[RfR] Accessibility statement first draft #320
Conversation
🚦 Pa11y Accessibility ReportRunning Pa11y on 1 URLs:
✔ 1/1 URLs passed
|
_toc.yml
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@liamjberrisford what was the starting point/template for the statement? It seems to differ from the model template I just found here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/model-accessibility-statement
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because WCAG 2.2 is the official W3C standard, I based our accessibility statement on their documentation (https://www.w3.org/WAI/planning/statements/), and so there was no copy and paste start like the link you provided. They do have their own accessibility statement generation tool, though. The thinking was that since we are following the W3C’s WCAG 2.2 guidance, it makes sense also to use their guidance for the statement. From a quick Google search, it appears that gov.uk uses WCAG 2.2 as its baseline, with additional requirements for accessibility beyond WCAG 2.2? As a part of the university should we be using the Gov.UK template statement?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It does seem that the University would class a public organisation however, and so maybe we should be moving to complying with Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018 etc aswell as just WCAG 2.2?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because WCAG 2.2 is the official W3C standard, I based our accessibility statement on their documentation (https://www.w3.org/WAI/planning/statements/), and so there was no copy and paste start like the link you provided. They do have their own accessibility statement generation tool, though. The thinking was that since we are following the W3C’s WCAG 2.2 guidance, it makes sense also to use their guidance for the statement. From a quick Google search, it appears that gov.uk uses WCAG 2.2 as its baseline, with additional requirements for accessibility beyond WCAG 2.2? As a part of the university should we be using the Gov.UK template statement?
Interesting thanks - either is probably fine - I suggested the Gov.uk template as it was linked to from the UoE guidance: https://www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/web/web-accessibility-training/legislation/accessibility-statements-for-websites/ - Ill try to do a bit more digging
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It does seem that the University would class a public organisation however, and so maybe we should be moving to complying with
Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018etc aswell as just WCAG 2.2?
This page may help:
https://www.exeter.ac.uk/staff/web/web-accessibility-training/legislation/introduction/
I think WCAG are used as PSBAR assessment criteria
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, perfect, that’s exactly what I needed. I got lost in the student-facing accessibility materials and never stumbled on that material.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have updated the statement to follow the gov.uk guidance. I am not 100% sure what to put for the "Feedback and contact information" and the "Non-accessible content" sections and so have left them out for now until we get some advice. I'm also not 100% sure if feedback, etc, should come directly back to the CfRR team or if that is dealt with at the university level?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok thats great thanks - I think they would contact our team directly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps look at the main UoE site statement to get a feel for what each section should contain:
https://www.exeter.ac.uk/about/oursite/accessibility/compliance/
I think the "Non-accessible content" sections should have what you previously had in "Known Accessibility Issues"?\
@liamjberrisford agree that now is a good time to reach out and get some advice. Ill try to arrange this but there may be a delay!
| "## Known Accessibility Issues\n", | ||
| "\n", | ||
| "### 1. Tables Generated from R\n", | ||
| "\n", | ||
| "Some tables created within our R-based teaching materials use multiple header rows or columns but do not include `headers` attributes in `<td>` elements. This affects screen reader usability, particularly for complex tables. These are autogenerated from R output and are presented as-is to reflect authentic results and maintain consistency with the source language’s conventions. We believe altering these outputs post-generation would compromise the educational integrity of the material, and have decided to leave them as they are originally. \n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok - I think we could potentially do with some advice on if these types of exceptions are acceptable. The arguments you make seem sound to me though
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Absolutely, I completely agree. My concern is that it does a disservice pedagogically to spend three hours teaching learners an accessible version of a tool that we have forced via post-processing with a .js snippet, only for them to encounter an inaccessible version in the real world once they leave the CfRR website. The documentation does state that:
“Any content created by a third party and uploaded or embedded to your website is exempt only if that content was not funded, developed or under the control of the University.”
Source
However, the same page also advises adding an accessible alternative whenever possible. I can certainly provide a parallel accessible format, though it will significantly increase the site’s footprint.
liamjberrisford
changed the title
First draft of the accessibility statement for the CfRR central website.