In June 2018 the WCAG 2.1 standard was released. It wasn\u2019t intended to replace WCAG 2.0and WCAG 2.0 is still valid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The primary focus for WCAG 2.1 was to improve web accessibility for people with disabilities who fit into one (or more) of the following three groups:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
WCAG 2.1 builds on WCAG 2.0 and continues to improve the lives of the disabled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An important thing to note about the two versions is that if a webpage (or, by extension, a PDF) passes at the WCAG 2.1AA level, then it will also pass WCAG 2.0AA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As we take a look at what\u2019s new in WCAG 2.1 as it relates to PDFs, we will indicate the success criteria (S.C.) and the conformance level \u2013 A, AA, or AAA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Similar to the contrast checkpoint in 2.0, this checkpoint specifies that graphical elements need to have a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against adjacent colors unless the \u201cparticular presentation of graphics is essential to the information being conveyed\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you are not using a good contrast checker already, now you have an even better reason to find one. I\u2019m particularly fond of the Colour Contrast Analyser<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this S.C., recommendations are made for content that supports the style properties of line height (line spacing), spaces after paragraphs, letter spacing (tracking) and word spacing, so that when these properties (and only these properties) are set according to the WCAG recommendations, no content or functionality is lost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Specifically:<\/p>\n\n\n\n That said, if there are \u201cHuman languages and scripts\u201d that do not use one or more of the style properties listed above then files can still conform to this S.C. if the applicable style properties are used.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This success criterion is generally not applicable to PDF unless<\/em> there\u2019s JavaScript in a form, for example, that sets a timer. If there is, similar to S.C. 2.2.1 \u2013 Timing Adjustable \u2013 where users need to be warned that they are running out of time to complete a certain task and are given the functionality to indicate that they need more time, with this S.C., users need to be informed of any data that will be lost if and when they are timed out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This S.C. is not really going to be applicable to PDFs except when making forms accessible. Basically, it\u2019s saying that when a \u201csingle pointer\u201d is used \u2013 for example when checking a checkbox in a form by clicking it with the mouse \u2013 pressing down on the mouse button shouldn\u2019t \u201cexecute the function\u201d (check the box). Rather, the checkbox should become checked when the user lets go of the mouse button (\u201cmouse up\u201d). Also, there has to be a way to \u201cabort the function\u201d (not check the box) or to undo it after it\u2019s been checked. From an authoring standpoint, including a \u201cclear form\u201d button, or using checkboxes that can just as easily be unchecked, takes care of this. There are a couple of other things that are addressed, too, such as the \u201cdown-event\u201d (pressing down on the mouse button) being ok to trigger something if the \u201cup-event\u201d (letting go of the mouse button) reverses it or if, for some reason, the functionality of the \u201cdown-event\u201d is essential. Generally speaking, though, if you make the \u201cup-event\u201d the trigger then you\u2019ll be in compliance with this success criterion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Note: There are other instances in a PDF where this might be applicable, such as with links. However, that functionality is implemented by the \u201cuser agent\u201d and is not, therefore, a concern of the author or document creator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When creating forms, make sure that the visible label (for the question) matches, as closely as possible, the tooltip that will be read by assistive technologies. Also, make sure that the \u201cname\u201d of the form field matches the question. For example, if the question is \u201cWhat\u2019s your age?\u201d then the name for the form annotation should be \u201cage.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to new authoring considerations, when it comes to PDF remediation there are fewer new success criteria in WCAG 2.1 that we need to address as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As mentioned in the previous section, his success criterion is generally not applicable to PDF unless<\/em> there\u2019s JavaScript in a form, for example, that sets a timer. If there is, similar to S.C. 2.2.1 \u2013 Timing Adjustable \u2013 where users need to be warned that they are running out of time to complete a certain task and are given the functionality to indicate that they need more time, with this S.C., users need to be informed of any data that will be lost if and when they are timed out. If the remediator is tasked with adding the JavaScript to form annotations, they need to know this. Also, it might be helpful to include this information in the tooltip so that the user is aware. Generally, though, this should be addressed during document creation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This success criterion was addressed more thoroughly in the \u201cCreation\u201d section of this article. From a remediator\u2019s perspective, though, in forms, for example, make sure that the Action on a form annotation is set to \u201cmouse up\u201d (and \u201con blur\u201d for people who aren\u2019t using a mouse to fill out a form).<\/p>\n\n\n\n When remediating forms, make sure the tooltips on the form annotations match, as closely as possible, the visible label for the form fields. Similarly, if the remediator is tasked with adding the form annotations themselves, make sure that the field names match the question and aren\u2019t something ambiguous like \u201cText Field 3.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n We should also mention that there are, in fact, additional new success criteria in WCAG 2.1 that we have not brought to your attention in this article primarily because they don\u2019t really impact us as document creators or remediators. Some of them are not applicable to PDF or it could be that they are things that are controlled by the functionality of the \u201cuser agent\u201d and not the document author or remediator. We just didn\u2019t want you to think we missed them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hopefully this article helps you more clearly weed out what in WCAG 2.1 is relevant to you in your document creation and remediation efforts. As the leaders in PDF accessibility, CommonLook is here to help. In fact, CommonLook\u2019s PDF Validator and PDF remediation software products are currently supporting testing against and remediating to the WCAG 2.1AA level. In the near future, CommonLook Clarity will also be testing against WCAG 2.1AA and CommonLook Office will be supporting WCAG 2.1 for document authors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Learn more at commonlook.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n WCAG 2.1 \u2013 https:\/\/www.w3.org\/TR\/WCAG21\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nSuccess Criterion 1.4.12 \u2013 Text Spacing (AA):<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Success Criterion 2.2.6 \u2013 Timeouts (AAA):<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Success Criterion 2.5.2 \u2013 Pointer Cancellation (A):<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Success Criterion 2.5.3 \u2013 Label in Name (A):<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Document Remediation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Success Criterion 2.2.6 \u2013 Timeouts (AAA):<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Success Criterion 2.5.2 \u2013 Pointer Cancellation (A):<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Success Criterion 2.5.3 \u2013 Label in Name (A):<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Other Success Criteria Not Previously Mentioned<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is CommonLook Doing About All of This?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
References:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n