By M. Benassaya – User Experience & Accessibility Expert at SQUAD

In a societal context where technological evolution has taken on enormous proportions and continues to become more integrated into our daily lives, the web has been a powerful driver and facilitator in the development of new uses and new technologies. Moreover, its impact is not limited to serving as a springboard, as the web remains an essential cog in our new ecosystem, where everything is becoming dematerialized. From administration to education, culture and, more generally, human relations, the web is at the heart of our daily lives and provides us with vast and extensive access to information. This notion of ubiquity(being present everywhere at once or in several places at the same time.Larousse)digital ubiquity, where information and interaction are everywhere and permanent, must bring us back to the notions of equality and autonomy in access to information. Indeed, is the "simple" provision of information or services sufficient for it to be used and exploitable by all?

The answer is no, because the context in which a website is used is paramount in determining its usability, i.e., its ability to be used by identified users to achieve specific goals effectively, efficiently, and satisfactorily, as defined by ISO 9241-11 (ISO, 1998). This definition tells us that the universality of the web is strongly linked to, and indeed only makes sense when taking into account, individual variations in interaction and the specific needs inherent to each type of person. For example, a user with a visual impairment will not navigate in the same way, nor with the same strategies and tools, as a sighted user. Blind people will use technical aids, such as a screen reader and/or a Braille display, to perform their browsing tasks. The web and its evolution should be synonymous with revolution for people with disabilities, thanks to online services that allow them to perform certain daily and/or administrative tasks without having to travel and/or be independent. However, the reality is quite different: the inaccessibility of websites is proving to be a source of exclusion. It is in this sense that the digital divide exists, because the availability of information is not enough to guarantee access to information.

This is why government institutions in various countries have decided to establish a legal and regulatory framework for digital accessibility in order to make websites accessible(in France, the law of February 11, 2005, on "equal rights and opportunities" requires various public communication services to be accessible to people with disabilities. However, the law is evolving to cover all public and private sector websites). To this end, these institutions have provided design rules for web interface designers. These design rules are based on the standard international WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) (WCAG, 1999). These rules explain how to design an accessible website through a set of recommendations. The purpose of making these standards available is to raise awareness and guide designers in developing accessible websites that are compatible with assistive technologies. The development of these accessibility standards is linked to the creation of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) (1997) by the W3C. The first version of this standard following the creation of WAI dates back to 1999, but other versions have followed in order to adapt to technological, graphic, and interactive developments on the web.

History

In order to understand the arrival of version 2.1 of the WCAG standards, it is important to briefly review the origins and major milestones of accessibility through the W3C and the WCAG guidelines.

In terms of evolution, WCAG 1.0 included 14 guidelines, the first 11 of which were aimed at ensuring "elegant" transformation of content in different user contexts (for example, providing equivalent alternatives to visual and auditory content, or not relying exclusively on colors). Their scope of application focused mainly on HTML content.

In 2008, WCAG 2.0 not only built on the rules of WCAG 1.0, but also broadened their scope to include several types of technologies (e.g., CSS, XML, Silverlight, Flash, PDF, etc.). Emphasis was also placed on ease of adoption and implementation by helping designers integrate these standards through an explanatory guide covering both integration and evaluation. Another change concerns the structure of the guidelines. WCAG 2.0 takes a thematic approach based on four fundamental principles of content:

• Perceptible
• Usable
• Robust
• Understandable

Each of these principles is divided into 12 general guidelines, which are themselves broken down into one or more success criteria at levels A, AA (the legal standard in France and many other countries) and AAA.

The extension of WCAG 2.0 (WCAG, 2008) to 2.1 (WCAG, 2018) therefore includes the addition of guidelines specifying new success criteria. However, the development of version 2.1, like previous versions, is an iterative process that has led to modifications/deletions of the guidelines and criteria initially envisaged.

WCAG 2.1, past and future changes

The working group tasked with producing this WCAG 2.1 extension was created in the summer of 2016 (Access42, 2017). A year later, a first draft of the working document was made available, presenting three new guidelines (Access42, 2017):

√ Guideline 2.5 – Accessible Pointers:The goal is to make it easier for users to use pointer functionality. It should define how websites should support all types of pointers (mouse, touch, stylus, etc.). In August 2017, this guideline was under discussion and subject to removal. In January 2018, the working group ruled to preserve the guideline and associated criteria.

√ Guideline 2.6 – Additional Data Inputs:Ensure that the device's sensor inputs do not create a barrier for users. This rule is specifically dedicated to mobile devices. For example, it requires that content viewing be independent of the device's orientation.

XGuideline 2.7 – Voice:Allow users who navigate using speech to predict the names of interface components to be spoken. This requires that the label of an interactive component be included in the element's label. This guideline has not been retained, but the single associated criterion has been carried over to the existing guideline "2.4 – Navigable."

The W3C operates in working groups that make draft working documents available as they progress. This allows feedback to be gathered on the relevance and feasibility of the recommendations contained in their documents. This is why, within a few months, changes are made to the working document. In fact, the version of WCAG 2.1 that we present below is likely to be modified again because some criteria are considered "at risk." The document dated January 30 is in the "Candidate Recommendation" phase, which aims to test and improve the level of implementation of the recommendations. The final, validated version of the document is scheduled for release in June 2018.

 The new WCAG 2.1 criteria

In this version of WCAG 2.1, there are 17 additional criteria across the two new guidelines seen above (2.5 and 2.6) and distributed across other guidelines. Here they are, organized according to the level of obligation (risk criteria are marked with the pictogram :).

LEVEL A

• 2.4.11 Character Keyboard Shortcuts:If a keyboard shortcut is implemented in the content using only letters (including uppercase and lowercase letters), punctuation marks, numbers, or symbols, then at least one of the following is true:

1. Stop: A mechanism is available to disable the shortcut.
2. Resume: A mechanism is available to restart the shortcut in order to use one or more non-printable keyboard characters (e.g., Ctrl, Alt, etc.).
3. Active only when focused: The keyboard shortcut for an interface component is only active when the component has focus.

• 2.4.12 Label in name: Foruser interface components with labels that include text or text images, the name contains the text that is visually presented.
• 2.5.1 Pointer gestures: Allfeatures that use multi-point gestures or paths for operation can be used with a single pointer without a path-based gesture, unless a multi-point gesture or path-based gesture is essential.

2.5.2 Pointer cancellation: Forfeatures that can be operated using a single pointer, at least one of the following points is true:

1. No down event: The pointer's down event is not used to execute part of the function.
2. Interrupt or cancel: Function completion is associated with the up event, which is a mechanism available for interrupting the function before completion or canceling the function after completion.
3. Reversal by the up-event: The up-event reverses any result of the previous down-event;
4. Essential: It is essential to complete the function during the down event.

• 2.6.1 Motion Activation: Functionalitythat can be controlled bythe movement of the device or the movement of the user can also be controlled by user interface components, so the response to movement can be disabled to prevent accidental triggering, except when:

1. Accessible interface: Motion is used to operate the feature via an accessible interface.
2. Essential: Movement is essential for function, and this would invalidate the activity.

LEVEL AA

• 1.3.4 Identify common objectives:The definition of each input field that collects user information can be determined by programming when:

1. The input field has a definition that corresponds to the names of the HTML 5.2 Auto-fill fields.
2. The content is implemented using technologies that identify the expected meaning of form input data.

• 1.4.10 Content rearrangement: Contentcan be presented without loss of information or functionality, and without having to scroll in two dimensions. In other words, content can be enlarged up to 400% without loss of content and without using the horizontal scroll bar for vertically presented content. The opposite applies to horizontally presented content.

• 1.4.11 Contrast for non-text elements:The visual presentation of thefollowing elements has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 relative to adjacent colors:

1. Interface components: Visual information used to indicate the states and boundaries of interface components, except for inactive components or if the appearance of the component is determined by the user agent or not modified by the author.
2. Graphic objects: graphic elements necessary for understanding the content, except where a particular graphic presentation is essential for conveying the information.

• 1.4.12 Text spacing: Incontent implemented using markup languages that support the following text style properties, no loss of content or functionality occurs by setting all of the following and not changing any other style properties:

1. Line height at least equal to 1.5 times the font size
2. Letter spacing of at least twice the font size
3. Letter spacing of at least 0.12 times the font size
4. Word spacing of at least 0.16 times the font size

Exception: Human languages and scripts that do not use one or more of these text style properties in written text may conform by using only the properties that are customary.

• 1.4.13 Hover or Focus Content: Whenentering and exiting pointer hover or keyboard focus triggers additional content to become visible and hidden, respectively, the following is true:

1. Discardable: A mechanism is available to discard the extra content without moving the pointer or keyboard focus, unless the extra content communicates: an input error, hides or replaces other content.
2. Hoverable: If hovering the pointer can trigger the additional content, then the pointer can be moved over the additional content without it disappearing.
3. Persistent: Additional content remains visible until the hover or focus trigger is: removed, rejected by the user, or its information is no longer valid.

• 2.6.2 Orientation: Contentdoes not limit its view and operation to a single display orientation, such as portrait or landscape, unless a specific display orientation is essential.
• 3.2.6 Status Change:In the case of content implemented using markup language, status messages can be determined programmatically through roles or properties, so that they can be presented to the user via assistive technologies without receiving focus.

AAA LEVEL

• 1.3.5 Identify the purpose: In the case of content implemented using markup languages, the purpose of user interface components, icons, and regions can be determined programmatically.
• 2.2.6 End of session:Users are notified of the duration of any user inactivity that could result in data loss, unless the data is retained for more than 20 hours when the user does not perform any action.
• 2.2.7 Interaction-based animation: Motion-based animation triggered by interaction may be disabled, unless the animation is essential to the functionality or information conveyed.
• 2.5.3 Target size:The target size for pointer inputs is at least 44 by 44 CSS pixels, except when:

1. Equivalent: The target is available via a link or equivalent control on the same page that is at least 44 x 44 pixels CSS.
2. Online: The target is in a sentence or block of text.
3. User agent control: The target size is determined by the user agent and is not modified by the author.
4. Essential: A specific presentation of the target is essential to the information communicated.

• 2.5.4 Simultaneous Input Mechanisms:Web contentdoes not limit the use of input methods available on a platform, unless the restriction is essential, necessary to ensure content security, or required to comply with user settings.

In conclusion, if it took nine years to produce a second version of the WCAG and another ten to arrive at extension 2.1, this gives an idea of how difficult it is to successfully correlate WCAG solutions with the rapid evolution of various web methods, technologies, and trends. This is precisely what the W3C is attempting to do with this extension. The focus is on requirements for mobile interfaces, voice control, and compensating for certain visual and cognitive impairments affected by the informational and interactive richness of interfaces.

The fact is that despite the existence of WCAG, few websites are accessible. Several studies conducted by the European Union indicate that less than 20% of the websites evaluated comply with accessibility standards (European Union, 2005). The reasons for this figure can be found in a study of 189 designers (Lespinet-Najib, 2014) on their perception of accessibility. The authors observe that one in two respondents considers that making a website accessible represents a higher economic cost than a non-accessible website; one in three respondents associates accessibility with poor graphics, making the website unattractive and uninspiring; and one in two respondents considers that it is more complex to implement an accessible website than a non-accessible website. Behind these results lies not only a genuine lack of knowledge about the standards that have been put in place, but also certain difficulties in understanding and applying the standards. Indeed, the very general nature of the WCAG 2.0 standards makes it difficult to accommodate the wide variety of design projects. They are therefore highly subject to interpretation by designers and, as a result, very subjective in their application.

Despite the undeniable improvements brought about by WCAG 2.1 in terms of accessibility and coverage of different usage contexts, it seems coercive to take certain criteria into account on existing sites without starting from scratch, given all the budgetary and technical constraints that such a redesign entails (for example: 2.4.10 – the requirement to recompose content).

The goal of WCAG 2.1 is to provide an initial bridge to WCAG 3.0 (Mediacurrent, 2018), which represents a significant undertaking. It is therefore not impossible that there will be other extensions and versions of these recommendations before WCAG 3.0 is finalized. However, given the figures on website compliance and the low adoption of WCAG 2.0 by designers, the new technical requirements of WCAG 2.1 may prove too complex to implement. It is therefore possible that this important bridge to WCAG 3.0 will be uncrossable for a large number of designers and will not allow people with disabilities to access the world of the web.

References
Access42 (2017). What's new in WCAG 2.1. August 10, 2017. [Online]. Accessed February 6, 2018, at https://access42.net/nouveaute-wcag

Accessibility of public sector services in the European Union (2005). Report by the UK presidency of the EU. Web accessibility in European countries: level of compliance with latest international accessibility specifications, notably WCAG 2.0 and approaches or plans to implement those specifications (2009). Report by the European Union.

Lespinet-Najib, V., Pinède, N., Belio, C., Demontoux, C., and Liquète, V. (2014). Web accessibility in France in 2013: National survey on the practices and uses of web professionals. Terminal [Online], 116 | 2015, published online on December 25, 2014, accessed on May 12, 2017. URL: http://terminal.revues.org/649; DOI: 10.4000/terminal.649

Mediacurrent (2018). Accessibility updates: WCAG 2.1. January 29, 2018. [Online]. Accessed February 6, 2018, at http://www.mediacurrent.com/blog/accessibility-updates-wcag-21

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (Ed., 1998). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – Part 11: Guidance on usability (ISO 9241-11).

W3C. (2008). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0 (1999). W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Accessed February 6, 2018, at: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 (2008). W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Retrieved February 6, 2018, from: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 (2018, January 30). W3C Candidate Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Retrieved February 6, 2018, from: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#abstract

 World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (1997). World Wide Web Consortium Launches International Web Accessibility Initiative. Press release, April 7, 1997.