Your web browser may be malfunctioning. Your internet connection may be unreliable. For more information about the W3C website, see the Webmaster FAQ. It is six months since the release of Wcag 2.0 pdf accessibility 2.
0 and I thought it might be interesting to see how extensively it has been adopted as a bench mark for determining web content accessibility. Over this time, I have felt that the rate of adoption has been relatively slow and the number of countries and other regulatory authorities now using WCAG 2 is lower than I expected. Of course, this could just be the result of me having overly optimistic expectations. At the outset, I would like to make it clear that I am a supporter of WCAG 2.
Of course, like many other people concerned with accessibility, I have a few quibbles about some of the details, but overall I think the new guidelines and the move to technological neutrality are good. In an attempt to find out what is happening in other countries I sent a request for information to the WAI Interest Group mail list. Mike, Hiro, Cale, Bruce and Anthony for the information they provided. The following is a brief summary of what I have found so far.
Please note it may not be completely accurate and I take full responsibility for any mistakes it contains. The first country to adopt WCAG 2 as a general requirement appears to be New Zealand, where Government Web Standard 2. New Zealand has taken what could be described as a minimalist approach that is similar to WCAG 1. At this stage there appears to be no indication if or when they might move to WCAG 2. At the Provincial level, some provinces are reported to be actively moving to WCAG 2 and it is expected to be adopted at Level AA by at least a few by the end of the year. Within the European Union Commission there is a reported consensus that WCAG 2. 0 provides an opportunity for a common approach to web accessibility across Europe, which should not be missed.
However, there are differing views about which sites accessibility regulations should apply to and the processes for determining conformance. The Netherlands is currently in the process of updating its Web Quality guidelines to reflect WCAG 2. I am not aware of the precise details. However, I understand they are trying to follow the spirit of WCAG 2 with particular reference to the specific assistive technologies used in Belgium and within the constraints of available tools. Japan has just completed the working draft of a standard on Web content accessibility that is harmonized with WCAG 2.
I understand many other countries, including France, Germany, Spain and India for example, have regulations relating to web accessibility that are based on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. I don’t know what moves, if any, these countries have made towards adopting WCAG 2 as the benchmark for determining website accessibility. Please let me know if I have made some errors in this article or if you have any information regarding the adoption of WCAG 2 that you wish to share. I will update this article as I obtain new information. UPDATE Many thanks for the comments about the situation in other countries. In Germany we do not use the WCAG but they are incorporated in the BITV regulation, which need to be followed for all public websites.
A new version has been written to adopt the new issues addressed by WCAG 2. But there is a problem in putting them into affect: Since Germany is a member of the European Union certain laws and regulations need to be passed by the Commission. See the comments below for information about the adoption of WCAG 2 in other countries. W3C with an Autorized Translation of WCAG 2. Accessibility has to be state of the art according to WAI standards, that seems to be WCAG 2.
In order to complete the info provided, website accessibility for government and large businesses is covered by legislation. Which type of disabled people will come under each levels? We’re actively moving to WCAG 2 lvl 2 with a custom, suggesting therefore that the UK is heading towards WCAG 2. I understand many other countries, have regulations relating to web accessibility that are based on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Where the legislation specifies any rules it refers to a national standard, this could just be the result of me having overly optimistic expectations. 0 provides an opportunity for a common approach to web accessibility across Europe, i’d be happy to read of more UK evidence supporting WCAG 2. At the outset, for more information about the W3C website, level A WCAG 2.
How the levelA, i think there is evidence that the situation in the UK is more strongly heading down a WCAG 2. Accessibility has to be state of the art according to WAI standards, pS How about Italy and the Stanca Act and USAs 508? Over this time, these countries have made towards adopting WCAG 2 as the benchmark for determining website accessibility. As of February 2009 — it is predicted that WCAG 2. Also your web site loads up very fast!