The government accessibility plan 2018-21 says:
Information and Communications
1. Complete a review of communications policies, procedures and practices to improve accessibility and ensure they are not creating barriers to accessibility. This will include:
Government of Nova Scotia Communications Policy and supporting guidelines;
Government of Nova Scotia brand standards;
communications platforms including print, electronic and digital (i.e. video). Lead: [Communications Nova Scotia]
2. Implement a phased launch of more user-centric government website, beginning in 2018-2019. The website will be accessible in line with the international standards (WCAG 2.0 AA), and augmented with user experience best practices. Future phases will include transactions (e.g., Adobe PDF forms) documents and other web assets that were produced separate from the new website (e.g., video, live webcasts). Lead: [Communications Nova Scotia]
Here is a summary of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
- Perceivable
- Provide text alternatives for non-text content.
- Provide captions and other alternatives for multimedia.
- Create content that can be presented in different ways, including by assistive technologies, without losing meaning.
- Make it easier for users to see and hear content.
- Operable
- Make all functionality available from a keyboard.
- Give users enough time to read and use content.
- Do not use content that causes seizures or physical reactions.
- Help users navigate and find content.
- Make it easier to use inputs other than keyboard.
- Understandable
- Make text readable and understandable.
- Make content appear and operate in predictable ways.
- Help users avoid and correct mistakes.
- Robust
- Maximize compatibility with current and future user tools
These guidelines provide three levels of conformance: A, AA, and AAA. The generally accepted level of conformance in many countries is Level AA. The levels reflect the comprehensiveness and detail of the implementation.
So four years into the plan, how's it going? I used Siteimprove's Accessibility Checker on 43 semi-random websites. The checker only does the splash page - it doesn't dig deeper into the website.
Type | AVERAGE of WCAG AA | COUNT |
Judiciary | 6.4 | 1 |
Crown Corp | 35.1 | 1 |
Trade Association | 40.3 | 1 |
Social Enterprise | 47.1 | 4 |
Law Firm | 53.9 | 1 |
Education | 62.2 | 4 |
Association | 68.4 | 2 |
Commission | 73.6 | 1 |
Private Enterprise | 78.6 | 5 |
Government | 86.2 | 17 |
Advocacy | 86.8 | 3 |
Restaurant | 100 | 1 |
US Government | 100 | 2 |
Grand Total | 74.5 | 43 |
Sure enough, provincial government is doing pretty well - 17 entities with an average score of 86.2. 10 sites get 100. What really ruin the record are the Human Rights Commission and the Courts - WCAG AA score 7th and 2nd worst.
In May of 2021, I had conversations with the HRC about their unhelpful website, so I guess it's no surprise to find it doesn't meet accessibility standards. I'd say that reflects a more pervasive indifference to people with disabilities - their biggest customers.
The 10 worst offenders are:
Organization (click for web page) | Type | WCAG A | WCAG AA | WCAG AAA | Mean |
Social Enterprise | 96.8 | 0 | 60.1 | 52.3 | |
Judiciary | 98.6 | 6.4 | 25 | 43.3 | |
Crown Corp | 93.7 | 35.1 | 69.6 | 66.1 | |
Association | 98.7 | 36.7 | 36.2 | 57.2 | |
Education | 93.2 | 38 | 69.5 | 66.9 | |
Trade Association | 91.6 | 40.3 | 44.2 | 58.7 | |
Social Enterprise | 94.1 | 40.9 | 21.2 | 52.1 | |
Government | 93.2 | 49 | 21.4 | 54.5 | |
Education | 94.7 | 50 | 72.3 | 72.3 | |
Law Firm | 100 | 53.9 | 45.3 | 66.4 |
I'm not sure how the Cape Society gets a big goose egg on level AA, but I have no reason to doubt it. Of their $492,196 total revenue, $445,487 came from the province (90.5%). What is effectively an arm of the province is not held to account. They don't pay minimum wage, they pay themselves generously (6 salaries $40-80k) and they stole $15,205 from their workers.
The courts are a shocker. They've issued important rulings in favor of people with disabilities, but this is a serious administrative deficiency and public relations misstep..
RANS is no surprise - they don't consider people with disabilities as members of the public. Develop NS has done a good job elsewhere, but their website sucks
In the interest of full disclosure I confess that the website you are reading ranks 18th worst on the complete list.
Remember that the Accessibility Plan exempted PDF files? "Future phases will include transactions (e.g., Adobe PDF forms)".
PDFs are complicated technically. But PDF files can be created specifically to be accessible for people with disabilities. PDF file formats in use as of 2014 can include tags, text equivalents, captions, audio descriptions, and more.
You can check on the accessibility score of a pdf from Acrobat Pro (not free) and generate a report like this:
Accessibility Report
Filename:
Pages 1-1000.pdf
Report created by:
Warren Reed
Organization:
[Personal and organization information from the Preferences > Identity dialog.]
Summary
The checker found problems which may prevent the document from being fully accessible.
- Needs manual check: 2
- Passed manually: 0
- Failed manually: 0
- Skipped: 1
- Passed: 10
- Failed: 19
Some software can automatically produce tagged PDFs, but this feature is not always enabled by default. Leading screen readers, including JAWS, Window-Eyes, Hal, and Kurzweil 1000 and 3000 can read tagged PDFs. Moreover, tagged PDFs can be re-flowed and magnified for readers with visual difficulties.
Adding tags to older PDFs and those that are generated from scanned documents can present some challenges, but government is addicted to image-only PDFs for the simple purpose that they are difficult to quote and organize.
I was involved in getting a 2500 page FOIPOP about a ruinous Dexter-owned dump in Annapolis County. Accessibility report above. 2500 unsearchable pages, dozens of unquotable emails, hundreds of spreadsheet lines, all rendered nearly useless. This was from Environment and Climate Change, which profits immensely by the secrecy imposed by image only PDFs. And they have the nerve to charge for it!
My advice to anyone using government-supplied PDFs is to always demand tagged and flowable versions.
In sum:
- The courts and Human Rights Commission are an unfathomable mystery to some people with disabilities.
- The Restaurant Association continues an unblemished record of discrimination
- The province does better on websites, but relies on inaccessible PDFs to confound information seekers
And if you are tempted to try the accessibility checker on a favorite website, let me know
Gus Reed
wcreedh@gmail.com
Labels: Access, Government, Technology
You can review the full set of responses here.
No comments:
Post a Comment