AccessiWeb 2.1 reference list

AccessiWeb, a methodology to verify conformance to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

Summary

In the French context, AccessiWeb 2.1 facilitates the understanding and implementation of the WCAG 2.0.

Why AccessiWeb?

WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) is the international standard of the W3C for Web Content accessibility. This standard has been officially recognised by the European Commission who recommends that they are adopted in all member states of the community. The French administration has been referring to WCAG since 1999.

Nevertheless, WCAG, like all technical standards, make it necessary to develop implementation methodologies which are adapted to the activities they are supposed to monitor: developing Web applications, content creation, interface design, graphical design, conformance assessment...

Since 2003, the BrailleNet association has created and published the AccessiWeb methodology in order to allow a unified approach for checking the conformance to WCAG of Web services. This methodology aims an operational approach based on thematically organised criteria and goals that are described in the AccessiWeb reference list (images, frames, colours, multimedia, tables, links, scripts, mandatory items, information structure, information layout, forms, navigation and consultation).

Goals of AccessiWeb 2.1

BrailleNet with a working group of specialised experts had three goals in mind while creating this new reference list:

  • Goal 1: ensuring an operational understanding of WCAG 2:
    • A list of related tests, referring very precisely to Web technologies, such as HTML tags/attributes, CSS properties, JavaScript functions...
  • Goal 2: allowing to check the conformance to WCAG 2:
    • The reference list AccessiWeb 2.1 gives a strict mapping between the AccessiWeb criteria and the guidelines and success criteria of the WCAG 2.
    • The reference list AccessiWeb 2.1 includes exactly the three conformance priority levels of WCAG 2.0: A or AccessiWeb Bronze, AA or AccessiWeb silver and AAA or AccessiWeb Gold
    • The AccessiWeb 2.1 reference list leads to raise a series of unambiguous questions for which the answer enables to determine if conformance to WCAG 2.0 has been met or not
  • Goal 3: providing a methodology for the AccessiWeb:
    • The AccessiWeb 2.1 reference list has been written in order to be used in a certification process about the conformance of a Web service to WCAG 2

Images

WCAG principle: perceivable.

Guideline:

Give each image that conveys information a relevant text alternative and a detailed description if necessary. Replace images of text with styled text when possible.

Criterion 1.1 [Bronze] Does each image have a text alternative?

  • Test 1.1.1: Does each image (img tag) have an alt attribute?
  • Test 1.1.2: Does each area (area tag) of an image map have an alt attribute?
  • Test 1.1.3: Does each form button (input tag with the type="image" attribute) have an alt attribute?
  • Test 1.1.4: Does each applet image (applet tag) have an alt attribute?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.1.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H35 - H36 - H37 - H53 - H24 - F65
  • RGAA test: 4.1

Criterion 1.2 [Bronze] For each decorative image with a text alternative , is this alternative empty?

  • Test 1.2.1: For each decorative image (img tag) with an alt attribute, is the content of this attribute empty (alt="")?
  • Test 1.2.2: For each non clickable area (area tag with the nohref attribute), that does not convey information, and that has an alt attribute, is the content of this attribute empty (alt="")?
  • Test 1.2.3: For each applet image (applet tag) that does not convey information and that has an alt attribute, is the content of this attribute empty (alt="")?
  • Test 1.2.4: For each object image (object tag with the attribute type="image/...") that does not convey information, is the text alternative between <object> and </object> empty?
  • Test 1.2.5: Does each embedded image (embed tag with type="image/..." attribute) that does not convey information, pass one of the conditions below?
    • The noembed element is not on the page
    • The noembed element does not contain any image description

Maping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.1.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H67 - G196 - F39 - F38
  • RGAA test: 4.5

Criterion 1.3 [Bronze] For each image that conveys information with a text alternative, is this alternative relevant (except in special cases)?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.1.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G94 - G95 - F30 - F71 - G196
  • RGAA tests: 4.3 - 4.4 - 4.6

Criterion 1.4 [Bronze] For each image used as CAPTCHA or as test image, with a text alternative, does this alternative allow to identify the kind and the purpose of the image?

  • Test 1.4.1: For each image (img tag) used as CAPTCHA or as test image, with an alt attribute, does the content of this attribute allow to identify the kind and the purpose of the image?
  • Test 1.4.2: For each area (area tag) of an image map, used as CAPTCHA or as test image, and with an alt attribute, does the content of this attribute allow to identify the kind and the purpose of the image?
  • Test 1.4.3: For each image (applet tag) used as CAPTCHA or as test image, with an alt attribute, does the content of this attribute allow to identify the kind and the purpose of the image?
  • Test 1.4.4: For each button associated with an image (input tag with the attribute type="image") used as CAPTCHA or as test image, with an alt attribute, does the content of this attribute allow to identify the kind and the purpose of the image?
  • Test 1.4.5: For each object image (object tag with the attribute type="image/...") used as CAPTCHA or as test image, and with a text alternative, does the text alternative between <object> and </object> allow to identify the kind and the purpose of the image?
  • Test 1.4.6: For each embedded image (embed tag with the attribute type="image/...") used as CAPTCHA or as test image and with a text alternative, does the text alternative between <noembed> and </noembed> allow to identify the kind and the purpose of the image?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.1.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G143 - G100
  • RGAA test: 4.10

Criterion 1.5 [Bronze] For each image used as CAPTCHA, is a solution for alternative access to the content or to the purpose of the CAPTCHA available?

  • Test 1.5.1: Does each image (img, area, applet, object, embed tags) used as CAPTCHA pass one of the conditions below?
    • Another form of CAPTCHA at least non grafic is available
    • Another solution to access the secured functionality of the CAPTCHA is available
  • Test1.5.2: Does each button associated with an image (input tag with the attribute type="image") used as CAPTCHA pass one of the conditions below?
    • Another form of CAPTCHA at least non graphic, is available
    • Another solution to access the secured functionality of the CAPTCHA is available

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.1.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G144
  • RGAA test: 4.10

Criterion 1.6 [Bronze] Does each image that conveys information have a detailed description if necessary?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.1.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G92 - G74 - G73 - H45
  • RGAA tests: 4.7 - 4.9

Criterion 1.7 [Bronze] For each image that conveys information with a detailed description, is this description relevant?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.1.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F67
  • RGAA test: 4.8

Criterion 1.8 [Silver] When an alternate mechanism is missing, each image of text must be replaced with styled text, if possible. Does this rule have been followed (except in special cases)?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.4.5
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G140 - C22 - C30
  • RGAA test: 7.6

Criterion 1.9 [Gold] Each image of text must be rreplaced with styled text. Does this rule have been followed?

  • Test1.9.1: Each image of text (img tag) must be rreplaced with styled text if possible. Does this rule have been followed?
  • Test1.9.2: For each image map (img tag or object with the usemap attribute), each text area (area tag) must be rreplaced with styled text if possible. Does this rule have been followed?
  • Test1.9.3: For each form tag, each button "image of text" (input tag with the attribute type="image") must be rreplaced with styled text if possible. Does this rule have been followed?
  • Test1.9.4: Each text image applet (applet tag) must be rreplaced with styled text if possible. Does this rule have been followed?
  • Test1.9.5: Each text image object (object tag with the attribute type="image/...") must be rreplaced with styled text if possible. Does this rule have been followed?
  • Test1.9.6: Each embedded image of text (embed tag with the attribute type="image/...") must be replaced with styled text. Does this rule have been followed?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.4.9
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G140 - C22 - C30
  • RGAA test: 7.7

Frames

WCAG principle: robust.

Guideline:

Provide each frame and each iframe with a relevant title.

Criterion 2.1 [Bronze] Does each frame and each iframe have a frame title?

  • Test 2.1.1: Does each frame (frame tag) have a title attribute?
  • Test 2.1.2: Does each iframe (iframe tag) have a title attribute?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 4.1.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H64
  • RGAA test: 1.1

Criterion 2.2 [Bronze] For each frame and each iframe with a frame title, is this frame title relevant?

  • Test2.2.1: For each frame (frame tag) with a title attribute, is the content of this attribute relevant?
  • Test2.2.2: For each iframe (iframe tag) with a title attribute, is the content of this attribute relevant?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 4.1.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H64
  • RGAA test: 1.2

Colours

WCAG principle: perceivable.

Guideline:

Do not provide information only with colour and use colour contrasts that are high enough.

Criterion 3.1 [Bronze] On each Web page, information does not have to be provided only by colour. Does this rule have been followed?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.4.1 - 1.3.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G14 - G122 - G182 - G111 - G138
  • RGAA tests: 2.1 - 2.2 - 2.3 - 2.4

Criterion 3.2 [Bronze] On each Web page, information does not have to be provided only by colour. Does this rule have been implemented in a relevant way?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.4.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F13
  • RGAA test: -

Criterion 3.3 [Silver] On each Web page, is the contrast between text colour and the colour of text background high enough (except in special cases)?

  • Test3.3.1: On each Web page, until 150% of the default font size (or 1.5em), do text and image of text without bolding pass one of the conditions below (except in special cases)?
    • The contrast ratio between text and its background is at least 4.5:1
    • a mechanism allows the user to display text with a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1
  • Test3.3.2: On each Web page, until 120% of the default font size (or 1.2em), does bold text and image of text pass one of the conditions below (except in special cases)?
    • The contrast ratio between text and its background is at least 4.5:1
    • a mechanism allows the user to display text with a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1
  • Test 3.3.3: On each Web page, from 150% of the default font size (or 1.5em), do text and image of text without bolding pass one of the conditions below(except in special cases)?
    • the contrast ratio between text and its background is at least 3:1
    • a mechanism allows the user to display text with a contrast ratio of at least 3:1
  • Test3.3.4: On each Web page, from 120% of the default font size (or 1.2em), do bold text and image of text pass one of the conditions below(except in special cases)?
    • The contrast ratio between text and its background is at least 3:1
    • a mechanism allows the user to display text with a contrast ratio of at least 3:1

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.4.3
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G18 - G174 - G145 - F83
  • RGAA tests: 2.5 - 2.6 - 2.7 - 2.8 - 2.9 - 2.10

Criterion 3.4 [Gold] On each Web page, is the contrast between text colour and the colour of its background enhanced (except in special cases)?

  • Test3.4.1: On each Web page, until 150% of the default font size (or 1.5em), do text and image of text without bolding pass one of the conditions below(except in special cases)?
    • the contrast ratio between text and its background is at least 7:1
    • a mechanism allows the user to display text with a contrast ratio of at least 7:1
  • Test3.4.2: On each Web page, until 120% of the default font size (or 1.2em), do bold text and image of text pass one of the conditions below(except in special cases)?
    • the contrast ratio between text and its background is at least 7:1
    • a mechanism allows the user to display text with a contrast ratio of at least 7:1
  • Test 3.4.3: On each Web page, from 150% of the default font size (or 1.5em), do text and image of text without bolding pass one of the conditions below(except in special cases)?
    • the contrast ratio between text and its background is at least 4,5:1
    • a mechanism allows the user to display text with a contrast ratio of at least 4,5:1
  • Test3.4.4: On each Web page, from 120% of the default font size (or 1.2em), do bold text and image of text pass one of the conditions below (except in special cases)?
    • the contrast ratio between text and its background is at least 4,5:1
    • a mechanism allows the user to display text with a contrast ratio of at least 4,5:1

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.4.6
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G17 - G18 - G174 - F83
  • RGAA tests: 2.11 - 2.12 - 2.13 - 2.14 - 2.15 - 2.16

Multimedia

WCAG principles: perceivable, operable, robust.

Guideline:

If necessary, provide each time-based media with relevant text transcript, synchronised captions and synchronised audio description. Provide each non time-based media with a relevant text alternative.
Make possible the viewing control of each time-based and non time-based media with the keyboard and ensure that they are supported with assistive technologies.

Criterion 4.1 [Bronze] Does each prerecorded time-based media have a text transcript or an audio description if necessary (except in special cases)?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.2.1 - 1.2.3
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G58 - G69 - G78 - G158 - G159 - G173 - G8 - G166 - SM6 - SM7
  • RGAA tests: 5.2 - 5.4

Criterion 4.2 [Bronze] For each prerecorded time-based media with a text transcript or a synchronised audio description, are these relevant (except in special cases)?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.2.1 - 1.2.3
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F30 - F67 - SM6 - SM7
  • RGAA test: 5.3

Criterion 4.3 [Bronze] Does each prerecorded synchronised time-based media have synchronised captions if necessary (except in special cases)?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.2.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G93 - G87 - SM11 - SM12 - F74 - F75
  • RGAA test: 5.9

Criterion 4.4 [Bronze] For each prerecorded synchronised time-based media with synchronised captions, are these captions relevant?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.2.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F8 - F74 - F75 - SM11 - SM12
  • RGAA test : 5.10

Criterion 4.5 [Silver] does each live time-based media have synchronised captions or a text transcript if necessary (except in special cases)?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.2.4 - 1.2.9
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G9 - G150 - G151 - G157 - SM11 - SM12
  • RGAA test: 5.18

Criterion 4.6 [Silver] For each live time-based media with synchronised captions or with a text transcript, are these relevant?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.2.4 - 1.2.9
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F8
  • RGAA test: 5.10

Criterion 4.7 [Silver] Does each prerecorded synchronised time-based media have a synchronised audio description if necessary?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.2.5
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G8 - G78 - G173 - SM1 - SM2 - SM6 - SM7
  • RGAA test: 5.8

Criterion 4.8 [Silver] For each prerecorded time-based media with a synchronised audio description, is this audio description relevant?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.2.5
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): SM1 - SM2 - SM6 - SM7
  • RGAA test: 5.5

Criterion 4.9 [Gold] Does each prerecorded time-based media have a sign language interpretation (except in special cases) if necessary?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.2.6
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G54 - G81 - SM13 - SM14
  • RGAA test: 5.31

Criterion 4.10 [Gold] For each prerecorded time-based media with a sign language interpretation is this interpretation relevant?

  • Test4.10.1: For each prerecorded synchronised time-based media with a sign language interpretation, is this interpretation relevant?
  • Test4.10.2: For each prerecorded audio-only time-based media with a sign language interpretation , is this interpretation relevant?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.2.6
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): -
  • RGAA test: 5.32

Criterion 4.11 [Gold] Does each prerecorded time-based media have a synchronised extended audio description if necessary (except in special cases)?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.2.7
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G8 - SM1 - SM2
  • RGAA test: 5.7

Criterion 4.12 [Gold] For each prerecorded time-based media with a synchronised extended audio description, is this audio description relevant?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.2.7
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G8 - SM1 - SM2
  • RGAA test: 5.7

Criterion 4.13 [Gold] Does each synchronised or video-only time-based media have a text transcript (except in special cases)?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.2.8
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G69 - G159
  • RGAA test: -

Criterion 4.14 [Gold] For each synchronised or video-only time-based media with a text transcript, is this text transcript relevant?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.2.8
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F74
  • RGAA test: -

Criterion 4.15 [Bronze] Can each time-based media be clearly identified (except in special cases)?

  • Test4.15.1: Does each audio-only, video-only or synchronised time-based media pass one of the conditions below (except in special cases)?
    • The alternative content of the object tag contains a summarised content description
    • The content of the noembed element contains a summarised content description
    • The adjacent textual content helps to clearly identify the time-based media
  • Test4.15.2: Does each live audio-only, live video-only or live synchronised time-based media pass one of the conditions below (except in special cases)?
    • the alternative content of the object tags contains a summarised content description
    • The content of the noembed element contains a summarised content description
    • The adjacent text content helps to clearly identify the time-based media

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.1.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G68 - G100
  • RGAA test: 5.1

Criterion 4.16 [Bronze] Does each non time-based media have an alternative (except in special cases)?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.1.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H27 - H35 - H53 - H46
  • RGAA tests : 5.11 - 5.12

Criterion 4.17 [Bronze] For each non time-based media with an alternative, is this alternative relevant?

  • Test4.17.1: Does each non time-based media with an alternative pass one of the conditions below?
    • the content of the object tag alows to access to the same content and to similar functionalities
    • The content of the applet tag allows to access to the same content and to similar functionalities
    • The content of the noembed tag allows to access to the same content and to similar functionalities
    • The content of the alternative specified via an adjacent link allows to access to the same content and to similar functionalities

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.1.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F30
  • RGAA test: 12.3

Criterion 4.18 [Bronze] Can each sound that is launched automatically be controlled by the user?

  • Test4.18.1: Does each audio sequence that is played automatically via an object, applet, embed tag, a javascript code or bgsound property pass one of the conditions below?
    • The audio sequence lasts less than or equal to 3 seconds
    • The audio sequence can be stopped by an action initiated by the user
    • The volume of the audio sequence can be controlled by the user independently from the system volume control.

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.4.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G60 - G170 - G171 - F23
  • RGAA tests : 5.29 - 5.30

Criterion 4.19 [Gold] For each prerecorded audio-only time-based media, are the dialogues audible enough

  • Test4.19.1: Does each prerecorded audio time-based media and that is played via a Object, Applet, Embed tag or that is provided for download pass one of the conditions below?
    • The sound background can be turned off
    • The dialogue track(s) are 20 decibels higher than the background sounds.

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.4.7
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G56
  • RGAA test: 5.33

Criterion 4.20 [Bronze] Can each time-based media be controlled by the keyboard and by the mouse?

  • Test4.20.1: Does each time-based media have the control features to be viewed, if necessary?
  • Test4.20.2: For each time-based media, is each functionality accessible by the keyboard and by the mouse?
  • Test4.20.3: For each time-based media, can each functionality be activated by the keyboard and by the mouse?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.2.3 - 1.2.5 - 2.1.1 - 2.1.2 - 4.1.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G135 - G10 - G71 - G90 - G4
  • RGAA tests: 5.6 - 5.27

Criterion 4.21 [Bronze] Can each non time-based media be controlled by the keyboard and by the mouse?

  • Test4.21.1: For each non time-based media, is each functionality accessible by the keyboard and by the mouse?
  • Test4.21.2: For each non time-based media, can each functionality be activated by the keyboard and by the mouse?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 2.1.1 - 2.1.2 - 4.1.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G135 - G10 - G90 - G4
  • RGAA test: 5.27

Criterion 4.22 [Bronze] Is each time-based media and each non time-based media supported by assistive technologies?

  • Test4.22.1: Does each time-based media and each non time-based media that is inserted via a Object, Applet or Embed tag pass one of the conditions below?
    • The name, role, value, setting and status changes of the interface components are accessible to assistive technologies via an accessibility API
    • An alternative that is supported by an accessibility API allows to access to the same functionalities

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 4.1.2 - 2.1.1 - 2.1.3
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G10 - G90 - G135 - F15 - F54
  • RGAA tests: 5.16 - 5.28

Tables

WCAG principle: perceivable.

Guideline:

Provide each data table, with a relevant summary and a title, clearly identify header cells, use a relevant mechanism to associate data cells with header cells. Ensure that each layout table is correctly linearised.

Criterion 5.1 [Bronze] Does each data table have a summary?

  • Test 5.1.1: Does each data table (table tag) have a summary attribute?

mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.3.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H73
  • RGAA test: 11.8

Criterion 5.2 [Bronze] For each table with a summary, is this summary relevant?

  • Test5.2.1: For each data table (table tag) with a summary attribute, is the content of this attribute relevant?
  • Test5.2.2: For each layout table (table tag) with a summary attribute, is the content of this attribute empty (summary="")?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.3.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H73
  • RGAA test: 11.10

Criterion 5.3 [Bronze] For each layout table, is the linearised content still understandable?

  • Test5.3.1: For each layout table, is the linearised content still understandable?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.3.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F49
  • RGAA test: 11.6

Criterion 5.4 [Bronze] Does each data table have a title?

  • Test5.4.1: Does each data table (table tag) have a caption tag?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.3.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H39
  • RGAA test: 11.7

Criterion 5.5 [Bronze] For each data table with a title, is this title relevant?

  • Test5.5.1: For each data table (table tag) with a caption tag, does the content of this tag provide the title of the table?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.3.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H39
  • RGAA test: 11.9

Criterion 5.6 [Bronze] For each data table, are each column header and each row header correctly identified?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.3.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H51
  • RGAA test: 11.1

Criterion 5.7 [Bronze] For each data table, is the appropriate technique allowing to associate each cell with its headers used?

  • Test5.7.1: Does each header (th tag) applied to the whole row or to the whole column have a unique id attribute or a scope attribute?
  • Test5.7.2: Does each header (th tag) applied to the whole row or the whole column and having a scope attribute pass one of the conditions below?
    • The header has a scope attribute with the "row" value for row headers
    • The header has a scope attribute with the "col" value for column headers
  • Test5.7.3: Does each header (th) tag that is not applied to the whole column pass the conditions below?
    • The header does not have a scope attribute
    • The header has a unique id attribute
  • Test5.7.4: Does each cell (td or th tag) associated with one or several headers with an id attribute pass the conditions below?
    • The cell has a headers attribute
    • The headers attribute has the list of the values of the headers associated with the cell.

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.3.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H63 - H43
  • RGAA tests: 11.2 - 11.3

Criterion 5.8 [Bronze] Each layout table does not have to use elements for data tables. Does this rule have been followed?

  • Test 5.8.1: Does each layout table (table tag) pass the conditions below?
    • The layout table (table tag) does not have any caption, th, thead, tfoot tags
    • The cells of the layout table (td tag) have no scope, headers, colgroup, axis attributes.

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.3.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F46
  • RGAA test: 11.4

Links

WCAG principle: perceivable, operable, understandable.

Guideline:

Provide explicit link text, in particular, with context information, and use the link title as little as possible. Add links or a navigation form to the areas of a server-side image map.

Criterion 6.1 [Bronze] Is each link explicit (except in special cases)?

  • Test6.1.1: For each link text, does the link context allow to understand the link purpose and target if necessary (except in special cases)?
  • Test6.1.2: For each image link (content of the alt attribute or text between <object> and </object>), does the link context allow to understand the link purpose and target if necessary (except in special cases)?
  • Test6.1.3: For each link such as clickable area (content of the alt attribute of an area tag), does the link context allow to understand the link purpose and target if necessary (except in special cases)?
  • Test6.1.4: For each combined link, does the link context allow to understand the link purpose and target if necessary (except in special cases)?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.1.1 - 2.4.4 - 2.4.9
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H78 - H79 - H80 - H81 - H30 - F89 - G91 - G53 - F63
  • RGAA tests: 4.2 - 6.13 - 6.16

Criterion 6.2 [Bronze] For each link with a link title, is this title relevant?

  • Test6.2.1: For each text link with a link title (title attribute), is the content of this attribute relevant?
  • Test6.2.2: For each image link with a link title (title attribute), is the content of this attribute relevant?
  • Test6.2.3: For each clickable area (area tag) with a link title (title attribute), is the content of this attribute relevant?
  • Test6.2.4: For each combined link with a link title (title attribute), is the content of this attribute relevant?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 2.4.4
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H33
  • RGAA test: 6.13

Criterion 6.3 [Gold] Is each link text alone explicit out of context (except in special cases)?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 2.4.9
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G91
  • RGAA test: 6.14

Criterion 6.4 [Bronze] Does each identical link have the same purpose and target?

  • Test6.4.1: Does each identical link of type text have the same purpose and target?
  • Test6.4.2: Does each identical link of type image have the same purpose and target?
  • Test6.4.3: Does each identical link of type clickable area have the same purpose and target?
  • Test6.4.4: Does each identical link of type combined link have the same purpose and target?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteri: 2.4.4 - 3.2.4
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G91 - G197 - H30 - H33
  • RGAA test: 6.15

Criterion 6.5 [Bronze] Is each clickable area of a server-side image map doubled with a link on the page?

  • Test 6.5.1: Does each server-side image map (img tag with the ismap attribute) pass one of the conditions below?
  • Test6.5.2: Does each server-side image map (img tag with the ismap attribute) pass one of the conditions below?
    • The link that doubles the clickable area allows to access to the same function and the same target as the clickable area
    • the form submission allows to access the same purpose and the same target as the clickable area.
  • Test6.5.3: Does each server-side image map (img tag with the ismap attribute) pass one of the conditions below?
    • The image map is immediately followed, in the source code by the list of links redundant to the areas
    • The image map is immediately followed, in the source code by a navigation form redundant with the areas

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 2.1.1 - 2.1.3
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F54
  • RGAA test: 6.1

Criterion 6.6 [Bronze] On each Web page, does each link, except in named anchors, have a text?

  • Test6.6.1 On each Web page, does each link (a tag), except in named anchors, have a text between <a> an </a>?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.1.1 - 2.4.4 - 2.4.9
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G91 - H30
  • RGAA test: 6.16

Scripts

WCAG principles: perceivable, operable, understandable, robust.

Guideline:

Provide, if necessary, each script with a relevant alternative. Make it possible that each script code can be controlled at least by keyboard and mouse and ensure that it is supported by assistive technologies.

Criterion 7.1 [Bronze] Does each script have an alternative if necessary (except in special cases)?

  • Test 7.1.1: Does each script pass, if necessary, one of the conditions below (except in special cases)?
    • An alternative is available between <noscript> and </noscript>
    • An alternative is directly available on the page when javascript is disabled
    • A link allows to access to an alternative version of the page
    • An alternative is available via a server-side script language
  • Test7.1.2 Does each script that initiates the opening of a new window have an alternative?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 4.1.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F19
  • RGAA test: 8.12

Criterion 7.2 [Bronze] For each script with an alternative, is this alternative relevant?

  • Test7.2.1: Does each script that begins with the script tag and that has an alternative pass one of the conditions below?
    • The alternative between <noscript> and </noscript> allows to access similar content and functionalities
    • When javascript is disabled, the displayed page allows to access similar content and functionalities
    • The alternative page allows to access similar content and functionalities
    • The server-side script language allows to access similar content and functionalities
  • Test7.2.2: Does each non text element that is updated by a script (in the page, a frame or an iframe) and that has an alternative pass the conditions below?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 4.1.2 - 1.1.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F19 - F20
  • RGAA tests: 8.1 - 8.12

Criterion 7.3 [Bronze] Can each script be controlled by keyboard and mouse (except in special cases)?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.3.1 - 2.1.1 - 2.1.3 - 2.4.7
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): SCR2 - SCR20 - SCR29 - SCR35 - G90 - F42 - F54 - F55
  • RGAA tests: 8.2 - 8.3 - 8.7 - 8.8 - 8.9

Criterion 7.4 [Bronze] Does each script support assistive technologies, if necessary?

  • Test7.4.1: Does each script generating or controlling an interface component pass one of the conditions below, if necessary?
    • The name, role, value, settings and status changes are accessible to assistive technologies via an accessibility API
    • An accessible interface component allowing to access the same functionalities is available on the page
    • An accessible alternative allows to access the same functionalities.
  • Test7.4.2: Does each functionality for content insertion controlled by a script, use, if possible, properties and methods that conform to the DOM (Document Object Model) specification?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 4.1.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): SCR21 - F59
  • RGAA test: 8.13

Criterion 7.5 [Bronze] For each script that initiates a change of context, is the user warned or can he control it?

  • Test7.5.1: Does each script initiating a change of context pass one of the conditions below?
    • The user is warned by a text about the script action and the kind of change before it is activated
    • The change of context is initiated by an explicit button (input of type submit or button)
    • The change of context is initiated by an explicit link

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 3.2.1 - 3.2.2 - 3.2.5
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F9 - F22 - F36 - F37 - F41 - F76 - G13 - G76 - G80 - G107 - H32 - H84 - SCR19
  • RGAA test: 8.5

Criterion 7.6 [Gold] Can each script causing an unrequested alert be controlled by the user (except in special cases)?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 2.2.4
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): SCR14
  • RGAA test: 8.4

Mandatory elements

WCAG principles: perceivable, operable, understandable, robust.

Guideline:

Check that each Web page has a valid source code according to the document type, a relevant title and a default human language specification. Check that tags are not used for presentation only, that changes in human language and changes in the direction of reading order are specified.

Criterion 8.1 [Bronze] Is each Web page defined by a document type?

  • Test8.1.1: For each Web page, is the document type (doctype tag) available?
  • Test8.1.2: For each Web page is the document type (doctype tag) valid?
  • Test8.1.3: For each Web page with a document type declaration, is this declaration located before the HTML tag in the source code?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 4.1.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G134
  • RGAA tests: 9.1 - 9.2 - 9.3

Criterion 8.2 [Bronze] For each Web page, is the source code valid according to the specified document type?

  • Test8.2.1: For each document type declaration, does the page source code pass the conditions below?
    • Tags follow the writing rules
    • Tag nesting is conform
    • Tag opening and closing are conform
    • Attributes follow the writing rules
    • The attribute values follow the writing rules
  • Test8.2.2: For each document type declaration, the page source code does not have to use obsolete elements. Does this rule have been followed?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 4.1.1 - 4.1.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G134 - G192 - H74 - H75 - H88 - F70 - F77
  • RGAA tests: 9.4 - 9.5

Criterion 8.3 [Bronze] On each Web page, is the default human language available?

  • Test8.3.1: For each Web page, does the default human language specification pass one of the conditions below?
    • The page human language specification (lang and/or xml:lang attribute) is provided for the Html element
    • The page human language specification (lang and/or xml:lang attribute) is provided for each text element or on one of the parent elements

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 3.1.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H57
  • RGAA test: 9.8

Criterion 8.4 [Bronze] For each Web page with a default human language, is the language code relevant?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 3.1.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H57
  • RGAA test: 9.8

Criterion 8.5 [Bronze] Does each Web page have a page title?

  • Test8.5.1: Does each Web page have a page title (title tag)?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 2.4.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G88 - H25
  • RGAA test: 9.6

Criterion 8.6 [Bronze] For each Web page with a page title, is this title relevant?

  • Test8.6.1: For each Web page with a page title (title tag), is the content of this tag relevant?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 2.4.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F25
  • RGAA test: 9.7

Criterion 8.7 [Silver] On each Web page, is each language change specified in the source code (except in special cases)?

  • Test8.7.1: On each Web page, does each text that is written in a language differing from the default human language pass one of the conditions below (except in special cases)?
    • The language specification is provided on the element that contains the text
    • The language specification is provided on one of the parent elements

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 3.1.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H58
  • RGAA tests: 12.1 - 12.2

Criterion 8.8 [Silver] On each Web page, is each language change relevant?

  • Test8.8.1: On each Web page, is each language change (lang and/or xml:lang attribute) valid?
  • Test8.8.2: On each Web page, is each language change (lang and/or xml:lang attribute) relevant?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 3.1.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H58
  • RGAA tests: 12.1 - 12.2

Criterion 8.9 [Bronze] On each Web page, tags must not be used only for layout. Does this rule have been followed?

  • Test8.9.1: On each Web page tags must not be used (except div, span and table) only for layout. Does this rule have been followed?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.3.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G115 - F43
  • RGAA test: 7.9

Criterion 8.10 [Bronze] On each Web page, are changes in reading direction identified?

  • Test8.10.1: On each Web page, does each text for which the reading direction is different from the default reading direction pass the conditions below?
    • the text is included in an element with a dir attribute
    • The value of the dir attribute is conform (rtl or ltr)
    • The value of the dir attribute is relevant

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.3.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H56
  • RGAA test: -

Structuration of information

WCAG principles: perceivable, operable, understandable.

Guideline:

Use headings, lists, abbreviations and quotes to structure information.

Criterion 9.1 [Bronze] On each Web page, is information structured by the appropriate use of headings?

  • Test9.1.1: Is there a level 1 heading (h1 tag) on each Web page?
  • Test9.1.2: On each Web page, is the hierarchy between the headings (h tags) relevant?
  • Test9.1.3: On each Web page, is each heading (h tag) that is necessary to structure information available?
  • Test9.1.4: On each Web page, is each heading (h tag) relevant?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.3.1 - 2.4.1 - 2.4.6 - 2.4.10
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H69 - G130 - H42 - G141
  • RGAA tests: 10.1 - 10.2 - 10.3 - 10.4

Criterion 9.2 [Bronze] On each Web page, is each list structured with the appropriate tags?

  • Test9.2.1: On each Web page, does information grouped in unordered lists use the ul and li tags?
  • Test9.2.2: On each Web page, does information grouped in ordered lists use the ol and li tags?
  • Test9.2.3: On each Web page, does information grouped in definition lists use the dl and dt/dd tags?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.3.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H40 - H48 - F2
  • RGAA tests: 10.5 - 10.6 - 10.7

Criterion 9.3 [Gold] On each Web page, does the first occurence of each abbreviation helps to know its meaning?

  • Test9.3.1: On each Web page, does the first occurence of each acronym pass one of the conditions below?
    • The acronym is provided with its meaning as an adjacent link
    • The acronym is implemented via a link referring to a page or a location on the page allowing to know its meaning
    • The acronym is included in a link with a title attribute allowing to know its meaning
    • The meaning of the acronym is available in a glossary on the site
    • The acronym is implemented via an acronym tag with a title allowing to know its meaning
  • Test9.3.2: On each Web page, does the first occurence of each abbreviation pass one of the conditions below?
    • The abbreviation is provided with its meaning as an adjacent link
    • The abbreviation is implemented via a link referring to a page or a location on the page allowing to know its meaning
    • The abbreviation is included in a link with a title attribute allowing to know its meaning
    • The meaning of the abbreviation is available in a glossary on the site
    • The abbreviation is implemented via an abbr tag with a title allowing to know its meaning

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 3.1.4
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G55 - G70 - G97 - G102 - H28 - H60
  • RGAA tests: 10.9 - 10.10

Criterion 9.4 [Gold] On each Web page, is the meaning of each abbreviation relevant?

  • Test9.4.1: On each Web page, is the meaning of each acronym relevant?
  • Test9.4.2: On each Web page, is the meaning of each abbreviation relevant?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 3.1.4
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G55 - G70 - G97 - H28 - H60
  • RGAA tests: 10.11 - 10.12

Criterion 9.5 [Bronze] On each Web page, is each quote identified properly?

  • Test9.5.1: On each Web page, does each short quote use a q tag?
  • Test9.5.2: On each Web page, does each quotation block use a blockquote tag?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.3.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H49 - F2
  • RGAA test: 10.8

Presentation of information

WCAG principles: perceivable, operable, robust.

Guideline:

Use style sheets to control information presentation. Check for the effect of font size increasing on readability. Ensure that links can be correctly identified, that focus is specified, that line spacing is suffiscient, and give the user the ability to control text justification. Ensure that hidden texts are rendered properly and that information is not provided only by an element's shape or location.

Criterion 10.1 [Bronze] In the Web site, are style sheets used to control information presentation?

  • Test10.1.1: On each Web page, tags serving for information presentation must not be available in the page source code. Does this rule have been followed?
  • Test10.1.2: On each Web page, attributes serving for information presentation must not be available in the page source code. Does this rule have been followed?
  • Test10.1.3: On each Web page, does the use of spaces pass the conditions below?
    • Spaces are not used to separate the letters of a word
    • Spaces are not use to simulate tables
    • Spaces are not used to simulate text columns

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.3.1 - 1.3.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G140 - F32 - F33 - F34 - C6 - C8 - C22 - F48
  • RGAA tests: 7.8 - 7.4 - 11.5

Criterion 10.2 [Bronze] On each Web page, is visible content still available when style sheets or images are disabled?

  • Test10.2.1: On each Web page, is information still available when style sheets are disabled?
  • Test10.2.2: On each Web page, is information still visible when images are disabled?
  • Test10.2.3: On each Web page, is information still visible when colours are disabled?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.1.1 - 1.3.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F3 - F87
  • RGAA tests: 7.1 - 7.3

Criterion 10.3 [Bronze] On each Web page, is information still understandable when style sheets are disabled?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.3.2 - 2.4.3
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F1 - G59
  • RGAA test: 7.2

Criterion 10.4 [Silver] On each Web page, is text still readable when character size is increased until at least 200%?

  • Test10.4.1: In the style sheets of the Web site, non relative units (pt, pc, mm, cm, in) must not be used for media types screen, tv, handheld, projection. Does this rule have been followed?
  • Test10.4.2: In the style sheets of the Web site, do font sizes only use relative units?
  • Test10.4.3: On each Web page, the increasing of the character size until at least 200%, does not have to cause loss of information. Does this rule have been followed?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.4.4
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F80 - F69 - C14 - G179
  • RGAA tests: 7.13 - 7.14

Criterion 10.5 [Silver] On each Web page, are CSS declarations for colours for element background and fonts used properly?

  • Test10.5.1: On each Web page, is each CSS declaration for font colours (color), of an element that may contain text , accompanied by background colour declaration (background, background-color), at least, inherited from a parent?
  • Test10.5.2: On each Web page, is each declaration for background colour (background, background-color), of an element that may contain text, accompanied by a font colour declaration (color) at least, inherited from a parent?
  • Test10.5.3: On each Web page, is each use of an image to create a background colour for an element that may contain text , via CSS (background, background-image), accompanied by a background colour declaration (background, background-color), at least, that is inherited from a parent?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.4.3 - 1.4.6 - 1.4.8
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F24
  • RGAA test: 7.5

Criterion 10.6 [Bronze] On each Web page, is each link, whose kind is not obvious, visible in relation with the surrounding text?

  • Test10.6.1: On each Web page, does each text link that is indicated only by colour and whose kind is not obvious have a contrast ratio that is greater than or equal to 3:1 in relation with the surrounding text?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.4.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G183 - F73
  • RGAA test: 7.10

Criterion 10.7 [Bronze] On each Web page, is the focus visible for each element that receives focus?

  • Test 10.7.1: For each element that receives focus, the browser visual indication must not be removed (CSS property outline, outline-color, outline-width, outline-style). Does this rule have been followed?
  • Test10.7.2: For each element that receives focus the browser visual indication must not be deteriorated (CSS property outline-color). Does this rule have been followed?
  • Test10.7.3: Does each link inside of a text that is conveyed by colour alone follow the conditions below?
    • A visual cue other than colour allows to specify the focus with keyboard.
    • A visual cue other than colour allows to indicate link mouseover.

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.4.1 - 2.4.7
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G183 - F73 - F78 - G165 - C15 - G195 - SCR31
  • RGAA tests: 7.10 - 7.11

Criterion 10.8 [Gold] On each Web page, can the choice of text background and font colour be controlled by the user?

  • Test10.8.1: For each block of text inside of an HTML element, can background colour be controlled by the user?
  • Test10.8.2: For each block of text inside of an HTML element, can font colour be controlled by the user?
  • Test10.8.3: For each block of text inside of an object, applet or embed element, can background colour be controlled by the user?
  • Test10.8.4: For each block of text inside of an object, applet or embed element, can font colour be controlled by the user?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.4.8
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G156 - G175
  • RGAA test: 5.34

Criterion 10.9 [Gold] for each Web page, text must not be justified. Does this rule have been followed?

  • Test10.9.1: Does each Web page pass one of the conditions below?
    • Text is not justified
    • A mechanism allows the user to remove justification of text

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.4.8
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F88 - G172
  • RGAA test: 7.12

Criterion 10.10 [Gold] For each Web page, on a full-screen window and with a font size of 200%, is each block of text still readable without the use of horizontal scrolling?

  • Test10.10.1: On each Web page, does increasing of character size to 200% pass one of the conditions below?
    • In a full-screen window, the use of horizontal scrolling is not necessary to read a block of text
    • A mechanism allows to make the use of horizontal scrolling useless to read a block of text on a full-screen window

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.4.8
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): C26 - C24
  • RGAA test: 7.15

Criterion 10.11 [Gold] For each Web page, do blocks of text have a width that is less than or equal to 80 characters (except in special cases)?

  • Test10.11.1: For each Web page, does each block of text pass one of the conditions below (except in special cases)?
    • Each block of text has a width that is less than or equal to 80 characters
    • The user can reduce the width of each block of text to 80 characters when resizing his browser window

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.4.8
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H87 - C20
  • RGAA test: 7.16

Criterion 10.12 [Gold] For each Web page, is line and paragraph spacing sufficient?

  • Test10.12.1: For each Web page, does each block of text pass one of the conditions below?
    • The value of the line spacing is at least equal to 1.5 times the text size
    • A mechanism allows to increase the value of the line spacing to at least 1.5 times the text size
  • Test10.12.2: For each Web page, does each block of text pass one of the conditions below?
    • The value of spacing between two paragraphs is equal to at least 1.5 times the value of the line spacing
    • A mechanism allows to increase the value of the spacing between two paragraphs to at least 1.5 times the value of the line spacing

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.4.8
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G188 - C21
  • RGAA test: 7.17

Criterion 10.13 [Bronze] for each Web page, are hiddent texts rendered properly by assistive technologies?

  • Test 10.13.1: On each Web page, does each hidden text (display:none or visibility:hidden property) pass one of the conditions below?
    • The text is not intended to be rendered by assistive technologies
    • The text is made visible on user action on the element itself or on an element before the hidden text

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 4.1.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): -
  • RGAA test: 7.18

Criterion 10.14 [Bronze] On each Web page, information must not be provided by its shape or location alone. Does this rule have been followed?

  • Test10.14.1: On each Web page, for each text or set of text, information must not be provided by its shape or location alone. Does this rule have been followed?
  • Test10.14.2: On each Web page, for each image or set of images, information must not be provided by its shape or location alone. Does this rule have been followed?
  • Test10.14.3: On each Web page, for each time-based media, information must not be provided by its shape or location alone. Does this rule have been followed?
  • Test10.14.4: On each Web page, for each non time-based media, information must not be provided by its shape or location alone. Does this rule have been followed?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.4.1 - 1.3.3
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G96 - G111 - F14 - F26
  • RGAA tests: 12.7 - 12.8 - 12.9

Criterion 10.15 [Bronze] On each Web page, information must not be provided by its shape or location alone. Does this rule have been implemented in a relevant way?

  • Test10.15.1: On each Web page, for each text or set of text, information must not be provided by its shape or location alone. Does this rule have been implemented in a relevant way?
  • Test10.15.2: On each Web page, for each image or set of images, information must not be provided by its shape or location alone. Does this rule have been implemented in a relevant way?
  • Test10.15.3: On each Web page, for each time-based media, information must not be provided by its shape or location alone. Does this rule have been implemented in a relevant way?
  • Test10.15.4: On each Web page, for each non time-based media, information must not be provided by its shape or location alone. Does this rule have been implemented in a relevant way?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.4.1 - 1.3.3
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G96 - G111 - F14 - F26
  • RGAA tests: 12.7 - 12.8 - 12.9

Forms

WCAG principles: perceivable, operable, understandable, robust.

Guideline:

For each form, associate each control with its text, group controls in similar blocks of information, structure selection lists in a consistent way, give each button an explicit text. Check that input help is available, ensure that the input control is accessible and that the user can control financial, legal or personal data.

Criterion 11.1 [Bronze] Does each form field have a label?

  • Test11.1.1: Does each form field (input tag of type text, password, checkbox, radio, file, or textarea and select tags), pass one of the conditions below?
    • The form field has a title attribute
    • A label (label tag) is associated with the form field
  • Test 11.1.2: Does each form field (input tag of type text, password, checkbox, radio, file, or textarea and select tags), that is associated with a label (label tag), pass the conditions below?
    • The form field has an id attribute
    • The value of the id attribute is unique
  • Test 11.1.3: Does each label (label tag) that is associated with a form field (input tag of type text, password, checkbox, radio, file, or textarea and select tag) pass the conditions below?
    • The label tag has a for attribute
    • The value of the for attribute is equal to the value of the id attribute of the associated form field

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.1.1 - 1.3.1 - 2.4.6 - 3.3.2 - 4.1.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H44 - H65 - G82 - G131 - F17 - F82 - F86
  • RGAA tests: 3.11 - 3.10

Criterion 11.2 [Bronze] Is each label that is associated with a form field relevant?

  • Test11.2.1: Does each label (label tag) allow to know the exact function of the form field (input tag of type text, password, checkbox, radio, file, or textarea and select tag) with which it is associated?
  • Test11.2.2: Does each title attribute allow to know the exact function of the form field (input tag of type text, password, checkbox, radio, file, or textarea and select tags) with which it is associated?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.1.1 - 2.4.6 - 3.3.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H44 - H65 - G182 - G131
  • RGAA test: 3.12

Criterion 11.3 [Silver] In each form, is each label related with a form field with the same function and that is repeated several times on the same page or in a set of pages consistent?

  • Test 11.3.1: Is each label related with a form field with the same function and that is repeated several times on a same Web page consistent?
  • Test 11.3.2: Is each label related with a form field with the same function and that is repeated several times in a set of pages consistent?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 3.2.4
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F31
  • RGAA test: 4.11

Criterion 11.4 [Bronze] In each form, are each control label and its related control positioned next to each other?

  • Test11.4.1: In each form, are each control label and its related control positioned next to each other?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 3.3.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G162
  • RGAA test: 3.3

Criterion 11.5 [Bronze] In each form, is same nature information grouped together, if necessary?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.3.1 - 3.3.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H71
  • RGAA test: 3.4

Criterion 11.6 [Bronze] In each form, does each form field grouping have a legend?

  • Test11.6.1: Is each form field grouping (fieldset tag) followed by a legend (legend tag) in the source code?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.3.1 - 3.3.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H71
  • RGAA test: 3.5

Criterion 11.7 [Bronze] In each form, is each legend related with a form field grouping relevant?

  • Test11.7.1: In each form, is each legend (legend tag) related with a form field grouping (fieldset tag) relevant?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 3.3.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H71
  • RGAA test: 3.6

Criterion 11.8 [Bronze] In each form, is each selection list structured in a relevant way?

  • Test11.8.1: In each form, are for each selection list (select tag) items grouped together with an optgroup tag, if necessary?
  • Test11.8.2: In each selection list (select tag), does each list item grouping (optgroup tag) have a label attribute?
  • Test11.8.3: For each list item grouping (optgroup tag) with a label attribute, is the content of the label attribute relevant?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.3.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H85
  • RGAA tests: 3.7 - 3.8 - 3.9

Criterion 11.9 [Bronze] In each form, is the text of each button relevant?

  • Test 11.9.1: In each form, does the text of each button pass one of the conditions below?
    • The content of the value attribute of the form buttons of type submit, reset or button is relevant
    • The content of the <button> tag is relevant
    • The content of the title attribute is relevant

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 4.1.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H91
  • RGAA tests : 6.13 - 6.14

Criterion 11.10 [Bronze] In each form, is the input control used in a relevant way?

  • Test11.10.1: For each form, are mandatory fields indicated in a relevant way?
  • Test11.10.2: For each form, are input errors indicated in a relevant way?
  • Test11.10.3: For each form, is for each mandatory field the data and/Or format type specified, if necessary?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 3.3.1 - 3.3.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G83 - G84 - G85 - G89 - G184 - H44 - SCR18 - SCR32
  • RGAA test: 3.1 - 3.2

Criterion 11.11 [Silver] In each form, is input control accompanied, if possible, with suggestions that facilitate the correction of input errors?

  • Test11.11.1: For each form, for each input error, are each data types and formats suggested, if necessary?
  • Test11.11.2: For each form, for each input error, are examples for expected values suggested, when possible?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 3.3.3
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G84 - G85 - G177
  • RGAA test: 3.13

Criterion 11.12 [Silver] For each form, can financial, legal or personal data be changed, updated or recovered by the user?

  • Test11.12.1: For each form, does the input of financial, legal or personal data pass one of the conditions below?
    • The user can change or cancel data and actions on this data after it has been entered
    • The user can check and correct data before form submission
    • An explicit confirmation mechanism, via a form field or an additional step, is available
  • Test 11.12.2: For each form, does the deletion of financial, legal or personal data pass one of the conditions below?
    • A mechanism allows to recover data that have been deleted by the user
    • An explicit mechanism confirming deletion, via a form field or an additional step, is available

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 3.3.4
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G98 - G99 - G155 - G164 - G168
  • RGAA test: 3.14

Criterion 11.13 [Gold] For each form, can all data be changed, updated or recovered by the user?

  • Test11.13.1: For each form, does data input pass one of the conditions below?
    • The user can change or cancel data and actions on this data after it has been entered
    • The user can check and correct data before form submission
    • An explicit confirmation mechanism, via a form field or an additional step, is available
  • Test11.13.2: For each form, does data deletion pass one of the conditions below?
    • A mechanism allows to recover data that has been deleted by the user
    • An explicit mechanism confirming deletion, via a form field or an additional step, is available

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 3.3.6
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G98 - G99 - G155 - G164- G168
  • RGAA test: 3.15

Criterion 11.14 [Gold] For each form, is input assistance available?

  • Test11.14.1: Does each form pass one of the conditions below?
    • There is a link to a help page
    • Indications before the form are available
    • Indications before form fields are available
    • an assistant is available
  • Test 11.14.2: Does each field of type text pass one of the conditions below, if necessary?
    • A spell checking tool is available
    • typing suggestions are available

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 3.3.5
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G71 - G193 - G194 - G184 - G89 - F81
  • RGAA test: 3.16

Criterion 11.15 [Gold] For each form, is each input assistance relevant?

  • Test11.15.1: For each form, is each input assistance relevant?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion : 3.3.5
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G71 - G193 - G194 - G184 - G89 - F81
  • RGAA test: 3.16

Consultation

WCAG principles: perceivable, operable, understandable, robust.

Guideline:

Check that the user can control the refresh processes, sudden changes in luminance, openings of new windows and moving or blinking content.
Specify when a content opens in a new window and provide information regarding viewing of files to download. Do not make the completion of a task rely upon a time limit except if it is essential and ensure that entered data is retrieved after an authenticated session has expired. Ensure that unusual phrases and jargon are made explicit. Provide accessible versions or make documents to download accessible.

Criterion 13.1 [Bronze] For each Web page, can the user control each time limit that modifies content (except in special cases)?

  • Test13.1.1: For each Web page, does each refresh process or automatic redirect (code, script, object tag, applet tag, meta tag) pass one of the conditions below (except in special cases)?
    • The user can stop or restart refresh
    • The user can increase the time limit between two refreshs to at least ten times
    • The user is warned about the imminence of the refresh and has at least 20 seconds time to increase the time limit before the next refresh
    • The time limit between two refreshs is at least twenty hours
  • Test13.1.2: For each Web page, is each redirect process initiated via the meta tag immediate (except in special cases)?
  • Test13.1.3: For each Web page, does each redirect process initiated via a script pass one of the conditions below (except in special cases)?
    • the user can stop or restart the redirect
    • the user can increase the time limit to at least ten times before redirection
    • The user is warned about the imminence of the redirection and has at least twenty seconds to increase the time limit before the next redirection
    • The time limit before the redirection is at least twenty hours
  • Test 13.1.4: For each Web page, does each server-side redirect process pass one of the conditions below (except in special cases)?
    • The user can stop or restart the redirection
    • The user can increase the time limit before the redirection to at least ten times
    • The user is warned about the imminence of the redirection and has at least twenty seconds to increase the time limit before the next redirection
    • Time limit before redirection is at least twenty hours
  • Test 13.1.5: For each Web page, does each process restricting a session time pass one of the conditions below (except in special cases)?
    • The user can suppress time limit
    • The user can increase time limit
    • Time limit before the session expires is at least twenty hours.

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 2.1.2 - 2.2.1 - 2.2.4 - 3.2.5
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): F40 - F41 - F61 - F58 - G76 - H76 - SVR1- SCR1 - SCR36 - G133 - G180 - G75 - G110
  • RGAA tests: 6.7 - 6.8 - 6.9 - 6.10 - 6.11 - 6.12

Criterion 13.2 [Bronze] On each Web page, is the user warned each time a new window opens?

  • Test13.2.1: On each Web page, for each new window opening launched via a link (target="_blank" attribute) or a javascript command, is the user warned?
  • Test13.2.2: On each Web page, for each window opening launched via an object, applet or embed tag, is the user warned?
  • Test13.2.3: On each Web page, for each window opening launched via a form control, is the user warned?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 2.4.4 - 3.2.5
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H33 - H83 - F22 - SCR24
  • RGAA tests : 6.2 - 6.3 - 6.4 - 6.25

Criterion 13.3 [Bronze] On each Web page, the opening of a new window must not be launched without user action. Does this rule have been followed?

  • Test13.3.1: On each Web page, the opening of a new window must not be launched without user action. Does this rule have been followed?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 3.2.1 - 3.2.5
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G107 - F22 - F52 - F55 - F60
  • RGAA test: 6.5

Criterion 13.4 [Gold] On each Web page, it is not allowed that a task require a time limit to be completed, except if it occurs in real time or if this time limit is essential. Does this rule have been followed?

  • Test13.4.1: On each Web page, does each task with a time limit pass one of the conditions below?
    • The task occurs in real time
    • The task requires a time limit that is essential for the task to occur successfully

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 2.2.3
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G5
  • RGAA test: 8.10

Criterion 13.5 [Gold] On each Web page, when an authenticated session is interrupted, is the data entered by the user retrieved after re-authenticating?

  • Test 13.5.1: On each Web page, when an authenticated session is interrupted, is the data entered by the user retrieved after re-authenticating?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 2.2.5
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G105 - G181 - F12
  • RGAA test: 8.11

Criterion 13.6 [Bronze] On each Web page, is for each file to download information available regarding its viewing?

  • Test13.6.1: On each Web page, does each file to download via a link or a form have information about its format?
  • Test13.6.2: On each Web page, does each file to download via a link or a form have information about its weight?
  • Test13.6.3: On each Web page, does each file to download via a link or a form have information about its human language if necessary?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 2.4.4
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H33
  • RGAA tests: 6.26 - 6.27 - 6.28

Criterion 13.7 [Bronze] On each Web page, does each electronic document to download have an accessible version if necessary (except in special cases)?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.1.1 - 1.3.2 - 1.3.1 - 2.4.1 - 2.4.3 - 3.1.1 - 4.1.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G10 - G135 - F15
  • RGAA test: 10.13

Criterion 13.8 [Bronze] For each electronic document with an accessible version, does this version provide the same information?

  • Test 13.8.1: Does each electronic document with an accessible version pass one of the conditions below?
    • The accessibility-supported version provides the same information
    • The alternative version in HTML format is relevant and provides the same information

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.1.1 - 1.3.2 - 1.3.1 - 2.4.1 - 2.4.3 - 3.1.1 - 4.1.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G10 - G135 - F15
  • RGAA test: 10.13

Criterion 13.9 [Gold] On each Web page, are unusual phrases, idioms or jargon made explicit?

  • Test 13.9.1: On each Web page, does each phrase used in an unusual or restricted way, each idiom or jargon pass one of the conditions below?
    • A definition via the dfn element is available
    • A definition via a definition list is available
    • A definition is available on the page

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 3.1.3
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G55 - G101 - G112 - H54
  • RGAA test: 12.4

Criterion 13.10 [Gold] On each Web page, for each phrase used in an unusual or restricted way, each idiom or jargon with a definition, is this definition relevant?

  • Test 13.10.1: On each Web page, for each phrase used in an unusual or restricted way, idiom or jargon with a definition, does this definition pass one of the conditions below?
    • The content of the dfn element is relevant
    • The content of the dd element of the definition list is relevant
    • the definition provided by the adjacent context is relevant.

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 3.1.3
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G55 - G101 - G112 - H54
  • RGAA test: 12.4

Criterion 13.11 [Bronze] On each Web page, does each cryptical content (ascii art, emoticon, cryptical syntax) have an alternative?

  • Test13.11.1: On each Web page, does each cryptical content (ascii art, emoticon, cryptical syntax) pass one of the conditions below?
    • A title attribute is available
    • A definition is provided by the adjacent context

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.1.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H86 - F71 - F72
  • RGAA test: 12.5

Criterion 13.12 [Bronze] On each Web page, for each cryptical content (ascii art, emoticon, cryptical syntax) with an alternative, is this alternative relevant?

  • Test 13.12.1: On each Web page, does each cryptical content (ascii art, emoticon, cryptical syntax) pass one of the conditions below?
    • the content of the title attribute is relevant
    • the definition provided by the adjacent context is relevant

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 1.1.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): H86 - F71 - F72
  • RGAA test: 12.5

Criterion 13.13 [Gold] On each Web page, for each word whose meaning cannot be understood without knowing the pronunciation, is this pronunciation specified?

  • Test 13.13.1: On each Web page, does each word whose meaning cannot be understood without knowing the pronunciation, pass one of the conditions below?
    • The specification of the phonetic pronunciation is available in an adjacent way
    • The specification of the phonetic pronunciation is accessible via a link

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 3.1.6
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G62 - G120 - G121
  • RGAA test: 12.6

Criterion 13.14 [Gold] On each Web page, does each text that requires a reading ability more advanced than the lower secondary education level have an alternative version?

  • Test13.14.1: On each Web page, does each text that requires a reading ability more advanced than the lower secondary education level (except for proper name and title) pass one of the conditions below?
    • An illustration or graphic symbols that are adapted to the required reading level are available
    • A version in French sign language is available
    • A spoken version of the text is available
    • A summary that is adapted to the required reading level is available.

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 3.1.5
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G79 - G86 - G103 - G160 - G153
  • RGAA test: 12.10

Criterion 13.15 [Bronze] On each Web page, are sudden changes in luminance or flashing effects used accurately?

  • Test 13.15.1: On each Web page, does each animated image (img tag or object tag) causing a suddent change in luminance or a flashing effect pass one of the conditions below?
    • The effect frequency is less than three in one second
    • The added up total area of effects is less than or equal to 21 824 pixels
  • Test13.15.2: On each Web page, does each script causing a sudden change in luminance or a flashing effect pass one of the conditions below?
    • The effect frequency is less than 3 in one second
    • The added up total area of the effects is less than or equal to 21 824 pixels
  • Test13.15.3: On each Web page, does each CSS layout causing a sudden change in luminance or a flashing effect pass one of the conditions below?
    • The effect frequency is less than 3 in one second
    • The added up total area of the effects is less than or equal to 21 824 pixels
  • Test13.15.4: On each Web page, does each java applet causing a sudden change in luminance or a flashing effect pass one of the conditions below?
    • The effect frequency is less than 3 in one second
    • The added up total area of the effects is less than or equal to 21 824 pixels

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 2.3.1
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G15 - G19 - G176
  • RGAA tests: 5.13 - 5.14 - 5.15

Criterion 13.16 [Gold] On each Web page, do the sudden changes in luminance or flashing effects have a frequency less than or equal to 3 in one second?

  • Test 13.16.1: On each Web page, does each sudden change in luminance or a flashing effect caused by an animated image (img tag or object tag) have a frequency less than or equal to 3 in one second?
  • Test13.16.2: On each Web page, does each sudden change in luminance or a flashing effect caused by a script have a frequency less than or equal to 3 in one second?
  • Test13.16.3: On each Web page, does each sudden change in luminance or a flashing effect caused by CSS layout have a frequency less than or equal to 3 in one second?
  • Test13.16.4: On each Web page, does each sudden change in luminance or a flashing effect caused by a java applet have a frequency less than or equal to 3 in one second?

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criterion: 2.3.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G19
  • RGAA test: 5.17

Criterion 13.17 [Bronze] On each Web page, can each moving or blinking content be controlled by the user?

  • Test 13.17.1: On each Web page, does each moving content that starts automatically, pass one of the conditions below?
    • The movement length is less than or equal to 5 seconds
    • The user can stop and restart movement
    • The user can display and hide the moving content
    • The user can display the whole information without movement.
  • Test13.17.2: On each Web page, does each blinking content that starts automatically, pass one of the conditions below?
    • The blinking length is less than or equal to 5 seconds
    • The user can stop and restart blinking
    • The user can display and hide blinking content
    • The user can display the whole information without blinking

Mapping with WCAG 2.0 and RGAA

  • WCAG 2.0 success criteria: 1.2.4 - 1.2.9 - 2.2.1 - 2.2.2
  • WCAG 2.0 sufficient technique(s) and/or failure(s): G9 - G11 - G152 - G186 - G187 - G151 - G157 - G191 - SM11 - SM12 - F47 - F50 - F4 - F7 - F16 - SCR22 - SCR36
  • RGAA tests: 5.19 - 5.20 - 5.21 - 5.22 - 5.23 - 5.24 - 5.25 - 5.26