Compliance Report: Website Accessibility

Table of Contents

A. Background

In 2011, the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) initiated a monitoring exercise aimed at assessing and improving transportation service providers' compliance with section 1.2 of the Agency's Code of Practice: Removing Communication Barriers for Travellers with Disabilities (Communication Code).

Section 1.2 of the Communication Code states that websites are to be made accessible to persons with disabilities by following the World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).

A.1 The importance of web accessibility

The Web is an opportunity for unprecedented access to information for people with disabilities. That is, the accessibility barriers to print, audio, and visual media can be much more easily overcome through web technologies.

However, putting content online does not necessarily make it accessible to everyone. Depending on how they are coded, web pages can be easy to read with assistive technology – or be completely unintelligible.

Making websites accessible by following the WCAG is important as the Web has become a key element in how people access the transportation system.

A.2 Equal access for persons with disabilities and the duty to accommodate

Persons with disabilities have a right to an equal opportunity to benefit from the same level of transportation services afforded to others; this is called the right to equal access.

Independent access is an integral part of this right. Persons with disabilities want as much independence in life as possible, and their use of transportation services is no exception. They should be able to access these services with as much independence as possible.

Carriers and terminal operators have a duty to respect the right to equal access by accommodating persons with disabilities up to the point of undue hardship.

This means that carriers and terminal operators must:

  1. Provide accommodations that give a person with a disability equal access to transportation services.
  2. Provide these accommodations up to the point where doing so is either unreasonable, impracticable or in some cases impossible; in other words, up to the point that the accommodations would create undue hardship.

B. The monitoring exercise

The transportation service providers that were monitored were assessed for conformance with Level AA of WCAG 2.0 (see What was monitored). To complete the monitoring, the Agency contracted a web accessibility expert to review a sample set of pages from each website. The sample web pages focussed on areas of the website that a person with a disability was likely to encounter when planning or making arrangements for travel, i.e., reservations, status of departures and arrivals, and information targeted at persons with disabilities such as accessibility services.

B.1 What was monitored

Transportation service providers' websites were monitored for compliance with Level AA of WCAG 2.0. WCAG 2.0 is the accessibility standard adopted by the W3C, the international consortium responsible for overseeing web standards.

WCAG 2.0 defines how to make web content more accessible to people with a broad range of disabilities (e.g. visual, auditory, physical, speech, cognitive, language, learning, and neurological disabilities). The standards also provide information on how to make web content more usable by older individuals with changing abilities due to aging. Adherence to WCAG 2.0 will improve usability for most users irrespective of abilities or devices they are using.

WCAG 2.0 has testable success criteria, which are assessed at three levels: A (the minimum), AA and AAA. The Agency's expectation is that transportation service providers will be compliant with Level AA. This expectation is set out in section 1.2 of the Communication Code.

Level AA consists of 38 testable statements that would need to be “true” in order for a site to claim conformance to that level of accessibility. These testable statements (success criteria) are organized by principles and guidelines. Level AA comprises all success criteria from Levels A and AA. A comprehensive list of the principles and the success criteria under Levels A and AA can be found in Appendix A.

WCAG 2.0 was accepted without any formal stakeholder objections and has been adopted in multiple jurisdictions around the world, including Canada, the United States, Australia, Japan, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. In Canada, the courts have recognized the WCAG 2.0 standards and imposed their adoption to the federal government.

The standards were created by consensus, which means that every success criterion was carefully scrutinized, negotiated, and voted upon by stakeholders, including industry representatives from major corporations, governments around the world, universities, organizations representing people with disabilities, and web accessibility professionals. The “process” was open to the public.

WCAG is supported by extensive guidance material, including a set of WCAG-approved tutorials that offer user friendly guidance on things such as forms, tables, complex images, page structure, carousels and more, with easy code samples, and there is more guidance to come.

B.2 Who was monitored

Consistent with its risk-based approach to monitoring, the Agency focused its monitoring on the carriers and terminal operators that collectively represent a significant portion of passenger traffic.

B.2.1 Air carriers

The air carriers selected for monitoring collectively carried approximately 74 percent of the passenger traffic in Canada at the time of their selection. The air carriers selected for monitoring were:

  • Air Canada;
  • WestJet;
  • Air Transat A.T. Inc. (Air Transat);
  • Sunwing Airlines Inc. (Sunwing);
  • CanJet Airlines, a Division of I.M.P. Group LimitedNote 1(Canjet); and
  • Porter Airlines Inc. (Porter).

B.2.2 Airports

The eight largest airports in terms of revenue passenger traffic were selected for monitoring.  At the time of their selection, these airports accounted for approximately 83 percent of total revenue passenger traffic in Canada. The airports selected for monitoring were:

  • Calgary International Airport (Calgary airport);
  • Edmonton International Airport (Edmonton airport);
  • Halifax Stanfield International Airport (Halifax airport);
  • Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport (Montréal airport);
  • Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport (Ottawa airport);
  • Toronto Pearson International Airport (Toronto airport);
  • Vancouver International Airport (Vancouver airport); and
  • Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport (Winnipeg airport).

B.2.3 Rail and ferry services

The sole rail carrier chosen for monitoring accounted for 91 percent of all intercity traffic in Canada. The largest ferry operators ‒ in terms of passenger traffic ‒ were also selected for monitoring. The rail and ferry operators selected for monitoring were:

  • VIA Rail Canada Inc. (VIA Rail);
  • Marine Atlantic Inc. (Marine Atlantic); and
  • Northumberland Ferries Limited and Bay Ferries Limited (Northumberland and Bay Ferries).

The websites for VIA Rail, Marine Atlantic and Northumberland and Bay Ferries also cover their terminals. As such, monitoring of these sites covered both carrier and terminal operations.

B.3 How the monitoring was done

The original monitoring conducted in 2011:

  • Examined the code using a web development tool that allows users to edit, debug, and monitor cascading style sheets (a mechanism for adding styles ‒ e.g. fonts, colours, spacing, etc. ‒ to web documents), HTML (Hyper Text Markup Language, a standard markup language to create web pages), and JavaScript (a programming language) in any web page.
  • Checked for other issues using the Web Accessibility Toolbar, a tool that aids in manual examination of web pages for a variety of aspects of accessibility.
  • Tested pages using:
    • Internet Explorer 8;
    • Firefox ® 3.6;
    • MacBook® with Mac OS® 10.5 with Voice Over;
    • Safari®
  • Conducted screen reader testing by:
    • Identifying web pages and design elements that might cause problems for screen reader users.
    • Testing web pages using several versions of JAWS®, WindowEyes, System Access, and a refreshable braille display running with Internet Explorer version 8 on Windows® XP Service Pack 3. The users who conducted the testing varied in ability from beginner to expert.
  • Conducted screen magnifier testing by:
    • Identifying web pages and design elements that might cause problems for people with low vision who use screen magnifiers to enlarge text and images.
    • Testing by an expert screen magnifier user of web pages using Zoomtext® version 9.1 running with Internet Explorer version 8 on Windows® XP Service Pack 3. The screen resolution was set at 1024x768, with magnification at 400 percent.

The first round of monitoring was completed in 2011 and each service provider received a report on the results. Where conformance issues were identified, the reports provided practical guidance on how to correct the issues. The transportation service providers were given copies of the reports and were encouraged to address the conformance issues by January 1, 2013. In 2013, the Agency conducted follow-up monitoring to determine which conformance issues had been corrected and which ones had not. The results were reported to the service providers.

B.4 Compliance with WCAG

Given that websites can consist of many hundreds of pages, it is nearly impossible to fully eliminate all conformance issues. For this reason, 100 percent compliance with WCAG 2.0 is nearly impossible. The objective, therefore, is for transportation service providers to be substantially compliant, i.e., few minor errors, while proactively addressing conformance issues as they are discovered.

C. Monitoring results – air carriers

C.1 Original monitoring results

The results from the monitoring conducted in 2011 indicated that none of the air carrier websites were compliant with all 38 success criteria for Level AA of WCAG 2.0. Some of the more common conformance issues related to online booking processes, which can be complicated and highly technical to develop correctly. Examples of common conformance issues related to the following success criteria (common conformance issues means that at least five of the six carriers monitored had an issue relating to a particular success criterion):

  • 1.1.1 Non-text Content
  • 1.3.1 Info and Relationships
  • 3.1.1 Language of Page
  • 3.1.2 Language of Parts
  • 3.3.2 Labels and Instructions 
  • 3.3.3 Error Suggestion
  • 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value

C.1.1 Success criterion 1.1.1

Success criterion 1.1.1 states that all non-text content that is presented has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose, except for certain situations, such as when the non-text content is decorative. When this is the case, the non-text content should be presented in a way that can be ignored by assistive technology.

All of the carriers monitored had issues with success criterion 1.1.1. Frequently, images contained text without there being corresponding alternative text (alt text). Alt text is used to describe the image, so that screen reader users do not miss out on important information. In other instances, decorative images did not have null alt text. Null alt text tells assistive technology to skip the image.  Without null alt text, screen readers would attempt to determine what an image was and, in many instances, would say something of little value such as “left selected jpeg”. This can be extremely distracting for screen reader users as many of the web pages evaluated had dozens of these decorative images.

More information on success criterion 1.1.1

C.1.2 Success criterion 1.3.1

Success criterion 1.3.1 states that information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined or are available in text.

Five of the six carriers monitored had issues relating to success criterion 1.3.1. These included instances where form fields were not properly labelled. When form fields are not properly labelled, screen reader users can have difficulty determining what information the form field is requesting (e.g. first name, last name, date of birth, etc.). This can make the booking process more difficult for screen reader users. In some instances, screen reader users may be unable to use the online booking process without assistance, which denies these users the independence that online booking affords other passengers.

More information on success criteria 1.3.1

C.1.3 Success criterion 3.1.1

Success criterion 3.1.1 states that the default “human language” (versus programming language) for each web page must be programmatically determined.

None of the carriers monitored fully met this success criterion 3.1.1. Screen readers are programmed to read a language tag so that it knows which language to use. This improves the screen reader's pronunciation of words. In some instances, the French language tag was not used, so francophone and bilingual users would have difficulty using the French version of the web page.

More information on success criterion 3.1.1

C.1.4 Success criterion 3.1.2

Success criterion 3.1.2 states that the “human language” of each passage or phrase in the content can be programmatically determined except for proper names, technical terms, words of indeterminate or unknown language, and words or phrases that have become part of the vernacular of the immediately surrounding text.

All six carriers evaluated had issues relating to success criterion 3.1.2. As an example, English web pages will often have a link that says “Français”, which takes the user to the French version of the web page. If this link does not have a language tag, a screen reader will attempt to read the word in English, which results in a pronunciation that can be difficult to understand.

More information on success criterion 3.1.2

C.1.5 Success criterion 3.3.2

Success criterion 3.3.2 states that labels or instructions are provided when content requires user input.

Issues relating to this success criterion included mandatory form fields that were not properly identified as such. In some instances, the required form fields were identified with an asterisk. Whereas sighted users would see the asterisk and know which fields were mandatory, many screen reader users would not, which could therefore make the booking process unnecessarily challenging.

More information on success criterion 3.3.2

C.1.6 Success criterion 4.1.2

Success criterion 4.1.2 states that for all user interface components such as form elements, links and components generated by scripts, the name and role can be programmatically determined; states, properties, and values that can be set by the user can be programmatically set; and notification of changes to these items is available to user agents, including assistive technologies.

A conformance issue relating to this success criterion was observed when a user, as part of the online booking process, indicated that they required special assistance by selecting a checkbox. Upon selection of the checkbox, a new list of options appeared on the web page. However, this new list of options would not be read by assistive technology (e.g. screen reader) because it appeared without notifying users who are blind or partially-sighted. This would make the online booking process unnecessarily challenging for some users.

More information on success criterion 4.1.2

C.2 Follow-up monitoring results

The follow-up monitoring of 2013 revealed that all but one carrier had improved the accessibility of their websites by implementing at least some of the recommendations contained in the reports prepared by the web accessibility expert. Nevertheless, it was apparent that there were still important conformance issues requiring attention, many of which related to key areas of the websites, such as the online booking process.

Agency staff therefore continued to work with the air carriers after the follow-up monitoring to ensure that website accessibility remained a priority for all future modifications to their websites. As part of this work, Agency staff provided guidance in identifying technical resources to assist transportation service providers in correcting conformance issues. Further, Agency staff sought commitments from the air carriers that they would continue to make efforts to enhance the accessibility of their websites with the goal of making them compliant with WCAG 2.0.

C.2.1 Progress since the follow-up monitoring and commitments going forward

As described below, exchanges with the air carriers revealed that all but one carrier, which has ceased operations, had significantly enhanced the accessibility of their websites since completion of the follow-up monitoring and had planned significant redevelopments of their websites. Some specifics of these redevelopments are outlined below.

C.2.2 Air Canada

Air Canada advised that it had made modifications to ensure that the web pages relating to core functions, such as those for online reservations, are compliant with Level AA of WCAG 2.0.  Air Canada also indicated that it is developing processes in collaboration with its third-party web developer to ensure that the new website will be substantially compliant with Level AA of WCAG 2.0.

Further, Air Canada is reviewing its process for accepting all content from third party developers to ensure that any changes to its website will be compliant with Level AA of WCAG 2.0.  Air Canada expects that its website will be fully compliant with Level AA of WCAG 2.0 by December 31, 2016.

C.2.3 WestJet

WestJet advised that most of the core functionality relating to its online reservation process is compliant with Level AA of WCAG 2.0. WestJet further advised that its entire website will be compliant by December 2016.

C.2.4 Air Transat

Air Transat advised that its website was undergoing a complete redesign, which should complete in April of 2016. The redesigned website will, for the most part, be compliant with Level AA of WCAG 2.0. Elements that are non-compliant should be addressed by June 30, 2016 at the latest.

C.2.5 Porter

Porter indicated that a number of accessibility-related enhancements, primarily in the booking, check-in and frequent flyer areas of its website, were released over the latter half of 2015. Porter believes that its online reservation and check-in services, as well as its “contact us” and flight status web pages, should be Level AA compliant by the second quarter of 2016. Porter intends to improve the accessibility across the rest of its website throughout 2016.

While Porter is unable to provide an exact time frame, its intention is to have its entire website compliant with Level AA of WCAG 2.0.

C.2.6 Sunwing

Sunwing indicates that an outside agency specializing in accessible web design was hired to redesign its online booking process. The target to complete the redesign is the second quarter of 2016. Sunwing advises that in the future, any changes to its website will meet accessibility requirements. No time frame has been provided for fully redesigning the carrier's entire website.

C.2.7 CanJet

As of September 2015, CanJet had ceased operations.

D. Monitoring results ‒ airports

D.1 Original monitoring results

The results from the original monitoring indicated that none of the websites of the eight airports evaluated were fully compliant with Level AA of WCAG 2.0. However, because the airports did not have reservation processes on their websites, the sample web pages that were examined typically had fewer conformance issues than those of the air carriers.

Examples of common conformance issues related to the following success criteria (common conformance issues means that at least five of eight of the airports evaluated had an issue relating to a particular success criterion):

  • 1.1.1 Non-text Content
  • 1.3.1 Info and Relationships
  • 1.4.3 Contrast (minimum)
  • 1.4.5 Images of Text

D.1.1 Success criterion 1.1.1

Success criterion 1.1.1 states that all non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose, except for certain situations, such as when the non-text content is decorative. When this is the case, the non-text content should be presented in a way that can be ignored by assistive technology.

Much like the air carriers discussed above, the airports' websites frequently had images without corresponding alt text. As a result, information that was available to sighted users was unavailable to persons who are blind or partially sighted.

More information on success criterion 1.1.1

D.1.2 Success criterion 1.3.1

Success criterion 1.3.1 states that information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined or are available in text.

Six of the eight airports had issues relating to this success criterion. One of the issues, which was common to multiple websites, related to table headers. Tables use row and column headers to indicate what information is contained in a row or column. Sighted users can see the relationship between the header and the table and will therefore know what the information is in each cell. However, if the header is not properly labelled, a screen reader would read the heading without advising the person that it was a header. As a result, the relationship between the header and the information in the table might be more difficult to discern for a screen reader user, which can cause unnecessary confusion. Since tables are frequently used to communicate important information to travelers, such as flight status updates, this can create an obstacle for screen reader users.

More information on success criterion 1.1.1

D.2 Follow-up monitoring results

The follow-up monitoring of 2013 indicated that all but one of the airports had improved the accessibility of their websites by implementing at least some of the recommendations made by the web accessibility expert. Nevertheless, the follow-up monitoring indicated that there were still important conformance issues requiring attention.

Agency staff continued to work with the airports after the follow-up monitoring to ensure accessibility remained a priority for all future modifications to their websites. As part of this work, Agency staff provided guidance by identifying technical resources to assist the airports in correcting conformance issues. Further, Agency staff sought commitments from the airports that they would continue to make efforts to enhance the accessibility of their websites with the goal of making them compliant with WCAG 2.0.

D.3 Progress since the follow-up monitoring and commitments going forward

D.3.1 Calgary airport

Calgary airport has advised that its website is substantially compliant with Level AA of WCAG 2.0 and that it is committed to maintaining this compliance.

As part of this commitment, Calgary airport has implemented several measures, including internal monthly monitoring reports that will permit it to quickly identify inaccessible content and notify the person responsible for the content. Also, Calgary airport provides training to its staff to minimize the risk that inaccessible content is accidentally added to its website.

D.3.2 Edmonton airport

Edmonton airport hired a web accessibility expert to evaluate its website and determine how compliant it is with Level AA of WCAG 2.0. Edmonton airport advises that as of May 1, 2016, its website is substantially compliant with Level AA of WCAG 2.0.

D.3.3 Halifax airport

Halifax airport contracted a web accessibility expert on two occasions to conduct an evaluation of its website. Halifax airport indicates that although all of the conformance issues identified by the contractor have been addressed, it is still exploring options for accessible PDF files for its website.

D.3.4 Montréal airport

Montréal airport advised that its website was redeveloped and its consultant provided assurances that accessibility standards were respected.

D.3.5 Ottawa airport

The Ottawa airport website was completely redeveloped in 2014 and the new version was launched in February of 2015. The airport believes that the site is substantially compliant with Level AA of WCAG 2.0, the one exception being a limited number of PDF documents of past publications.

Going forward, all PDF documents will be made accessible. The terminal maps are also currently in PDF format due to their complexity, but alternate wayfinding measures using the latest technology are being explored.

D.3.6 Toronto airport

Toronto airport indicated that it intends to redevelop its website in 2016. The full extent of the redevelopment has yet to be determined; however, Toronto airport advises that the website will be substantially compliant with Level AA of WCAG 2.0.

In the interim, Toronto airport is redesigning its website's drop-down menu functionality. The redesigned drop-down menu functionality will comply with Level AA of WCAG 2.0.

D.3.7 Vancouver airport

Vancouver airport launched a new website in March 2016. The airport advises that the updated website is substantially compliant with Level AA of WCAG 2.0.

D.3.8 Winnipeg airport

Winnipeg airport advises that it launched a redeveloped website in September of 2015. The airport advises that the website is substantially compliant with Level AA of WCAG 2.0.

E. Monitoring results ‒ rail and ferry operators

E.1 Original monitoring results

The results from the original monitoring indicated that the websites of Marine Atlantic, Northumberland and Bay Ferries, and VIA Rail were not compliant with Level AA of WCAG 2.0. Examples of common conformance issues related to the following success criteria (common conformance issues means that all three service providers had an issue relating to a particular success criterion):

  • 1.3.1 Info and Relationships
  • 1.4.3 Contrast (minimum)
  • 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value

E.1.1 Success criterion 1.3.1

Success criterion 1.3.1 states that information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined or are available in text.

One of the observed issues relating to success criterion 1.3.1 was the improper use of headings.

When encountering a lengthy web page, sighted users can quickly scan the structure of a document by looking for big, bold text (headings). Screen readers and other assistive technology are capable of scanning a web page in a similar manner by permitting users to skip from one heading to another. However, screen readers and other assistive technology do not recognize headings that have been created by styling text to look like headings.

Typical style changes to create the appearance of headings are the use of bold and underlined text. For a screen reader to recognize headings, they must be programmed correctly through the use of <h1>, <h2>, <h3> etc.

More information on success criterion 1.3.1

E.1.2 Success criterion 1.4.3

Success criterion 1.4.3 states that the visual presentation of text and images of text has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1.

Marine Atlantic, Northumberland and Bay Ferries, and VIA Rail all had colours on their websites with insufficient colour contrast. In one instance, the insufficient contrast was found on the date picker, which was a step in the online booking process.

Insufficient colour contrast can make navigating a website unnecessarily difficult for individuals who have difficulty perceiving colour including those with low vision.

More information on success criterion 1.4.3

E.1.3 Success criterion 4.1.2

Success criterion 4.1.2 states that for all user interface components (including form elements, links and components generated by scripts), the name and role can be programmatically determined; states, properties, and values that can be set by the user can be programmatically set; and notification of changes to these items is available to user agents, including assistive technologies.

The websites for Marine Atlantic, Northumberland and Bay Ferries, and VIA Rail all had similar issues relating to this success criterion. Specifically, the online reservation process for the service providers had at least some user inputs (form fields, radio buttons, drop-down lists, etc.) that had labels beside them, but for which there was no association between the label and related user input. Users who are blind or partially sighted would not know what information was being requested by the user input.

More information on success criterion 4.1.2

E.2 Follow-up monitoring results

The results of the 2013 follow-up monitoring showed that Marine Atlantic, Northumberland and Bay Ferries, and VIA Rail had all improved the accessibility of their websites. Nevertheless, there were still important conformance issues requiring attention.

Agency staff continued to work with the carriers after the follow-up monitoring to ensure that accessibility remained a priority for all future modifications to their websites. As part of this work, Agency staff provided guidance by identifying technical resources to assist Marine Atlantic, Northumberland and Bay Ferries, and VIA Rail in correcting conformance issues. Further, Agency staff sought commitments from the carriers that they would continue to make efforts to enhance the accessibility of their websites with the goal of making them compliant with WCAG 2.0.

E.3 Progress since the follow-up monitoring and commitments going forward

Discussions with Marine Atlantic, Northumberland and Bay Ferries, and VIA Rail subsequent to the follow-up monitoring revealed that the carriers had either redeveloped their websites or were in the process of doing so.

E.3.1 Marine Atlantic

Marine Atlantic advised that it launched a new website in July of 2015 that is substantially compliant with Level AA of WCAG 2.0.

E.3.2 Northumberland and Bay Ferries

Northumberland and Bay Ferries advised that it redeveloped much of its website with the exception of its online registration process. The ferry operator confirmed that it has implemented the modifications that were recommended during the monitoring exercise.

E.3.3 VIA Rail

VIA Rail is in the process of completely redeveloping its website. The target launch date for the new website is end of 2017. VIA Rail intends to ensure that the new website will be substantially compliant with Level AA of WCAG 2.0, as will all future web/mobile development.

F. Next steps

Agency staff will continue to follow developments regarding the above-noted websites and provide guidance whenever possible.

In terms of guidance, the Agency has developed a resource tool to assist transportation service providers in developing accessible websites. While the resource tool can benefit all service providers, it is specifically intended to provide assistance to service providers whose websites were not evaluated during the Agency's monitoring exercise.

G. About the Agency

The Agency is an independent administrative tribunal and economic regulator of the Government of Canada.

The Agency is responsible for ensuring that undue obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities are removed from air and federal rail, ferry and bus services and facilities.

The Agency eliminates undue obstacles in three ways:

  1. developing, and monitoring compliance with, regulations and codes of practice concerning the level of accessibility in modes of transportation under federal jurisdiction;
  2. eliminating problems before they occur by responding to pre-travel inquiries and by educating persons with disabilities and service providers about their rights and responsibilities; and
  3. resolving complaints on a case-by-case basis using an approach that is consistent with the one used for identifying and remedying discrimination under human rights law.

The Agency's jurisdiction applies to:

  • air carriers operating within, to, or from Canada;
  • airports located in Canada;
  • passenger rail carriers, ferry operators, and bus operators providing services between provinces and/or between Canada and the United States, and their stations or terminals located in Canada; and
  • services that are integral to the transportation services provided by a carrier or terminal located in Canada.

Appendix A: WCAG principles, guidelines, and success criteria

Principle 1 – Perceivable

Guidelines and success criteria that help ensure that a user can gather information on the web page (or application), even if the user has a disability related to one or more of their senses.

1.1 Text Alternatives: Provide alternative for any non-text content

1.2 Time-based Media: Provide alternatives for time-based media

1.3 Adaptable: Create content that can be presented in different ways (for example, simpler layout) without losing information or structure

1.4 Distinguishable: Make it easier for users to see and hear content including separating foreground from background

Principle 2 – Operable

Guidelines and success criteria that help ensure that the user can act upon any interactive element and use the controls found on the page without adverse effects, or inoperability, even if they have a disability that affects the way they interact with a web page.

2.1 Keyboard Accessible: Make all functionality available from a keyboard

2.2 Enough Time: Provide users enough time to read and use content

2.3 Seizures: Do not design content in a way that is known to cause seizures

2.4 Navigable: Provide ways to help users navigate, find content, and determine where they are

Principle 3 ‒ Understandable

Guidelines and success criteria that help ensure that the user will not get confused by the operation of the page.

3.1 Readable: Make text content readable and understandable

3.2 Predictable: Make webpages appear and operate in predictable ways

3.3 Input Assistance: Help users avoid and correct mistakes

Principle 4 – Robust

Guidelines and success criteria that help ensure that the coding will not confuse the software (assistive technology) used by the user, even if component widgets are built with custom elements.

4.1 Compatible: Maximize compatibility with current and future user agents

Note: Conformance with Level AA requires that all success criteria in Levels A and AA must be satisfied.

Endnote

Endnote 1

CanJet ceased operations in September of 2015.

Return to note 1 referrer

Date modified: