ARCHIVED - Part 2: Standard on the Accessibility, Interoperability and Usability of Web Sites - CLF 2.0 Assessment Methodology

Warning This information has been archived because it is outdated and no longer relevant.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

Part 2: Standard on the Accessibility, Interoperability and Usability of Web Sites

Part 2, R1 – Compliance with World Wide Web Consortium
Priority 1 and Priority 2 checkpoints

The compliance criteria herein reflect the guidance provided in WCAG 1.0 and related techniques.  Where sufficient guidance is not provided by WCAG 1.0, the compliance criteria reflects WCAG 2.0 guidance for forwards compatibility.

Please also note that the checkpoints below, in some cases, also include requirements stemming from the "Directive on the Use of Official Languages on Web Sites". They are included for convenience as adherence to Official Languages requirements is mandatory in the Government of Canada context, and Official Languages requirements are included in the CLF Standards. Additionally, they represent an element of accessibility not included in the WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints.

Checkpoint 1.1 (Priority 1): Text Equivalents

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Are "alt" attributes provided for all "img" elements?
  2. Are text equivalents provided for all meaningful information conveyed by "img" elements?
  3. Are text equivalents (such as text-based versions or parent container title attribute values) provided for all meaningful information conveyed by images that are loaded through CSS?
  4. Are text equivalents provided for all meaningful information conveyed by programmatic objects (such as Flash objects, media players, and other interface objects)?
  5. Are transcripts provided for all meaningful visual and audio information conveyed by multimedia?
  6. Are text equivalents provided for all programmatic object interface controls (such as media player buttons)?
  7. Are brief descriptions (alt text) and full descriptions (such as data tables or long descriptions) provided for all images that convey more meaningful information than can be conveyed using alt text alone (such as charts and graphs)?
  8. English page:
    1. Are all text equivalents provided in English only?
  9. French page:
    1. Are all text equivalents provided in French only?
  10. Page in a language other than English or French:
    1. Are all text equivalents provided in only the language of the page?
  11. Bilingual or multilingual page for a site provided by an office located outside of Quebec:
    1. Are all text equivalents provided in English first and French second?
  12. Bilingual or multilingual page for a site provided by an office located inside of Quebec:
    1. Are all text equivalents provided in French first and English second?
Medium priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 33.3% compliance)
  1. Is all meaningful information embedded in images conveyed through the associated text equivalents in the logical reading order?
Low priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 66.7% compliance)
  1. Are null (alt="") text equivalents provided for all "img" elements that do not convey meaningful information or are used solely for decorative purposes so they can be ignored by adaptive technologies?

Checkpoint 1.2 (Priority 1): Server-Side Image Maps

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains at least one server-side image map

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Are redundant text links provided for the active regions of each server-side image map?

Checkpoint 1.3 (Priority 1): Auditory Descriptions

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains multimedia

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is equivalent information provided through the main audio track or a separate auditory description for all meaningful visual information conveyed through multimedia?

Checkpoint 1.4 (Priority 1): Synchronize Equivalents

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains multimedia

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Are equivalent captions provided for all meaningful audio information conveyed through multimedia?
  2. Are all captions synchronized with the associated meaningful audio information conveyed through multimedia?
  3. Are all captions at least one phrase in length (where sufficient meaningful audio information exists)?
  4. Is all equivalent information conveyed through the main audio track and any separate auditory descriptions synchronized with the associated meaningful visual information conveyed through multimedia?

Checkpoint 2.1 (Priority 1): Colour

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of instances where meaningful information is conveyed exclusively through colour (such as which form fields are mandatory)?

Checkpoint 2.2 (Priority 2): Colour Contrast

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Meaningful text that is embedded in an image and is smaller than equivalent 18 point and 14 point bold fonts (at the normal text size setting):
    1. Is at least a 4:1 contrast ratio achieved between the meaningful text and the associated backgrounds?
  2. Meaningful text that is embedded in an image and is at least as large as an equivalent 18 point or 14 point bold font (at the normal text size setting):
    1. Is at least a 3:1 contrast ratio achieved between the meaningful text and the associated backgrounds?
  3. Meaningful information (other than text) embedded in an image:
    1. Is at least a 3:1 contrast ratio achieved between the meaningful information and the associated backgrounds?
Medium priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 50% compliance)
  1. Meaningful text that is embedded in an image and is smaller than equivalent 18 point and 14 point bold fonts (at the normal text size setting):
    1. Is at least a 4.25:1 contrast ratio achieved between the meaningful text and the associated backgrounds?
Low priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 75% compliance)
  1. Meaningful text that is embedded in an image and is smaller than equivalent 18 point and 14 point bold fonts (at the normal text size setting):
    1. Is at least a 4.5:1 contrast ratio achieved between the meaningful text and the associated backgrounds?

Checkpoint 3.1 (Priority 2): Bitmap Images

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of images that are the sole means of visually conveying meaningful information where markup and CSS could be used instead of or at least in addition to the images to convey the same meaningful information (excluding the institutional signature and the "Canada" wordmark)?

Checkpoint 3.2 (Priority 2): Valid Documents

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Page does not contain a frameset:
    1. Does the page validate to XHTML 1.0 Strict or a language described by World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Recommendations?
  2. Page contains a frameset:
    1. Does the frameset validate to XHTML 1.0 Frameset or a language described by World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Recommendations?
    2. Does each frame validate to XHTML 1.0 Strict or a language described by World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Recommendations?
Medium priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 50% compliance)
  1. Does all CSS (including associated CSS files and CSS embedded in the page) validate to the most current and stable version of CSS?

Checkpoint 3.3 (Priority 2): Style Sheets

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of tables used for layout (such as tables used to control the layout and positioning of blocks of text, visual elements, and form controls)?
  2. Is the page free of deprecated markup that is used to control the page layout or presentation?
Medium priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 33.3% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of images that are used solely to control the page layout?

Checkpoint 3.4 (Priority 2): Units

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Are units that are relative to the browser text size setting (%, em, and ex) used to control the size of all text elements? For example, does all text scale in size when using the "Text Size" feature in Internet Explorer?
  2. Are units that are relative to the browser text size setting (%, em, and ex) used to control the size of all form controls that contain text? For example, do all form controls that can contain text scale in size when using the "Text Size" feature in Internet Explorer?
  3. Are units that are relative to the browser text size setting (%, em, and ex) used to control the size of all images that convey meaningful information or is markup and CSS used instead of or at least in addition to the images to convey the same meaningful information (excluding the institutional signature and the "Canada" wordmark)?
  4. Does the page scale to at least 200% of the normal text size setting without overlapping or clipping that negatively impacts the legibility of any meaningful information?

Checkpoint 3.5 (Priority 2): Headings

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is heading markup used?
  2. Is the page free of duplicate headings at the same heading level in the same section/sub-section? For example, is the page free of level 3 headings ("h3") that contain identical text and are grouped by the same level 2 heading ("h2")?
  3. Is the page free of heading elements that do not convey both meaningful information and document structure?
  4. Is the page free of heading elements that are associated to sections that do not contain meaningful information? For example, is the page free of level 2 headings ("h2") where meaningful information has not been provided before the next level 2 ("h2") or level 1 ("h1") heading?
  5. Is the page free of heading elements that are used solely for visual purposes?
  6. Are all headings that are hidden using CSS able to be read by screen readers? For example, is the page free of headings that have been hidden using "display: none" or "visibility: hidden"?
  7. Content page:
    1. Are "h1" elements provided at the beginning of the common menu bar, the left side menu, and the content area?
    2. Are all section/sub-section headings provided in only the language of the page?
  8. Welcome Page for a bilingual or multilingual site provided by an office located outside of Quebec:
    1. Is an "h1" element provided at the beginning of the message area?
    2. Are all section/sub-section headings provided in both official languages?
    3. Are all section/sub-section headings provided in English first and French second?
  9. Welcome Page for a bilingual or multilingual site provided by an office located inside of Quebec:
    1. Is an "h1" element provided at the beginning of the message area?
    2. Are all section/sub-section headings provided in both official languages?
    3. Are all section/sub-section headings provided in French first and English second?
  10. Welcome Page for a unilingual site:
    1. Is an "h1" element provided at the beginning of the message area?
    2. Are all section/sub-section headings provided in only the language of the page (except for the sub-section heading for the Official Languages notice in the alternate official language)?
Medium priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 50% compliance)
  1. Are all section/sub-section headings identified using heading markup?
  2. Is heading markup used in sequence without skipping levels?
  3. Are all section/sub-section relationships properly identified using heading markup? For example, if a section begins with a level 3 heading then each sub-section of the level 3 heading section would begin with a level 4 heading, and each sub-section of the level 4 heading sub-sections would begin with a level 5 heading.

Checkpoint 3.6 (Priority 2): Lists

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains list markup or at least one list

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of list markup that is used solely for visual purposes (such as indenting)?
  2. Is the page free of content that visually emulates unordered lists, ordered lists, or definition lists without list markup being used (excluding any content where data tables or heading elements are used instead of list markup)?
  3. Are all items from the same list grouped together within the same list element ("ol", "ul", or "dl") rather than being split into separate list elements?
  4. Is each sub list nested correctly in the associated parent list (in other words are the items in each sub list grouped into a new list element that is nested within a list item element of the parent list)?
  5. Is the page free of nested lists that are not immediately preceded by meaningful information that identifies the contents of the nested list and is contained within the same parent list item as the nested list (in other words is the page free of list item elements that that begin with the list element of a nested list)?
  6. Is the page free of list item elements ("li", "dt", or "dd") that do not contain any content?
  7. Is list markup used for all content that is explicitly identified in the surrounding or referring text as being in a list (excluding any content where data tables or heading elements are used instead of list markup)?
Medium priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 66.7% compliance)
  1. Is list markup used for each series of like content that conveys meaningful information (such as links, names, or addresses) and is not part of a sentence (excluding any series where data tables or heading elements are used instead of list markup)?
  2. Is definition list markup used for each series of like title/value pairs that conveys meaningful information (such as term/definition pairs in a glossary or speaker/speech pairs in a transcript) and is not part of a sentence (excluding any series where data tables or heading elements are used instead of list markup)?

Checkpoint 3.7 (Priority 2): Quotations

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains quotation markup or at least one quotation

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Are "q" elements used for all inline quotations and "blockquote" elements used for all quotation blocks?
  2. Is the beginning and end of each quotation identified using quotation markup (in other words does the quotation markup enclose only the quotation and none of the surrounding text)?
  3. Is the page free of quotation markup that is used solely for visual purposes (such as indenting)?
  4. Is the "cite" attribute used to identify the source URL for each quotation where a Web page reference exists?

Checkpoint 4.1 (Priority 1): Natural Languages

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Are all changes in the natural language of the page programmatically identified using "lang" for each element where the language change occurs (excluding language changes that occur within a bilingual or multilingual attribute value)?
  2. Do the values specified for each "lang" attribute correctly identify the language of the associated content? For example, is a value of "en" used to identify English content and a value of "fr" used to identify French content?

Checkpoint 5.1 (Priority 1): Table Headers

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains at least one data table

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Data table:
    1. Is at least one header cell that conveys meaningful information provided for each data cell?
    2. Are "th" elements used for each header cell that conveys meaningful information?
    3. Are "td" elements used for each header cell that does not convey meaningful information (such as empty cells in a header row or column)?
    4. Are "td" elements used for each data cell?

Checkpoint 5.2 (Priority 1): Table Structures

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains at least one data table with two or more logical levels of row or column headers

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Data table with two or more logical levels of row or column headers:
    1. Is each header cell that conveys meaningful information programmatically associated to the related data cells using attributes such as "scope", "id"/"headers", or "axis"?

Checkpoint 5.3 (Priority 2): Avoid Tables for Layout

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Page is not free of layout tables:
    1. Is the page free of layout tables that do not make sense when linearized (in other words read left to right, row by row)?
Medium priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 25% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of layout tables?

Checkpoint 5.4 (Priority 2): Avoid Tables for Format

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains at least one layout table

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of layout tables that include data table-specific structural markup (such as "th", "axis", "scope", "id"/"headers", "thead", "tfoot", "tbody", "col", and "colgroup")?

Checkpoint 6.1 (Priority 1): Organize Documents

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is all meaningful information accessible and perceivable in the correct order when CSS is disabled or not supported (including meaningful information conveyed by images loaded through CSS)?

Checkpoint 6.2 (Priority 1): Update Dynamic Content

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains dynamic content

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Are the text equivalents for all non-text dynamic content (such as animated and changing images) always conveying the same meaningful information as the associated non-text dynamic content?

Checkpoint 6.3 (Priority 1): Programmatic Objects

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains scripting or at least one programmatic object

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is all meaningful information conveyed in the correct order when scripting or programmatic objects are disabled or not supported?
  2. Is all important functionality (or equivalent functionality) provided when scripting or programmatic objects are disabled or not supported?
  3. Is the page free of objects that do not function correctly when scripting or programmatic objects are disabled or not supported?

Checkpoint 6.4 (Priority 2): Event Handlers

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains at least one event handler

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is all important functionality that is event handler-dependent both accessible and operable when using only a keyboard or keyboard emulation?
Medium priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 50% compliance)
  1. Is all functionality that is event handler-dependent implemented using device independent event handlers or a combination of event handlers that enable the functionality to be device-independent (except for keyboard-only functionality such as completing text input fields)?

Checkpoint 6.5 (Priority 2): Accessible Dynamic Content

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains inaccessible dynamic content or at least one frameset

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Are alternative accessible presentations for each frameset provided through the "noframes" element?
  2. Are alternative accessible presentations or links to pages with equivalent information provided for all dynamic content that cannot be made accessible?

Checkpoint 7.1 (Priority 1): Flickering

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of content that flickers (flashes more than three times in any one second period)?

Checkpoint 7.2 (Priority 2): Blinking

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of content that blinks (alternates between visible and invisible at a regular rate)?

Checkpoint 7.3 (Priority 2): Moving Content

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of movement that lasts for more than three seconds or is a mechanism provided to freeze such movement?
  2. Is the page free of movement that periodically restarts or is a mechanism provided to freeze such movement?

Checkpoint 7.4 (Priority 2): Auto-Refreshing Pages

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of automatic updates (such as automatic page refreshes using meta-refresh or JavaScript) or is a mechanism provided to prevent the automatic updates?

Checkpoint 7.5 (Priority 2): Redirected Pages

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of automatic client-side redirects (such as a meta-refresh redirect)?

Checkpoint 8.1 (Priority 1): Embedded Objects

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains scripting or at least one programmatic object

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is all meaningful information that is conveyed through scripting or programmatic objects both accessible and perceivable when using adaptive technologies (such as screen readers and screen magnification software)?
  2. Is all important functionality provided through scripting or programmatic objects both accessible and operable when using adaptive technologies (such as screen readers and alternate input devices)?
  3. Is the page free of scripting and programmatic objects that interfere with adaptive technologies in the following ways:
    1. trapping focus;
    2. preventing navigation to an area of the page;
    3. disrupting adaptive technology functionality;
    4. providing audio that disrupts or interferes with hearing other audio information;
    5. changing the context without a user request;
    6. performing page updates that cannot be detected by screen readers or other adaptive technologies (such as initiating AJAX-based page updates using XMLHttpRequest) without providing an accessible alternative; and
    7. hiding meaningful information unnecessarily from screen readers and other adaptive technologies (such as using "display: none" or "visibility: hidden")?

Checkpoint 9.1 (Priority 1): Client-Side Image Maps

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains at least one image map

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of server-side image maps where the regions can be defined with an available geometric shape?

Checkpoint 9.2 (Priority 2): Element Interfaces

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains at least one programmatic object with its own custom interface

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is all important functionality provided through custom scripting or programmatic object interfaces accessible and operable when using only a keyboard or keyboard emulation?
  2. Is the page free of custom scripting or programmatic object interfaces that interfere in the following ways when using only a keyboard or keyboard emulation?
    1. trapping focus; and
    2. preventing navigation to an area of the page?

Checkpoint 9.3 (Priority 2): Logical Event Handlers

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains at least one event handler

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is all important functionality that is event handler-dependent both accessible and operable when using only a keyboard or keyboard emulation?
Medium priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 50% compliance)
  1. Is all functionality that is event handler-dependent implemented using device-independent event handlers or a combination of event handlers that enable the functionality to be device-independent (except for keyboard-only functionality such as completing text input fields)?

Checkpoint 10.1 (Priority 2): Pop-up and New Windows

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of links that open in new windows or tabs without advance warning?
  2. Is the page free of new windows, tabs, and JavaScript alerts/dialogs that open when the state of a form control changes (excluding submit buttons)?
  3. Is the page free of new windows, tabs, and JavaScript alerts/dialogs that open as a result of generic mouse or keyboard actions (such as moving the mouse pointer or pressing a key on the keyboard)?
  4. Is the page free of new windows, tabs, and JavaScript alerts/dialogs that open as a result of an element gaining or losing focus?
  5. Is the page free of new windows, tabs, and JavaScript alerts/dialogs that open automatically without an explicit action being performed?
Medium priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 25% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of links that open in new windows or tabs where the advance warning is provided near the link but not in the link text or the title value?
Low priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 50% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of links that open in new windows or tabs where the advance warning was provided in the link text but not in the non-null title value?

Checkpoint 10.2 (Priority 2): Form Controls

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains at least one Web form

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is at least one unique label that conveys meaningful information provided for each form control?
Medium priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 50% compliance)
  1. Is all text that is unique to one form control (including inline error messages) provided immediately preceding the associated form control on either the same line or on the preceding line (excluding radio buttons, checkboxes, submit buttons, reset buttons, and button elements)?

Checkpoint 11.1 (Priority 2): W3C Technologies

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Page does not contain a frameset:
    1. Is the full DOCTYPE declaration for XHTML 1.0 Strict or the latest supported version of a language described by World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Recommendations provided as the first element on the page?
  2. Page contains a frameset:
    1. Is the full DOCTYPE declaration for XHTML 1.0 Frameset or the latest supported version of a language described by World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Recommendations provided as the first element for each frameset?
    2. Is the full DOCTYPE declaration for XHTML 1.0 Strict or the latest supported version of a language described by World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Recommendations provided as the first element for each frame?
  3. Is the page free of elements and attributes that are not part of a language described by World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Recommendations (such as the "embed" element)?
References
  1. Document Type Definition (DTD)
  2. DOCTYPE declaration (Glossary)

Checkpoint 11.2 (Priority 2): Deprecated Elements

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of deprecated elements?
  2. Is the page free of deprecated attributes?

Checkpoint 11.4 (Priority 1): Accessible Equivalents

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains at least one non-W3C technology that is causing a large proportion of the page to be inaccessible

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is an alternative page provided which uses World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information and functionality, and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page?
  2. Is a link to the alternative page prominently displayed at the top of the content area?

Checkpoint 12.1 (Priority 1): Frame Titles

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains at least one frameset

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Are title attribute values that facilitate frame identification and navigation provided for all frames in each frameset?

Checkpoint 12.2 (Priority 2): Frame Relationships

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains at least one frameset

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is the purpose of each frame and how the frames relate to each other obvious from frame title attribute values alone or is this information available through "longdesc" attributes that are provided for all frames in each frameset?

Checkpoint 12.3 (Priority 2): Information Blocks

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is heading markup used?
  2. Are data tables used for all tabular data?
  3. Is the page free of duplicate headings at the same heading level in the same section/sub-section? For example, is the page free of level 3 headings ("h3") that contain identical text and are grouped by the same level 2 heading ("h2")?
  4. Is the page free of heading elements that do not convey both meaningful information and document structure?
  5. Is the page free of heading elements that are associated to sections that do not contain meaningful information? For example, is the page free of level 2 headings ("h2") where meaningful information has not been provided before the next level 2 ("h2") or level 1 ("h1") heading?
  6. Is the page free of heading elements that are used solely for visual purposes?
  7. Are all headings that are hidden using CSS able to be read by screen readers? For example, is the page free of headings that have been hidden using "display: none" or "visibility: hidden"?
  8. Content page:
    1. Are "h1" elements provided at the beginning of the common menu bar, the left side menu, and the content area?
    2. Are all section/sub-section headings provided in only the language of the page?
  9. Welcome Page for a bilingual or multilingual site provided by an office located outside of Quebec:
    1. Is an "h1" element provided at the beginning of the message area?
    2. Are all section/sub-section headings provided in both official languages?
    3. Are all section/sub-section headings provided in English first and French second?
  10. Welcome Page for a bilingual or multilingual site provided by an office located inside of Quebec:
    1. Is an "h1" element provided at the beginning of the message area?
    2. Are all section/sub-section headings provided in both official languages?
    3. Are all section/sub-section headings provided in French first and English second?
  11. Welcome Page for a unilingual site:
    1. Is an "h1" element provided at the beginning of the message area?
    2. Are all section/sub-section headings provided in only the language of the page (except for the sub-section heading for the Official Languages notice in the alternate official language)?
Medium priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 50% compliance)
  1. Are all section/sub-section headings identified using heading markup?
  2. Is the page logically grouped into sections using heading markup?
  3. Are all section/sub-section relationships properly identified using heading markup? For example, if a section begins with a level 3 heading then each sub-section of the section would begin with a level 4 heading, and each sub-section of these sub-sections would begin with a level 5 heading.
  4. Is heading markup used in sequence without skipping levels?
  5. Are all closely related form controls logically grouped using "fieldset" and "legend"?
  6. Is each sub list nested correctly in the associated parent list (in other words are the items in each sub list grouped into a new list element that is nested within a list item element of the parent list)?
  7. Is list markup used for each series of like content that conveys meaningful information (such as links, names, or addresses) and is not part of a sentence (excluding any series where data tables or heading elements are used instead of list markup)?
  8. Is definition list markup used for each series of like title/value pairs that conveys meaningful information (such as term/definition pairs in a glossary or speaker/speech pairs in a transcript) and is not part of a sentence (excluding any series where data tables or heading elements are used instead of list markup)?
  9. Is the page free of very large blocks of text where it would be natural and appropriate to divide each of those blocks of text into more manageable groups?
  10. Is the page free of very large and complex tables (such as compound tables) where it would be natural and appropriate to divide each of those tables into less complex and more manageable tables?
  11. Is the paragraph element ("p") used to identify the beginning and ending of each paragraph?

Checkpoint 12.4 (Priority 2): Form Control Labels

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains at least one Web form

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is all text that is enclosed by the "form" element and is unique to one form control (including inline error messages) programmatically associated to the relevant form control? For example, are all labels that are unique to one form control programmatically associated to the relevant form control using the "label" element?
  2. Is all text that is enclosed by the "form" element that is not unique to one form control programmatically associated to the relevant form controls using "fieldset" and "legend"?
  3. Is all text that is enclosed by the "form" element programmatically associated to at least one form control?

Checkpoint 13.1 (Priority 2): Link Targets

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of links where the targets are not explicitly identified through the link text or the title values alone (such as a "More" link with no title value)?
  2. Is the page free of links where the targets cannot be programmatically determined from the link text alone or from the link text together with content from the same paragraph, the same list, the same table cell, or an associated table header cell?
  3. Is the page free of links with different targets that are not differentiable through link text or title values alone (such as multiple "Help" links with different targets and the same title values)?
  4. Is the page free of links with different targets that are not differentiable through link text alone or from the link text together with content from the same paragraph, the same list, the same table cell, or an associated table header cell?
  5. Is the page free of links with different targets, different link text, and non-null title values that are not differentiable through title values alone (such as multiple links with different link text but only "Help" for the title value)?
  6. Is the page free of links with non-null title values that provide less information than the link text (such as links with "Meetings in June" for the link text and "Meetings" for the title value)?
  7. Are all links valid (in other words not broken and targeting the correct page in the correct language)?
Medium priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 50% compliance)
  1. Is the page free of links with a URL for the link text where the target is not explicitly identified through the title value (excluding link text that includes only the domain names such as "canada.gc.ca" or "privcom.gc.ca")?
  2. Is a text indication of the format provided in the link text or title value for each link to a non-XHTML/HTML format?
  3. Is the page free of link text and title values that do not use white-space or hyphens in between words (such as using underscores or no white-space at all)?

Checkpoint 13.2 (Priority 2): Metadata

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is semantic information provided using at least one metadata element (such as "dc.description", "description", "dcterms.subject", or "keywords")?
  2. Is semantic information identifying the contents of the Web page provided using the title element (<title></title>)?

Checkpoint 13.3 (Priority 2): Site Maps

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Content page

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is information about the general layout of the site (such as site maps, A-Z indexes, or tables of contents) available from the current page or a page linked to from the current page (such as the Contact Us page)?

Checkpoint 13.4 (Priority 2): Navigation

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains at least one navigation mechanism

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Are advance warnings for the opening of new windows implemented consistently throughout the page?
  2. Is the naming convention for form control labels implemented consistently throughout the page?
  3. Is the naming convention for link text and title values implemented consistently throughout the page?
  4. Are navigational mechanisms implemented consistently throughout the page?
  5. Are advance warnings for the opening of new windows implemented on the page consistent with the rest of the site or sub site?
  6. Is the naming convention for form control labels implemented on the page consistent with the rest of the site or sub site?
  7. Is the naming convention for link text and title values implemented on the page consistent with the rest of the site or sub site?
  8. Are navigational mechanisms implemented on the page consistent with the rest of the site or sub site?

Checkpoint 14.1 (Priority 1): Writing Styles

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is all content using the plainest and clearest language that is appropriate for the site?
  2. Is the page free of unnecessarily complex terminology and sentence structures?

Part 2, R2 – Baseline technologies

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Page does not use frames:
    1. Is the full DOCTYPE declaration for XHTML 1.0 Strict or a more recent World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (X)HTML markup language provided as the first element on the page?
    2. Does the page validate to XHTML 1.0 Strict or a more recent World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (X)HTML markup language?
  2. Page uses frames:
    1. Is the full DOCTYPE declaration for XHTML 1.0 Frameset or a more recent World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (X)HTML markup language provided as the first element for each frameset?
    2. Does the frameset validate to XHTML 1.0 Frameset or a more recent World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (X)HTML markup language?
    3. Is the full DOCTYPE declaration for XHTML 1.0 Strict or a more recent World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (X)HTML markup language provided as the first element for each frame?
    4. Does each frame validate to XHTML 1.0 Strict or a more recent World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (X)HTML markup language?
Medium priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 50% compliance)
  1. Does all CSS (including associated CSS files and CSS embedded in the page) validate to the most current and stable version of CSS?

Part 2, R3 – Accessible alternate format of documents on Web sites

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Document is not represented in XHTML 1.0 Strict or a language described by World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Recommendations:
    1. Is an Accessibility Notice provided immediately preceding the content or application that is not represented in XHTML 1.0 Strict or a language described by World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Recommendations?
    2. Is an Accessibility Notice provided on the "Help" page(s) of the Web site?
Medium priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 10% compliance)
  1. Is the document represented in XHTML 1.0 Strict or a language described by World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Recommendations?

Part 2, R4 – Offering information in multiple formats

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Page contains non-XHTML content or at least one link to a non-XHTML document

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is a link provided to a site where an appropriate viewer or plug-in can be obtained for each non-XHTML format that requires specialized software and is in use on the current page (excluding non-XHTML formats that the site visitor already has the required specialized software for)?
  2. Is a link provided to a site where an appropriate viewer or plug-in can be obtained for each non-XHTML format that requires specialized software and is in use by one or more documents linked to from the current page?
  3. Is a text indication of the format, file type, and size provided for each link to a non-XHTML document?
  4. Is the first format encountered by a visitor the XHTML version? For example, is the current page the XHTML version or is the XHTML version the first entry in the list of available formats?

Part 2, R5 – Contrast

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Meaningful textual information is smaller than equivalent 18 point and 14 point bold fonts (at the normal text size setting):
    1. Is at least a 4:1 contrast ratio achieved between the meaningful textual information and the associated backgrounds?
  2. Meaningful textual information is at least as large as an equivalent 18 point or 14 point bold font (at the normal text size setting):
    1. Is at least a 3:1 contrast ratio achieved between the meaningful textual information and the associated backgrounds?
Medium priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 50% compliance)
  1. Meaningful textual information is smaller than equivalent 18 point and 14 point bold fonts (at the normal text size setting):
    1. Is at least a 4.25:1 contrast ratio achieved between the meaningful textual information and the associated backgrounds?
Low priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in no more than 75% compliance)
  1. Meaningful textual information is smaller than equivalent 18 point and 14 point bold fonts (at the normal text size setting):
    1. Is at least a 4.5:1 contrast ratio achieved between the meaningful textual information and the associated backgrounds?

Part 2, R6 – Assessing accessibility, interoperability and usability

Compliance Criteria – Web page

Situation where applicable: Always

High priority criteria (failure of a criterion results in 0% compliance)
  1. Is a validation methodology employed to ensure the page is accessible, interoperable, and usable for the widest possible audience and the broadest possible range of hardware and software platforms (including browser software, operating systems, internet-enabled devices, and adaptive technologies)?
  2. Is testing with site visitors, current or potential, performed to ensure ease of use, navigation, comprehension, and user satisfaction?
  3. Page does not contain a frameset:
    1. Does the page validate to XHTML 1.0 Strict or a more recent World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (X)HTML markup language?
  4. Page contains a frameset:
    1. Does the frameset validate to XHTML 1.0 Frameset or a more recent World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (X)HTML markup language?
    2. Does each frame validate to XHTML 1.0 Strict or a more recent World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (X)HTML markup language?