WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WCAG 2.0 'accessibility supported'

for

From: Steve Green
Date: Feb 6, 2009 5:55AM

This is one of a number of areas where WCAG 2.0 has introduced ambiguity
where issues were clear in version 1.0. The issue of accessibility supported
technologies is now untestable, which is precisely the opposite of what the
W3C intended.

Th W3C acknowledge that there is a high degree of ambiguity in their
explanatory notes at
http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-
support-head and 'welcome discussion' even though it won't change anything.

Strictly speaking, Patrick is correct when he says "there are widely
available user agents that support resizing". However, 75% or so of Internet
users do not have such user agents. Furthermore, they have no way of knowing
that using a different user agent would allow the text to be resized. This
is a very different scenario from being prompted to install a plug-in that
you currently do not have.

I disagree with Patrick on the final point. To quote from the WCAG 2.0
explanatory notes,
"The way that the Web content technology is used must be supported by users'
assistive technology...
AND
The Web content technology must have accessibility-supported user agents
that are available to users"

In my opinion WCAG 2.0 is misconceived, badly written and will result in a
reduction in website accessibility. We all know that using pixel values for
fonts reduces accessibility. We all know that using PDFs reduces
accessibility. The fact that WCAG 2.0 says these techniques are ok doesn't
mean you're making an accessible website. It just means you are compliant
with a bad set of guidelines.

If you care about accessibility, do the right things (you know what they
are). If you just want the badge, take a literal interpretation of WCAG 2.0.

Steve