WCAG 2 & Uploader

[E.J. Zufelt]

Good evening Alison,

Let me start with an excerpt from W3C.

"Technology assumptions and the "baseline"

WCAG 2.0 defines accessibility guidelines (goals) and success criteria  
(testable criteria for conformance at different levels of  
accessibility). The guidelines and success criteria are described in a  
technology-independent way in order to allow conformance using any Web  
technology that supports accessibility. WCAG 2.0, therefore, does not  
require or prohibit the use of any specific technology. It is possible  
to conform to WCAG 2.0 using both W3C and non-W3C
technologies, as long as the technologies are supported by accessible  
user agents including assistive technologies" (http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20060327/conformance.html 
).

To this end it is the developer who selects the technologies and  
applies the guidelines.  So, although Flash is not what I would  
consider to be an accessible technology, it is a technology that does  
support some accessible user agents and assistive technology.   
Therefore, when testing Flash against WCAG 2.0 test it as if it were  
not anything special.  I recognize that in order to deliver desired  
services Flash is currently a necessary technology in Fluid.   
Hopefully emerging technologies will render Flash unnecessary for this  
purpose.

For example testing against 1.1.1 would mean that you would make sure  
that there is no non-text content in the Flash that is not represented  
somehow by text (image with text within it, etc. Testing against 4.1.2  
would mean to make sure that any UI components have their name and  
role set.  An example of a failure of 4.1.2 would be seen if when  
interacting with a Flash object with JAWS and you hear: "Button 1",  
"Button 12", "Button 22"; or worse, if you know there are buttons, but  
a technology like JAWS does not recognize the buttons at all.

An example of a Flash object that fails on both 1.1.1 and 4.1.2 would  
be Breeze.  Although there may not technically be a failure of 1.1.1  
(I cannot test this) it substantively fails by not exposing all of the  
text to assistive technology.  Since JAWS (which recognizes accessible  
Flash UI components) does not recognize the button that needs to be  
pressed in order for a participant to speak, it fails 4.1.2.

** Note: (preaching to the choir) Flash is ** not ** an accessible  
technology.  Flash is not accessible to screen-reader users on any  
platform other than Windows, and is not accessible to all Windows  
screen-reader users.  Flash is also not accessible to many keyboard  
only users on Firefox. I could go on and on and on.

I hope that helps,
Everett

Follow me on Twitter
http://twitter.com/ezufelt

View my LinkedIn Profile
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ezufelt




On 2010-02-09, at 10:21 PM, Alison Benjamin wrote:

> Good evening,
>
> I am trying to figure out how these WCAG guidelines apply to the  
> Uploader component.
>
> 1.1.1
>
> I don't know anything about Flash so advice on
> -- how this could apply 
> -- if it does apply 
> -- if it could be tested for in a QA plan 
> would be much appreciated.
>
>
> 4.1.2
> Similarly with this guideline as I'm not sure how to operationalize  
> it into a test.
>
> Here are some Uploader demos:
>
> Image gallery server demo		http://build.fluidproject.org:8080/sakai-imagegallery2-web/site/AddImages/
> Demo 							http://build.fluidproject.org/infusion/components/uploader/html/Uploader.html
>
> Thank you very much for your help and suggestions!
> Alison B
> _______________________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
> see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fluidproject.org/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20100209/1c7f64f7/attachment.html>