, and that Snook page even references the WCAG 1 methods which are even more bizarre. In full disclosure I am working on the new future methods, APCA and the APC-Readability Criterion. If you want a WCAG 3 checker, I suggest STARK, they have a free web extension.

As an example, WCAG claims that text in the red box is 6.45:1, nearly the high AAA level. Personally, I can' read it that well, and those with protanopia probably can't read it at all. I tested it ina clinically accurate protan simulator, and it's very hard to make out, yet WCAG rates it highly. APCA on the other hand rejects it as inaccessible...  Myndex talk   12:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Article currently states:

"The European Accessibility Act (EAA) will become legally applicable in EU member states on 28 June 2025. The EAA will require websites, apps, ebooks, ecommerce platforms, PDFs and others to conform to WCAG 2.1 AA criteria within the EU."

However, neither the directive's text nor the dedicated EAA wikipedia article makes any reference to WCAG.

I think a citation is much needed here, or the paragraph should be struck. Jakeisonline (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply