WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Fixing WAI's writing styleDoes WCAG require ...

for

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Dec 1, 2015 8:51AM

On 01/12/2015 15:42, Ryan E. Benson wrote:

> Then you can always throw the nothing can then be made fully accessible
> because there will always be an unique case. The common rebuttal is well we
> will ensure that major cases will be covered and have a plan in place for
> edge cases. Ok then this directly contradicts the "no checkboxes!" mantra.
> The checkboxes here are types of disabilities, not technical standards.

But even considering a single user group with one particular type of
disability, there will be a myriad different ways in which a particular
problem can technically be addressed. Therefore, a standard like WCAG
necessarily needs to be "fluffy" and open-ended (and tech-agnostic),
requiring interpretation from the general wording to each specific use case.

> This is the same argument in security, the most secure system is the system
> that isn't built.

Sure, I wasn't advocating that WCAG is useless because it will never be
all-encompassing. Just pointing out the tension here regarding those who
will spend more time arguing over the minutiae/interpretation of "which
SC can I ding them with" and the need to make the SCs more
specific/restrictive, versus the acceptance that some more
open-ended/open to interpretation language is necessary.

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke