WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WCAG 2 and Javascript

for

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: May 13, 2009 7:25AM


On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Steve Green < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Patrick, you are taking a developer-centric view, but the WCAG are not
> supposed to be about developers - they are about the users. I take a
> user-centric view,

Well, because of the fact that you were talking about the reams of
documentation and how people are supposed to contribute to them, I
thought you were talking about the techniques, so dev centric. The
core normative WCAG 2.0 is done and dusted, and won't grow with any
new technologies etc...

> And what I see is that all these new technologies cause
> accessibility barriers that did not used to exist.

There are also lots of technologies now that did not use to
exist...but they do now, and rather than having a blanket "don't use
it, *ever*, because a subset of users may not have access to them
yet", it ensures that these technologies are at least used
responsibly, so that in modern user agents under all the right
conditions, they are accessible. The decision about whether or not to
actually use a technology (even if it's "accessibility-supported")
still rests with the business owners, developers, etc. Just as the
decision of using, say, CSS-based layout rather than table-based
layout etc rests with them.

> As they stand, the guidelines are impenetrable to most people, and I fear
> that even fewer developers will attempt to follow them.

I really don't get what's so impenetrable about the mostly
common-sense, tech agnostic WCAG 2.0 normative document. Sure, there's
a few bits here and there which could have been worded slightly
better, but overall I find it fairly clear. If you print out just the
Guidelines/SCs, it's just over 12 pages or so. And it takes a
user-centric view.

> And we are now
> seeing AA-compliant websites that have very poor 'real world' accessibility,
> which has been a concern from the start.
> I have no problem with people who want to use PDFs, Flash or whatever
> technology they want. Just don't try to pretend they are accessible because
> they are not (or at least they present significant barriers). WCAG 2.0 gives
> a false sense of confidence, and that's why I don't like it.

But if you make the conscious decision to use PDF, Flash etc, and you
follow the advice of WCAG 2.0, you're ensuring that those technologies
are at least used in a way that can be accessible. Whether the
percentage of users that potentially can't access it because of
outdated tech is, like any other consideration ("do we support
pixel-perfect layout in IE6, 5.5, Mosaic?"), something that needs to
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Certainly, even following WCAG
2.0 doesn't guarantee "universal accessibility", but the same can be
said for WCAG 1.0.

The classic situations mentioned where users can't get the most
up-to-date platforms to take advantage of accessibility-supported
technologies (can't afford a new screenreader, don't know how to
update the browser, don't have enough permissions to install any new
software) are beyond the scope of a document that deals with making
web content accessible, and fall under the responsibility of other
bodies/guidelines/etc (user education through disability advice
groups, an employer's legal obligation to ensure employees with access
needs have the right tools to do their job, etc).

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke