To Hell with WCAG 2
Home / News & Resources / To Hell with WCAG 2
Joe Clark does a number on WCAG 2.0:
To Hell with WCAG 2
_________________
Steve Faulkner
Technical Director
TPG Europe
The Paciello Group | Web Accessibility Tools Consortium
Share: 
...wow, I must say I was very disapointed with WCAG2, at first glance my thoughts were "wth is this...", my second thoughts were "this is incomprehensible", and my third thoughts are unprintable...
My main worry is that the corporations I do work for may see this as an excuse to commision inaccessible websites, thank the gods for PAS78.
_________________
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950050_en_8.htm#mdiv57
Share:
It's ... a very Joe Clark article, but I think that here's it's a good thing. I don't think I'm alone in finding it difficult to extract the application of WCAG2 to HTML from the specs. However my worry is that for 'normal' web developers who want some clear guidelines, a fragmentation of the applicable rules (what with WCAG Samurai etc) is only going to hinder, not help. Hmm..._________________
Web Developer, Kyanmedia
Share:
Crikey.
To be honest, I read WCAG 1.0 a few times in 2005 and 2006 and that's my conceptual starting point. But when it comes to the nuts and bolts of a real website, I work from the studies and advice I've seen on the web and particularly via this forum. WCAG is in the back of my mind, for sure. But the evidence and experience available in blogs and forums is where I go when I'm not sure what to do.
From what Joe is saying, WCAG 2.0 may become an even less relevant part of the day-to-day decisions made by the developers of accessible websites?
_________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
It's the whole baselines thing that takes the biscuit...
basically if you state that your site requires javascript & flash then you can claim conformance with WCAG2...
http://www.w3.org/...
wth is the point in that then?
_________________
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950050_en_8.htm#mdiv57
Share:
| Robin wrote: |
| However my worry is that for 'normal' web developers who want some clear guidelines, a fragmentation of the applicable rules (what with WCAG Samurai etc) is only going to hinder, not help. Hmm... |
I do agree that guideline fragmentation is a concern, but I think Joe raises a very valid point - WCAG 1.1 would have been better than this rewrite. There was a lot of good stuff in there, people were generally getting their heads round it, okay, some bits needed fixing but why not just fix them, review the 'until user agents' guidelines etc. Having said that, I think we'll probably end up with WCAG 2.0 being badly adopted across the board, so good luck to any samurais out there
_________________
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
We already have fragmentation of the “rules,” with WCAG 1.0, Section 508, BITV, and WCAG 2.0, all of which overlap. Complying with WCAG 1.0 plus WCAG Samurai extensions will not constitute “fragmentation” and will not be onerous.
Share:
| jim barter wrote: |
| wth is the point in that then? |
Simple - you're a large company with a large investment in web resources - why change your site when you can change the rules that you're to be measured by.
Makes perfect sense to me
_________________
Red Ant
Share:
Sorry Joe, of course my use of the word 'rules' was a bad idea I'm definitely in favour of your proposition for a WCAG1.1, but in practice unless it came from a mandate from high my government clients would be (I think) pretty sniffy about the whole idea. Will WCAG Samurai work to promote their solution to government? Actually in my experience a lot of commercial companies base their accessibility decisions on government protocol as well, so I'd say that getting govt on board is a pretty essential step towards adoption._________________
Web Developer, Kyanmedia
Share:
This might be slightly off-topic, but has anyone spotted anything related to graphic text in WCAG 2.0? In WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 3.1 they used to mention graphic text in the guidance, and I would base objections to it (especially for use in the navigation) on that. But I can't seem to find any reference to it in the new guidelines.
In their mapping document they associate 3.1 with WCAG 2.0 1.3.1 which has no mention of it at all.
Anything? Anyone?
Share:
| orchid wrote: |
|
In their mapping document they associate 3.1 with WCAG 2.0 1.3.1 which has no mention of it at all. Anything? Anyone? |
| http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/ wrote: |
|
Understanding Guideline 1.1: Provide text alternatives for all non-text content Intent of Guideline 1.1 The purpose of this guideline is to ensure that all non-text content is also available in text form. "Text form" refers to electronic text, not an image of text. |
my emphasis...
_________________
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950050_en_8.htm#mdiv57
Share:
| Quote: |
| http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/ wrote:
Understanding Guideline 1.1: Provide text alternatives for all non-text content Intent of Guideline 1.1 The purpose of this guideline is to ensure that all non-text content is also available in text form. "Text form" refers to electronic text, not an image of text. |
Okay, to me this says: non-text content (for example an image of a truck) is also available in text form (has an alt attribute that says 'Truck'). "Text form" refers to electronic text, not an image of text (don't put 'Truck' in graphic text).
I'm I not understanding this at all?
It doesn't really tell me not to use graphic text either, just not to use it to represent non-text content.
cheers
Jules
Share:
So what is this? Electronic text or an image? Both?
| Code: |
| <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 -10 40 10" font-size="15">
<text>Truck</text> </svg> |
_________________
Simon Pieters
Share:
| jim barter wrote: |
| It's the whole baselines thing that takes the biscuit...
basically if you state that your site requires javascript & flash then you can claim conformance with WCAG2...
http://www.w3.org/... wth is the point in that then? |
Personally I think baselines are a great idea. Yes, they will be abused and manipulated but then so are most things in this line of work. That is not an argument against them.
To illustrate why I think this:
‘This site conforms to WCAG 2.0 using the (e.g. UK Govt., RNIB) baseline’ = credible
‘This site conforms to WCAG 2.0 using my own baseline’= not credible
Understanding conformance to any level is the hard part and I agree that WCAG2.0 does not make this easy.
WCAG 1.1: good idea but why didn’t it happen years ago? Maybe they tried but found a complete rethink was needed. I’m glad that WCAG2.0 is finally approaching being a recommendation. It’s been a long time coming and I was wondering whether a new authority was needed. Maybe it still is?
Kevin
Share:
| Quote: | ||
So what is this? Electronic text or an image? Both?
|
er, is that a rhetorical question? Sorry, I'm an HTML/CSS gal! I'm not entirely sure what you meant by your post.
Share:
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