Week ..

Exercise -> Report
Review-> Responses


Online readings:

Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, by W3C WAI
Core Techniques for WCAG 1.0, by W3C WAI These are not specific to any particular "technology" or language.
HTML Techniques for WCAG 1.0, by W3C WAI This tells how you can use HTML to meet WCAG requirements. CSS Techniques for WCAG 1.0, by W3C WAI
This is the second technology-specific document; this one is about Cascading Style Sheets. Cascading Style Sheets really should be considered in the repertoire of web design skills. "Additional resources" link for more on CSS.

Hands On Assignment

I don't have any " moderately complex " web pages up, so I am using a page put together by a member of my family for her organization. It's at . This page does not get Priority One Bobby approval, largely because it has navigation images and bullets galore, with 15 instances of images without alt text. However, it appears to degrade gracefully, as seen in the Lynx viewer at http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html and the content can be accessed without images. Bobby choked on the table structure and (I suspect) the MS Theme coding throughout. I would clean that up first and then see if the document would validate at the W3C.org validator.

At the priority 2 level, Bobby objected to many instances of absolute sizes of borders, horizontal lines, etc. Cleaning up after Front Page and deleting the extraneous code would take care of a lot. Using a clean external style sheet instead of all the inline style/font mixes would help. {Avoid use of obsolete language}. In addition, I would use header elements to better show the structure of the document (section divisions are marked visually by font variations, not through structural header elements).

Level three items that need attention are specifying the natural language of the page; using ABBR and ACRONYM attributes and possibly adding keyboard shortcuts for primary links.

Review Questions

  1. How can you make a Java application more accessible to people with disabilities?
  2. What is the difference between the "Core Techniques," "HTML Techniques" and "CSS Techniques" documents for WCAG 1.0? When and how would you use each as a reference?
  3. You were asked to determine what changes would be necessary to bring your web page to Double-A and Triple-A compliance, in the Hands-On Exercise. Which specific tasks would you say were the easiest to accomplish, and which were the hardest? Were there any show-stoppers that would prevent you from achieving Double-A or Triple-A WCAG ratings?

Responses to review questions

  1. [momentary confusion ] I really don't understand Java at all, but I gather components of the program tools are being developed by both Sun and Microsoft that produce code accessible to assistive user agents.
  2. Core techniques for web content accessibility apply to various devices and browser types. They're more specific than the goals listed in the guidelines. The HTML techniques show how to include accessibility features in the structure of the document, while the CSS techniques show how to make presentation more accessible, or to provide an alternate visual presentation that does not thwart assistive browsers.
  3. The hardest thing is cleaning up the existing code. For me, it's also hard to apply CSS to layout. (I have used it to replace FONT tags and a few others, but not so much for positioning elements on the page.)