Department of Internal Affairs New Zealand Government Web Accessibility Self-Assessments Jason Kiss...

Department of Internal Affairs

New Zealand Government Web Accessibility

Self-Assessments

Jason KissSenior Advisor - Digital EngagementDept. of Internal [email protected]: @jkiss


Overview

• Background and context

• Goals

• Methodology

• Analysis

• Results

• Conclusions

• Future plans


Background and Context

New Zealand• ~4.5 million people

• Earthquakes (15K/yr)

• New flag?



New Zealand• Relatively small government

• ~500 central government websites

• User-centred consolidation underway

• Few accessibility experts and consultants



2003NZ Government Web Guidelines• Cabinet mandate

• All core government agencies ( currently ~33)

• WCAG 1.0



December 2008



March 2009 NZ Government Web Standards 2.0• WCAG 2.0 AA + “New Zealand Layer”



2011 Self-Assessments• Very simple

• Results not very useful

• But, indicated significant variability in govt and vendor knowledge and skill



2012-13 • Consultation on new Web Standards:

– Govt agencies

– Disability communities

–Web design/development firms

• Web Standards Working Group (WSWG)



July 2013 NZ Govt Web Accessibility Standard• WCAG 2.0 AA + some exceptions• 4 year implementation schedule• “High-stakes” vs. “core” content



WCAG 2.0 Exceptions• Complex visual maps• Full text alternatives over audio description• Captions: 10 day grace period except for

“high-stakes” content• Live captions: only for “high-stakes” content


GOALS: 2014 Self-Assessments

Not a compliance exercise!• Report on agency progress after 1 yr• Baseline for continual improvement• Raise awareness, knowledge and skill


GOALS: 2014 Self-Assessments

How• Identify most common Web Standards issues• Assess risks and identify plans to address• Self-assessment workshops• Inform training and education for agencies

and vendors


METHODOLOGY: 2014 Self-Assessments

Fit for purpose• Each agency…• From across all its websites…

Up to 5 home pages

Up to 5 contact us

pages

68 (max) random pages

+ +


METHODOLOGY : 2014 Self-Assessments

Fit for purpose• Simple results spreadsheet• Easy-to-understand guides for in-house

assessment


METHODOLOGY : 2014 Self-Assessments

Page selection• Weighted toward the most visited pages from

the agency's most visited websites.• Suggested procedures for selecting pages, e.g.

Google Analytics



Page assessment• In-house, external vendor, or combination?• Assessment guides for practical help• Incorrect/inaccurate assessment expected



Risk registerGroup, rate, and prioritise associated risks:–Where is the biggest bang for the buck?– Immediate fix or wait for redesign?– How to respond if the risk occurs?


ANALYSIS: 2014 Self-Assessments

Auditing the results• Web Standards Working Group (WSWG)• 5 pages from each assessment:– 1 home page– 1 contact us page– 3 random pages


ANALYSIS: 2014 Self-Assessments

Risk register reviewBest effort to:• Check rated impact severity of identified risks• Find risks that were overlooked


RESULTS: 2014 Self-Assessments

Risk register analysis – rating severity• Severity of most risks was overrated

• Cause of a risk is not the same thing as its occurrence

• Cost of removing a risk is not the cost of dealing with its occurrence

• More guidance on risk assessment needed!



Risk register analysis – missing risks• Compared agencies’ results w/ WSWG audits

• 79% missing at least one risk

• +50% missing at least four or more risks



Number of risks

identified(% of total)

WCAG 2.0 Guideline Specific risk causes

60 (15%)

Provide ways to help users navigate, find content, and determine where they are.

Lack of visible focus; incorrectly assessed bypass blocks; ambiguous link purpose, often incorrectly assessed.

57 (14%)

Make it easier for users to see and hear content including separating foreground from background.

Insufficient colour contrast; information communicated solely through colour (esp. links); text delivered in images instead of as text.

56 (14%)

Create content that can be presented in different ways (for example simpler layout) without losing information or structure.

Form labels not programmatically associated with form fields; headings not marked up as headings; general semantic relationships not provided in HTML mark-up.



Risk register analysis – mitigationFew risk registers:• Identified remedial actions w/ start/end dates

• Integrated remedial actions with websites’ design or development plans

• Considered responses if a risk manifested




Agencies’ self-assessed scores


Requirement Average compliance rate (%)

WCAG 2.4.7 Focus Visible 56%

WCAG 4.1.1 Parsing 57%

WCAG 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) 62%

WCAG 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks 63%

WCAG 1.3.1 Info and Relationships 67%

WCAG 1.1.1 Non-text Content 70%

WCAG 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value 72%



WSWG audit scores


Requirement Average compliance rate (%)

WCAG 1.3.1 Info and Relationships 25%

WCAG 1.1.1 Non-text Content 34%

WCAG 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) 36%

WCAG 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value 36%

WCAG 2.4.7 Focus Visible 38%

WCAG 4.1.1 Parsing 54%

WCAG 1.4.1 Use of Color 64%



Self-assessed vs. audit scores


Self-assessments WSWG audits

WCAG 2.4.7 Focus Visible WCAG 1.3.1 Info and Relationships

WCAG 4.1.1 Parsing WCAG 1.1.1 Non-text Content

WCAG 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) WCAG 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum)

WCAG 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks WCAG 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value

WCAG 1.3.1 Info and Relationships WCAG 2.4.7 Focus Visible

WCAG 1.1.1 Non-text Content WCAG 4.1.1 Parsing

WCAG 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value WCAG 1.4.1 Use of Color



Audit variances• Difference between the two scores

• Indication of accuracy or understanding

• Some passing marks the WSWG audits considered failures, and vice versa

• Greater the variance, the less the reqt was understood or accurately assessed


WCAG

1.3.1

WCAG

1.1.1

WCAG

1.4.3

WCAG

4.1.2

WCAG

2.4.7

WCAG

4.1.1

WCAG

1.4.1

WCAG

2.4.4

WCAG

2.1.1

WCAG

1.4.5

WCAG

2.4.6

WCAG

3.3.2

WCAG

3.1.2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Avg WSWG audit compliance scoreLinear (Avg WSWG audit compliance score)Avg difference between audit and self-assessed compliance scoresLinear (Avg difference between audit and self-assessed compliance scores)



Audit variances – Interesting bits• Top 5 reqts with highest variance are in the

top 7 with the lowest compliance

• These top 5 reqts are:– common failures across agency web pages– the most often incorrectly assessed or

understood



Audit variances – Interesting bits• Top 5 reqts arguably 5 of the most important:–WCAG 1.1.1 Non-text Content–WCAG 1.3.1 Info and Relationships–WCAG 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum)–WCAG 2.4.7 Focus Visible–WCAG 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value


CONCLUSIONS: 2014 Self-Assessments

A worthwhile effort• Improved understanding of accessibility

• Opportunity to discuss, learn, and ask

• Confirm, with evidence, most common issues

• Better understand current state

• Identify what needs improvemement

• Inform training and education


FUTURE PLANS


FUTURE PLANS: 2014 Self-Assessments

Workshops – govt and vendors• Shift focus from compliance to risk mgmt• Integrate with govt ICT maturity model• Focus on most common and least

understood requirements • Help agencies understand the ‘why’ • Embed accessibility in day-to-day processes



More practical guidance• Web Accessibility Standard Assessment Guide

will be published• Direct people to and help them navigate

existing guidance and resources



Virtual community of expertise• Stop relying on one working group or team• Take a coaching role and deliver hands-on

training to lift capability• Build community of advocates and experts

across agencies, vendors, jurisdictions• Openly share our experiences, good and bad


…like here at OZeWAI!

Thanks.

Department of Internal Affairs New Zealand Government Web Accessibility Self-Assessments Jason Kiss...

Documents

Transcript of Department of Internal Affairs New Zealand Government Web Accessibility Self-Assessments Jason Kiss...