EU Web Accessibility Observatory

Madrid

“November” 2009

2

INTECO

3

Web Accessibility Audit

Public Administration Websites accessibility audit

• Accessibility requirements of the Spanish Standard UNE 139803.

• Inclusion of solutions for the problems identified.

• Technical and executive summaries.

Monitoring reports / Periodic reviews

• Analysis done based on previous reports.

• Tracks the tasks performed for correction and improvement.

4

Web Accessibility Monitor

• Based on WCAG 1.0

• 30 Public Web sites studied in threesegments

• Twice per year (three so far)

• Sample of 10 pages per site

(25 in the first and the second year)

• Accessibility check:• Level I: 11 points tested

(Level I for WAI-A)

• Level II: 10 points tested

(Level I + II for WAI-AA)

• Analysis of the results• Data consolidation

• Comparison charts

• Global evaluation

• Conclusions

8,33

1,25

7,77

4,86

9,53

6,756,14

7,66

5,23

8,40

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

9,00

10,00

Pun

tuac

ione

s M

edia

s de

Res

ulta

dos

2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5

Puntos de Verif icación

Comparación de medias por verificación - Nivel II

9,829,18

8,557,82 7,68 7,21 6,91 6,40 6,36

4,03

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

9,00

10,00

Pun

tuac

ione

s M

edia

s de

Res

ulta

dos

BOE MEH SEG INE TAS MSC MUJ INJ UNE MEP

Portales

Puntuaciones Medias de Resultados - Segmento II - Nivel I

MEH - Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda BOE - Boletín Oficial del EstadoINE - Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal / INEMINJ - Instituto Nacional de la JuventudMEP - Ministerio de Educación, Política Social y DeporteMSC - Ministerio de Sanidad y ConsumoMUJ - Instituto de la MujerSEG - Seguridad SocialTAS - Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos SocialesUNE - Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

A: Nivel AAA: Nivel AANV: No válido

TOTALES

20%

10%70%

Nivel A Nivel AA NV

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

9,00

10,00

Pun

tuac

ione

s M

edia

s de

Res

ulta

dos

Puntos de Verificación

Comparación de Medias según puntos - Todos los portales - Nivel II

Oleada I 9,48 1,25 1,57 6,57 9,76 9,05 2,80 9,45 7,35 8,36

Oleada II 9,48 3,13 2,65 4,76 9,88 9,51 3,79 9,57 7,67 8,73

Oleada III 8,33 1,25 7,77 4,86 9,53 6,75 6,14 7,66 5,23 8,40

2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5

7,14

7,68

7,23

6,566,92

6,596,85

7,30

6,91

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

9,00

10,00

Oleada I - Enero 2007 7,14 6,56 6,85

Oleada II - Octubre 2007 7,68 6,92 7,30

Oleada III - Mayo 2008 7,23 6,59 6,91

Nivel I Nivel II Media

Comparativa de Puntuación entre oleadasNivel I, Nivel II y Media Global.

8,00

3,00

10,00

1,67

0,00

9,00

0,00

5,00

NP

10,00

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

9,00

10,00

Pun

tuac

ione

s M

edia

s de

Res

ulta

dos

2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5

Puntos de Verificación

Ministerio del Interior (MIR) - Puntuaciones Medias Nivel II

5

INTAV: INTECO Accessibility Validator

• Automatic Web Accessibility Checker using WCAG 1.0 and UNE 139803 standards.

• Alerts the webmaster when there are changes in the accessibility level of a website.

• Integrated with the INTECO’s web crawler.

6

Web Accessibility Audit Reports

Solutions

Advices

Requirements

Justification

Problems

7

LENOX: Proper Language Use Analyzer

• Semantic Web analyzer for the use of sexist language.

• Alerts the webmaster when sexist terms are added to a website (only in Spanish).

• Integrated with the INTECO’s web crawler.

8

EUROPEAN UNION WEB ACCESSIBILITY

OBSERVATORY

9

Background: European Union

Completed :

• WAB Cluster

• EIAO: Large scale accessibility benchmarking service

• BenToWeb: EARL, WCAG 2.0 Test suites

• Support-EAM: a European accreditation system

• CEN Workshop Agreement

Continuing:

• Euracert Quality Label

• e-Accessibility thematic network (scope is more than web –awarded? )

• eGovernment Monitor Network (eGovMoNet) (scope is more than web accessibility)

10

Ideas for the Project

Scope:

1. Provide ongoing Automated Web Accessibility Conformance testing

2. Continuous Improvement of : Methods, Metrics, Tests, Tools

3. Verify “quality” of tools and results(are results reliable?)?

4. Provide access to verified? tools to: Partners, Public?

5. Serve as a meeting place for (or pointer to?) news, information and discussion.

11

Summary:

Using the best tools available at the time, provide actionable data on the state of "web accessibility" in the EU in a timely and ongoing manner so that decision makers are properly informed.

12

Strategy

Use a “loosely coupled” tool chain of Crawler(s?), Validator(s), Report Generator(s), Archiver.

• Use the Best of breed

• Allow for updating, testing, comparison, migration.

• Plan for migration to the future.

• Provide “hooks” for 3rd party tools and assistance for manual testing

13

Rational:

A “loosely coupled” tool chain allows for:

• INCLUSION of those that meet requirements

• More adaptability

• Easier updating, testing, research, migration.

• Facilitates the Integration of other needs such as Spanish “sexist language”.

• Opens opportunities for cooperation and sharing

14

Opportunities

Archive

• Pages (selection/all)

• Results by Tool/page

Research

• Portal tool Fingerprinting

• DOM Fingerprinting

15

Some Accessibility Validators: how “valid”?

http://www.totalvalidator.com/

http://www.tawdis.net/

http://wave.webaim.org/

http://accessibility.egovmon.no/en/

http://achecker.ca/checker/index.php

http://valet.webthing.com/access/url.html

http://rastreador.inteco.es/intav/intavHomeAction.do

http://validator.nu/

http://www.sidar.org/hera/

16

Crawlers

Harvestman crawler:

http://code.google.com/p/harvestman-crawler/

Heritrix [Internet Archive] :

http://crawler.archive.org/

Nutch based [e.g. INTECO]:

http://lucene.apache.org/nutch/

Bixo [Apache Hadoop cluster, Cascading ] :

http://bixo.101tec.com/about/

Bixolabs [Bixo in Amazon’s Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) ]:

http://bixolabs.com/

D-Harvestman [dead?]

http://sourceforge.net/projects/dcrawler/

17

Challenges

Moving “Web Accessibility” requirements

• Experience highlights current shortcomings (HTML5)

Conformance testing follows laws and standards

Additional Local Requirements (e.g. Sexist Language)

• Harmonisation “plus”

Continuous conformance Testing

Continuous TOOL Testing.

18

Bibliography

A comparative test of web accessibility evaluation methods

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1414494