Overview

This page will walk through the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines principles and conformance levels. We'll go over WCAG 2.0 principles as this is the foundation for version 2.1.

WCAG 2.0 Principles

The four guiding principles of WCAG 2.0 say that Web content must be Perceivable, Operable, Understandable and Robust (POUR) in order to be accessible to people with disabilities.

Perceivable – Information and user interface components must be presentable to users in ways they can perceive.
- This means that users must be able to perceive the information being presented (it can't be invisible to all of their senses)
Operable – User interface components and navigation must be operable.
- This means that users must be able to operate the interface (the interface cannot require interaction that a user cannot perform)
Understandable – Information and the operation of user interface must be understandable.
- This means that users must be able to understand the information as well as the operation of the user interface (the content or operation cannot be beyond their understanding)
Robust – Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.
- This means that users must be able to access the content as technologies advance (as technologies and user agents evolve, the content should remain accessible)

Source: Introduction to Understanding WCAG 2.0

Principles Explained

Perceivable

For content to be perceivable it must be possible to perceive it through multiple senses. While there are a variety of ways to provide alternatives perceivable through alternate senses (e.g., audio descriptions for visual content for those who are blind or sign language interpretation of audio content for those who are Deaf), text alternatives are generally the best choice.

Text can be converted into a variety of forms. It can be read aloud by screen reading software or converted to Braille for those who are blind. It can be translated into other languages for those reading in a second language or it can be magnified without losing its sharp appearance for those with low vision. Its color can be changed easily to make it more readable for those who are colorblind or need high contrast.

Key Point: Plain text is the most adaptable alternate format because it can be easily converted into a variety of forms to make content perceivable across a wide range of accessibility needs.

Operable

In the context of Web accessibility operability generally means that something is functional using a keyboard. If functional items are not keyboard operable, they will be inaccessible to many users.

Developers often create features that operate with a mouse, sometimes overlooking keyboard functionality. Most people accessing the Internet do use a mouse, but many do not. A person who is blind is unlikely to use a mouse, but will instead rely almost exclusively on keyboard access. Power users, often developers or programmers, also tend to be keyboard users, so usability is lost for this group as well when keyboard access is not programmed in.

Operable can also mean functional using one’s voice. Some people with severe motor impairments use voice recognition software along with switches (see figure below) to operate their computers and navigate the Web. This means there must be text associated with functional elements like graphical buttons, so one can speak the text to bring focus to an element, and those elements must be keyboard operable so a switch can be used to activate the element. Pressing a switch is much like pressing the Enter key or Spacebar on a keyboard, or clicking a mouse.

Example Button Switch

Figure: A button switch used to replicate a mouse click

Source: Wikipedia

Key Point: All functional elements in Web content that operate with a mouse must also operate with a keyboard.

Understandable

Understandable refers to comprehending both the content and features of a website. Content that uses more complex or advanced language than is necessary may be difficult to understand for some people with disabilities, as well those reading in a second language, or perhaps older users with diminishing cognitive abilities. Particularly for public access sites, the reading level of the language used should be minimized, using simpler language wherever possible.

The second aspect of understanding relates to the consistency and ease of use of the navigation elements on a site, reducing the number of navigation elements, and presenting these elements consistently throughout a website. This can improve usability for many users, including those who are blind, those with cognitive or learning disabilities, and older users.

A person who is blind and using a screen reader to navigate a site will often dedicate some effort to mapping to memory the navigation structure of a site, much like one might visualize traveling from point A to point B through a building or through city streets. If the navigation structure changes, it can often lead to confusion, and to having to map the navigation structure over again. If the navigation stays consistent, it only needs to be learned once, after which cognitive effort can focus on understanding the important content of a webpage or website.

Key Point: Use simple, consistent, predictable navigation elements throughout a website.

Robust

Robust, as described by W3C, means that content works well across a wide range of Web and assistive technologies. This generally means using technology to standard. Web browsers and assistive technologies base their development around standards such as HTML, and are able to interpret content that is created in a standard way. When content varies from the standard, assistive technologies often have trouble interpreting it. Not all content must comply with the standards, but when custom content is created that does not comply, a secondary standardized version should be provided so the content “degrades gracefully.” Web content that degrades gracefully is intended to function best in the most current browsers and assistive technologies, and then as older, less feature-rich technologies view it, it should degrade in a way that is still functional, but with fewer features.

Technical: With the advent of WAI ARIA, it is now possible to veer from the standard, perhaps using HTML in new ways that was not initially intended. ARIA attributes can be used to describe the role, states, and properties of custom elements. For example, an HTML <div> element was never intended to be clickable, but with some JavaScript it is possible to add click functionality, though from an assistive technology’s perspective the <div> is just a container with no functionality. A <div> has been used in a non-standard way in this case. ARIA can now be added to that customized <div> to give it a role of “button” for instance, and made focusable adding a tabindex attribute, and made clickable by adding aria-pressed attribute to describe its state as pressed or not pressed, and so on.

There are other occasions where non-standard technologies such as embedded Flash objects or Java applets might be used. Though it is possible to make these objects somewhat accessible, they are often challenging to access and operate effectively with assistive technologies. In such cases alternatives are generally needed. Some Flash development tools, for instance, provide an option to generate an HTML version, though these tend to be static representations of what was interactive in the Flash. Where possible, HTML5, with CSS, scripting, and ARIA should be used to develop interactive content for the Web.

Key Point: Where non-standard technologies are used, or where standard technologies are used in non-standard ways, provide standardized alternatives to allow content to degrade gracefully.

WCAG 2.0 Conformance Levels

In addition to being grouped by principles, WCAG 2.0 is also grouped by level of conformance. These levels are described by W3C as follows:

Conformance Level: One of the following levels of conformance is met in full.

Note 1: Although conformance can only be achieved at the stated levels, authors are encouraged to report (in their claim) any progress toward meeting success criteria from all levels beyond the achieved level of conformance.

Note 2: It is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA Success Criteria for some content.

Source: Understanding Conformance

Conformance levels can be thought of in terms of their importance toward removing barriers with Level A being the most important. It is helpful to think of levels as things you must do, should do, and could do.

Level A: These issues must be resolved or some groups will not be able to access the content. The issues at this level represent significant barriers that may not be overcome with work-arounds. An example of a Level A barrier is missing alternative text to describe an image. There is little a blind person can do on their own to understand the content of an image without a text description.
Level AA: These issues should be resolved or some group will find it difficult to access or use the content. These issues can often be circumvented with some effort, but will make using or understanding Web content more effortful. An example of a Level AA barrier is not being able to follow the focus of the cursor when navigating through content with a keyboard. For a person with low vision navigating with a keyboard, or a fully able keyboard user for that matter, navigating through content can be very difficult if one cannot see where the cursor is located and is unable to tell when to press the Enter key to activate a link or button.
Level AAA: These issues could be resolved to improve usability for all groups. Web content may be technically accessible, but usability can be improved by resolving these issues. An example of a Level AAA barrier would be presenting acronyms or abbreviations without providing their full wording. For a person who is blind, an acronym read by a screen reader may sound like gibberish. For a fully able user who is not familiar with a short form, an acronym or abbreviation may have no useful meaning, at least not without having to search out the meaning elsewhere.

Note: WATech Policy #188 and the Section 508 Refresh still use WCAG 2.0 AA as the standard to meet, but plans in place to include WCAG 2.1. Siteimprove (a website checking tool) and Ally in Canvas have integrated WCAG 2.1 already.

Resources

WAI-ARIA (Web Accessibility Initiative - Accessible Rich Internet Applications)
W3C Understanding Conformance

Content from "WCAG 2.0 Principles" by Greg Gay of Ryerson University, Change School of Continuing Education, is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0