WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WCAG 2.0 'accessibility supported'

for

From: Webb, KerryA
Date: Feb 8, 2009 3:25PM

Steve wrote:
>
> 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.
>

I'm glad you said that. My role is to write document on "website
standards" for agencies in our Government and to assist Web managers to
comply with these. We will be mandating compliance (at an appropriate
level) with WCAG 2.0 in the next few months, and I'll have to help our
people to achieve this. Even though they've had to comply with 1.0 for
several years, it won't be a trivial task to be 2.0 compliant, but we'll
do it.

I'm more concerned about the web managers who don't have a kind and
benevolent central authority to tell them what to do. Basically, I
think the WCAG 2.0 document is (as Steve says) misconceived and badly
written, and most people without a keen interest in accessibility will
find it hard to understand and to implement.

Kerry

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------