WCAG 2.2AA Standard for school websites?

[BigG]

They stealthilty added the accesibility link at the foot of the page. When an admin goes to that page it gives you notes on what to change etc then you have to publish, until you do this the page on the Juniper sites shows as a blank page.

[ITGuyNW]

I'm a bit confused now. Is WCAG 2.2 actually required for school websites?

[Steve101]

I'm a bit confused now. Is WCAG 2.2 actually required for school websites?

 

You have to put a statement on the website, and if you read the statement you need to declare all content that is not compliant.. so unless you want to update this statement every single time you make a change that is non-accessible then you have to start following the standards.

[localzuk]

Where has this imaginary January deadline come from? The WCAG2.2 stuff came out in 2018.

[mikes]

Not unless you have a login to a Greenhouse CMS, no - (If you do, it's under the Help menu > Accessibility Requirements)

 

Thanks - we use these guys and I have just checked and they've basically already made a pre-made template that I can just use - stating which parts meet and which parts don't meet the legislation.

Our website is a bit of a mess (stuff built up over the years) and I know there are images on there without alt text but hyperlinks being defined only by colour as being a no-no is a new one on me - how are hyperlinks supposed to look? should there be an icon next to each one? or are they just talking about having an underline as well? (ours doesn't have an underline). Our problem is teachers can edit their own parts but they aren't gonna know w3c guidelines such as alt text. They can barely comprehend you shouldn't upload a 4k 3MB jpg and resize it in the editor.

 

Anyway the template explains all this - pretty impressed tbh they did this with no cost at all, doesn't look good for Juniper! Putting ours on and editing the blank bits took me 2 minutes

Edited February 3, 2025 by mikes

[TheRobins]

A copy of the blanket message they had obviously prepared as they didnt even remove the add email address holder.

 

They cannot go around just charging schools without written agreement, I am sure E4 wouldnt have done this before the take over. Wonder if its worth taking it further?

 

"

Thank you for contacting us regarding your Website Accessibility Compliance invoice.

 

On the 24th January 2025 you were sent either a letter, email, In-App message via your CMS or all three in relation to the Government’s Statutory Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 AA. Email address/es the communication was sent to: [add email address]

 

Within that communication, attached, the details of how we would approach this on your behalf was relayed as follows:

 

“Unless you tell us you are handling website compliance in-house, or by other means within 7 days of this letter, we will implement the Accessibility Compliance Package to enable you to meet the new minimum legal requirements. This includes publishing the accessibility statement, enabling staff training, activating the Statutory Policy Compliance Dashboard, and invoicing the £249 + VAT, reduced from £499 + VAT."

 

You received the invoice because you did not notify us that you wanted to handle the compliance in-house or by other means.

 

We have now gone ahead and implemented the Accessibility Compliance Package given you did not opt out by the deadline.

"

[talksr]

A copy of the blanket message they had obviously prepared as they didnt even remove the add email address holder.

 

They cannot go around just charging schools without written agreement, I am sure E4 wouldnt have done this before the take over. Wonder if its worth taking it further?

 

"

Thank you for contacting us regarding your Website Accessibility Compliance invoice.

 

On the 24th January 2025 you were sent either a letter, email, In-App message via your CMS or all three in relation to the Government’s Statutory Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 AA. Email address/es the communication was sent to: [add email address]

 

Within that communication, attached, the details of how we would approach this on your behalf was relayed as follows:

 

“Unless you tell us you are handling website compliance in-house, or by other means within 7 days of this letter, we will implement the Accessibility Compliance Package to enable you to meet the new minimum legal requirements. This includes publishing the accessibility statement, enabling staff training, activating the Statutory Policy Compliance Dashboard, and invoicing the £249 + VAT, reduced from £499 + VAT."

 

You received the invoice because you did not notify us that you wanted to handle the compliance in-house or by other means.

 

We have now gone ahead and implemented the Accessibility Compliance Package given you did not opt out by the deadline.

"

 

 

We have had exactly the same yet we responded within 7 days. We were then told that we had respond by 1pm on 31st Jan. It states this nowhere. I am absoloutely furious with the way this company is treating long-standing customers.

[TheRobins]

The lad on finance I spoke to on the phone sounded completly fed up and basically just said email in.

 

I looked on the website and they removed most of the contact us details.

[PotNoodleTech]

No agreed Quote and PO# = No Order = No payment - happy to put the LA legal team on the case if they kick up a fuss.

[DrCheese]

No agreed Quote and PO# = No Order = No payment - happy to put the LA legal team on the case if they kick up a fuss.

 

Er yeah - How legal is this? Wonde tried something like this the other year by upgrading everyone to a "trial" of the premium version & then invoicing everyone. Of course we told them to pound sand.

 

I am amazed that staying compliant isn't part of their standard contract anyway - What's next? they're going to charge you for upgrading PHP?

 

It's out of my hands here but this craptastic behaviour would strongly encourage me to look elsewhere going forward.

[talksr]

No agreed Quote and PO# = No Order = No payment - happy to put the LA legal team on the case if they kick up a fuss.

 

Our SBM has said the same to me today. If this continues, it is going to be passed to the LA legal team as it is utterly ridicilous. They are not even reading what you put in an email and just replying with exactly the same response as someone posted here earlier

 

Er yeah - How legal is this? Wonde tried something like this the other year by upgrading everyone to a "trial" of the premium version & then invoicing everyone. Of course we told them to pound sand.

 

I am amazed that staying compliant isn't part of their standard contract anyway - What's next? they're going to charge you for upgrading PHP?

 

It's out of my hands here but this craptastic behaviour would strongly encourage me to look elsewhere going forward.

 

 

This all feels really wrong to me both legally and morally and I am really not happy with the way this organisation is treating long-standing customers.

We have already had increased annual "website subscription fees" so as you say, what will be next. I am so disappointed with this company.

[TheRobins]

Does anyone know if they have a named account manager now, we used to when it was E4, tried ringing a few times and get nowhere, I suspect they are currently doing this in the office.