Comments on: Body blow to web accessibility guidelines

By: Lisa Strutton

Lisa Strutton — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:48:00 +0000

Did he came up with something with his own group?

By: Bruce Darby

Bruce Darby — Thu, 25 May 2006 09:39:47 +0000

This is a good article and itâ€™s great to get people talking about WCAG2. However, I do think that the WCAG2 shows a change in the philosophy of the guidelines. Paul has already said it but Iâ€™ll say it again; Itâ€™s less about box ticking (although I still feel that has a part to play) and more about trying to give everyone a comparable experience when accessing a website. I know many of us have moved way beyond this but a good example is where someone puts in alt text, for an image containing important information, which does not fully convey all the information in the image. At itâ€™s worst it is putting â€œimageâ€? but something like â€œImportant graph showing sales figuresâ€? is obviously not good enough either! But for somebody who doesnâ€™t fully understand the guidelines they could think that this actually passes as they donâ€™t understand what it is like for someone using a screen reader. Bobbyâ€™s dead! Although back in a slightly different form at http://webxact.watchfire.com/. If you search for sites that still have the Bobby logo and submit those pages to watchfire a lot will fail which is one of the reasons why people are moving away from a purely box ticking approach. If anyone is interested in experiencing what itâ€™s like to use a screen reader you can download JAWS from http://www.freedomscientific.com/fs_downloads/jaws.asp Itâ€™s a free 40 minute trial that needs a reboot to use again. It uses keyboard shortcuts that most developers know already but adds a few of itâ€™s own like insert + down arrow to start reading a page, insert + F7 for a pop up box listing all the links on a page. If you turn the screen off, it can really bring home to you what itâ€™s like not to be able to use the visual clues we take for granted.

By: Ross Johnson

Ross Johnson — Thu, 25 May 2006 01:14:24 +0000

I read the article and agreed with a lot of what was said (all of it actually), and I think it is a classic example of “design by committee”. Seven years late, obviously trying to accomedate way too many opinions, and poor organization.
While the idea behind the W3C is using the industry leaders to set the standards, it seems the group has simply grown too large.
I think a smaller more focused group, like what Joe has set up, is a better structure for developing these types of standards.

By: Stuart Robertson

Stuart Robertson — Wed, 24 May 2006 14:49:51 +0000

Public sector accessibility requirements are often based on some part of the WCAG guidelines. I’m not aware of anyplace that has adopted everthing (eg. WCAG 1 level 3). In the US, Section 508 includes some parts of WCAG 1 level 1 and 2. In Canada, Government websites aim for WCAG 1 level 2 — but I know many that fall short.
I don’t think you’ll see many public sector organisations adopt WCAG 2 if it’s difficult to comprehend and harder to implement.
I think an “unofficial” standard that was endorsed by groups like the Alliance for Digital Inclusion (ADI), American Association of People with Disabilities, Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB), etc. — would be more readily adopted by the Public Sector.

By: Paul Boag

Paul Boag — Wed, 24 May 2006 09:15:15 +0000

The problem Joe is that a lot of my clients are large public sector organisations who are going to include WCAG 2.0 in their invitations to tender by default. Making the arguement that we should not conform with that standard but support a seperate "unofficial" standard will be a difficult fight.

By: Ronalfy

Ronalfy — Wed, 24 May 2006 05:07:24 +0000

It is rather depressing that the body responsible for providing a common ground has instead provided a sink hole.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Wed, 24 May 2006 04:50:14 +0000

Paul, as I read this article in my daily feeds list I thought of forwarding it on to you and then I saw your post as my next entry to read. I knew you would be on top of this. I agree with your comment that this will encourage developers to really conceptualize what accessibility means for their specific project and how to make it happen. While guidelines are required, understanding and implementation of them are just as important. Sites often suffer in usability from their developers obsession to becoming checklist compliant. I look forward to the developing commentary on the WCAG 2.0 development and how it affects real work working designers.

By: Joe Clark

Joe Clark — Tue, 23 May 2006 23:51:55 +0000

Well, one thing developers can do with accessibility is simply to comply with WCAG 1.0 â€“ plus the extensions my â€œworking groupâ€? will be publishing.