Discussing WCAG 2.0
Home / News & Resources / Discussing WCAG 2.0
Regarding the WCAG 2.0 panel at @media:
http://accessify.com/...
We have but 1 hr to cover quite a lot, so it would be useful if we could get some feedback/questions in advance. Given that the audience will be largely standards-savvy but not necessarily accessibility-aware, any pointers to what people will find useul in this short space of time would be good.
If you have comments, please add on the Accessify post (want to keep in one place if at all possible)
Thanks folks
_________________
Build Your Own Web Site the Right Way!
A beginners' HTML/CSS book with web standards at its heart
The Ultimate HTML Reference
A complete reference, in glorious hardback
Share: 
How many people actually properly understand the new 2.0 format compared to 1.0 version.?
That would be a good one.
_________________
};-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/
WVYFC chose the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as the main charity to fund raise for in 2006
Share:
| Robert Wellock wrote: |
| How many people actually properly understand the new 2.0 format compared to 1.0 version.?
That would be a good one. |
Sure. We'll do that one just after we cover off "How long's a piece of string?" and "What's the meaning of life?"
Seriously, though, that'll *definitely* be a show of hands question on the day.
_________________
Build Your Own Web Site the Right Way!
A beginners' HTML/CSS book with web standards at its heart
The Ultimate HTML Reference
A complete reference, in glorious hardback
Share:
A length of a piece of string; you form the string into a circle and measure distance from the centre of the circle to the edge (i.e. the radius you can calculate the length of the string using 2.pi.R )
Though seriously I don't actually think that many people really understand that it greatly differs in both scope and breath by quite a large mark – part of the reason why you didn't get many suggestions.
_________________
};-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/
WVYFC chose the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as the main charity to fund raise for in 2006
Share:
| lloydi wrote: |
| "How long's a piece of string?" |
| Quote: |
| "What's the meaning of life?" |
_________________
my mind is on a permanent tangent
Share:
Twice as long as from it's middle to it's end..._________________
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950050_en_8.htm#mdiv57
Share:
| jim barter wrote: |
| Twice as long as from it's middle to it's end... |
Damn. You beat me to it
_________________
pix
http://www.pixeldiva.co.uk
Share:
For those of us who find ourselves writing specs for sites, which then get handed to web designers, would there be any interest in discussing how to specify accessibility with WCAG2?
I guess I'm interested in how to spec out accessibility in a manner that's useful/practical to a web designer and how to test the resulting site to make sure it meets the spec.
Given the confusion that surrounds WCAG2, and the vagueness of the language, I'm not sure if this is actually possible.
_________________
Jim O'Donnell
work: Royal Observatory Greenwich
play: eatyourgreens
Share:
| eatyourgreens wrote: |
| For those of us who find ourselves writing specs for sites, which then get handed to web designers, would there be any interest in discussing how to specify accessibility with WCAG2?
I guess I'm interested in how to spec out accessibility in a manner that's useful/practical to a web designer and how to test the resulting site to make sure it meets the spec. Given the confusion that surrounds WCAG2, and the vagueness of the language, I'm not sure if this is actually possible. |
i'd say the only viable way would be to basically write your own technical implementation guidelines, possibly referring each technique to the relevant WCAG2 generic fluffy criterion you're trying to address with it.
_________________
Patrick H. Lauke / webmaster / University of Salford
co-lead: WaSP Accesibility Task Force
take it to the streets ... WaSP Street Team
personal: splintered | photographia | redux
co-author: Web Accessibility - Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance
Share:
| eatyourgreens wrote: |
| For those of us who find ourselves writing specs for sites, which then get handed to web designers, would there be any interest in discussing how to specify accessibility with WCAG2? |
Personally I'm not even mentioning WCAG2 to our editors. The WCAG1 concepts of checkpoints, techniques and conformance levels are easily understood and communicated. Achieving the same level of understanding for WCAG2 with non-technical editors isn't going to be possible for some time and is going to require some serious revision IMHO.
The biggest problem I have with WCAG2 is that I don't really understand how (or even if) it is going to improve the accessibility of websites beyond WCAG1.
_________________
Dan Champion, Champion IS, Mooch Marketing, Revish
Share:
Steve Faulkner mentioned this in the thread about link titles:
| Steve Faulkner wrote: |
|
The poor advice and guidance given in relation to the practical accessibility of the TITLE attribute on A elements is one thing that really bugs me. It crops up again in some WCAG 2 techniques. |
Made me wonder - are the WCAG 2 techniques any better than the WCAG 1 techniques for accessibility? Are we better off relying on resources like Joe Clark's book or this forum if we want to build sites that disabled people can actually use?
_________________
Jim O'Donnell
work: Royal Observatory Greenwich
play: eatyourgreens
Share:
I'd like to know what are the main differences between WCAG 1 and 2 and will WCAG 1 ever be dropped and if so, when?_________________
TaylorMade | @darrent71
Share:
| Daz wrote: |
| I'd like to know what are the main differences between WCAG 1 and 2 and will WCAG 1 ever be dropped and if so, when? |
a few thoughts:
wcag 1 - html (and a bit of css) specific
wcag 2 - technology agnostic (and it tries so hard to be that it invents lots of new words just to avoid saying things like "web page")
wcag 1 - priorities (which implies that, say, priority 1 is more important than priority 2)
wcag 2 - levels (which WAI try to convince us do not imply priority of importance, but because of the way they're set up - you can't claim level AA if you didn't fulfill all level 1 criteria - they seem indistinguishable in the end effect)
wcag 1 - relatively ok to understand by mere mortals, despite a few ambiguities
wcag 2 - almost completely impenetrable reading, due to the heavy going academic style, need to constantly cross-reference the (informative) techniques and "understanding..." document to actually know what's what - this isn't helped by the orwellian terms invented to keep it tech agnostic (i mean, even the fact that an already hefty document needs an "understanding..." document that's also a big whopper speaks volumes)
as a bonus, wcag 2's scoping and baseline ideas are, despite being good in principle, ripe for potential abuse.
purely from a checkpoint/criteria point of view, worth looking at the mapping http://www.w3.org/...
i'd think that wcag 1 can and will still be valid, just with the caveat that it's a clunky, outdated set of guidelines that doesn't really deal with current best practices. unless you have a piece of legislation that explicitly mandates wcag 2 (or even strict adherence to wcag 1), though, i wouldn't see a problem in still referencing version 1 with some changes - i recently started drafting a new quick list of accessibility requirements for out web authors, referring to wcag 1 but pointing out exactly which of the checkpoints/guidelines to ignore (pretty much all of the "until user agents..." ones, for instance)
_________________
Patrick H. Lauke / webmaster / University of Salford
co-lead: WaSP Accesibility Task Force
take it to the streets ... WaSP Street Team
personal: splintered | photographia | redux
co-author: Web Accessibility - Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance
Share:
| redux wrote: |
| I recently started drafting a new quick list of accessibility requirements for out web authors, referring to wcag 1 but pointing out exactly which of the checkpoints/guidelines to ignore (pretty much all of the "until user agents..." ones, for instance) |
Sounds like a great idea for an article for you to write...
_________________
Andy Saxton
Logoblog: Web Standards, Accessibility & Usability
Share:
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum