The Usability & Accessibility Working Group (UA-WG) was founded by the British Web Design and Marketing Association (BWDMA) and counts scientists, academics and industry professionals among its members.
The organisation exists to remedy social exclusion from the internet through practical initiatives. But its first such initiative is no mean feat: to promote what it says will be the UK's first ever accessibility accreditation scheme for suppliers of web design services.
Léonie Watson, Chairman of the UA-WG, was a creative designer and programmer who went from 20:20 vision to absolute blindness. She told OUT-LAW that many developers are struggling to understand what is required for accessibility, to know that what they produce is truly accessible.
The best-known standards for accessibility, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) from the Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium, were published in 1999. There is a problem, however: many of the 65 check points in the Guidelines require subjective testing, making it hard at times to say whether they have been met by a particular site.
OUT-LAW spoke to one developer (who asked not to be named) who sympathised with those trying to choose between suppliers. "How can you possibly know if a supplier really knows what they're talking about?" he asked. "I've seen loads of web developers' sites with Bobby and WAI badges that quite clearly aren't what they're claiming it to be. This accreditation should help."
WCAG Version 2.0 is expected early next year. Watson says of its current draft, released last month, that the Guidelines are easier to understand, although the accompanying recommendations may seem rather long and detailed.
Watson and her team are producing their own guidelines, which will be based partly on WCAG and partly on the experience of those involved, including representatives of the RNIB.
She said that there is no competition with the RNIB's See It Right Campaign, which provides a kite-mark scheme for accessible web sites. "Their scheme is for the site; ours is for the designer."
It seems that what some developers today consider as best accessibility practice, others consider a hindrance to disabled users. A recent article by web design firm Nomensa, where Watson works as head accessibility consultant, provides a good example: access keys. These are keyboard shortcuts that are intended to help users who have difficulty using pointing devices such as a mouse.
To achieve Level AAA conformance under WCAG Version 1.0 – the maximum rating – a web site must "provide keyboard shortcuts to important links". It gives this example: "specify shortcuts via the 'accesskey' attribute".
Nomensa says that, in terms of accessibility, "the idea of access keys does not deliver." The article explains that the access keys frequently override the commands used by screen readers or special browsers, which negates their benefit. And those who are supposed to benefit from access keys, says the article, rarely know what they are. "Skip links," concludes Nomensa, are a better option. (There is a link to the full article below.) In draft Version 2.0 of WCAG, use of access keys is not a featured checkpoint.
On UA-WG's new, fully-accessible, access key-free site, Watson makes the argument for the new scheme:
"The accreditation will enable the digital industry to identify qualified suppliers in what is a legally essential requirement for all organisations on the web. It will include education elements, a continuous self-assessment facility and a formal accreditation process."
Accreditation was highlighted in the Disability Rights Commission's April report on an accessibility study of 1,000 UK-based web sites. DRC Chairman Bert Massie said that raising the skills and understanding of web access by promoting a formal qualification for web designers and developers "is now an essential requirement."
But web design and development is not the same as a regulated profession like law, accountancy, architecture, engineering or medicine. Is this about to change?
"Web design is a peculiar field," Watson told OUT-LAW, "because it's so easy to teach yourself. But it's easy to learn bad design and, just as you wouldn't want to defend yourself in court when trained professionals are available, so you don't want your site designed by a maverick developer."
So will developers start wearing wigs and gowns to work? Hardly. Watson says that, while compulsory accreditation would be "wonderful", it's not realistic right now. "It's too ephemeral an industry," she acknowledges. "Not everyone would go for such a scheme, so it has to be entirely voluntary. But we hope ours will become the accepted standard."
Watson says there has been demand for the scheme from both those who design sites and, particularly as a result of legal pressures, from those that procure them. But there may also be legal reasons for the developer to take the initiative.
Struan Robertson, OUT-LAW.COM's editor and an IT lawyer with Masons, explains:
"Normally the legal responsibility for accessibility lies with the procuring client, not the developer. However, a developer has an obligation to its client to use reasonable skill and care in carrying out its services.
"Today's high-profile of accessibility is such that, if a developer does not provide an accessible web site in new work, the client could attempt to argue that the developer failed to perform this duty. We are not aware that such an argument has ever been used against a developer; but it is only a matter of time."
UA-WG perceives two phases for developers seeking accreditation. First, a developer checks its sites – possibly five or six sites – against UA-WG's key performance indicators. This is the self-governing phase. In the second phase, the developer pays a subscription fee and the sites undergo human evaluation. If successful, the developer can display a badge of accreditation.
Watson emphasised that UA-WG is a non-profit organisation, that any money made will be ploughed back in to the scheme and to accessibility education. The subscription fees have yet to be fixed, but Watson hopes to keep them "as low as possible."
Editor's note: When championing accessibility on OUT-LAW.COM, we are aware of our own hypocrisy: we are doing so from a site that has a poor level of accessibility. We are changing that now, with a complete re-design. Meantime, we have brought our sister site, AboutCookies.org, to Level AAA conformance – but will be reconsidering its use of access keys in light of Nomensa's article. All comments welcome to: [email protected]