E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 5 (In chronological order)

From: Christophe Strobbe
Date: Thu, May 15 2008 2:50AM
Subject: Implementing WCAG 2.0 (was: Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines)
No previous message | Next message →

Hi Steve,


At 16:39 14/05/2008, you wrote:
>WCAG 2.0 has not been officially released. It is merely a Candidate
>Recommendation, and won't become a Proposed Recommendation till 31 August
>2008. There will be a further delay before it reaches the final stage and
>becaomes a W3C Recommendation.
>
>In all probability it won't change much between now and then but it reached
>Candidate Recommendation status before about two years ago, after which it
>was substantially rewritten.

WCAG 2.0 has never been a Candidate Recommendation before April 2008.
What you are referring to is the last call working draft of April 2006:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html>;.
(There was another last call working draft in December 2007:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20071211/>;. It is not unusual to
go through two last calls; the process has become much heavier since
WCAG 1.0 was released in 1999.)


>By all means learn about WCAG 2.0 but it's premature to be talking about
>implementing it.

On the contrary. Candidate Recommendation is a call for implementations.
See <http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/CR/>;.
Implementations are needed WCAG 2.0 to move to Proposed Recommendation;
it needs to be shown that WCAG 2.0 can be implemented.
Stating that it is premature to implement WCAG 2.0 is a self-fulfilling
prophecy that hinders the progress of WCAG 2.0 to W3C Recommendation.

Best regards,

Christophe Strobbe


>Steve
>
>
>
>

From: Christophe Strobbe
Date: Thu, May 15 2008 3:10AM
Subject: Re: Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines
← Previous message | Next message →

At 21:08 14/05/2008, you wrote:
>Some precious rant about WCAG 2:
>http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tohellwithwcag2/

Outdated rather than precious.
After the release of the next draft, the author wrote:
"I haven't read the new version of WCAG 2, but I've read the change
documents, and it's clearly much better."
<http://blog.fawny.org/2007/06/08/retired/>;
And there have been two other drafts since that comment.

Best regards,

Christophe



>Regards,
>
>--
>Krystian - Sunlust
>Freelance on the side: Sunlust Designs - http://sunlust.net
>Full time Website Designer at SME System Solutions Ltd


---
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other
"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but
I haven't.

--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm

From: Steve Green
Date: Thu, May 15 2008 9:50AM
Subject: Re: Implementing WCAG 2.0 (was: Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines)
← Previous message | Next message →

Perhaps I should have caveated that comment. Yes, if you're designing
websites for your own use or for your employer, then by all means implement
WCAG 2.0 now on the understanding that you may need to do some rework later.

If you're designing for external clients I don't think it's appropriate to
be working to guidelines that have not yet reached W3C Recommendation
status. I assume that the process of attaining Proposed Recommendation and
W3C Recommendation is not just a rubber stamp job and that there is
therefore the possibility of change. If there is no possibility of change,
what would be the purpose of those extra stages?

Steve

From: Christophe Strobbe
Date: Thu, May 15 2008 10:20AM
Subject: Re: Implementing WCAG 2.0 (was: Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines)
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Steve,

At 17:38 15/05/2008, you wrote:
>Perhaps I should have caveated that comment. Yes, if you're designing
>websites for your own use or for your employer, then by all means implement
>WCAG 2.0 now on the understanding that you may need to do some rework later.
>
>If you're designing for external clients I don't think it's appropriate to
>be working to guidelines that have not yet reached W3C Recommendation
>status.

Thank you for that clarification.
However, Mike Cherim has already implemented WCAG 2.0 on a website for
an external client: see <http://green-beast.com/blog/?p=221>;.


>I assume that the process of attaining Proposed Recommendation and
>W3C Recommendation is not just a rubber stamp job and that there is
>therefore the possibility of change.

Indeed, implememtation evidence is not optional but *required* in order
to exit the CR stage:
the exit criteria require at least 10 conforming websites
(more details at <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-WCAG20-20080430/#status_exit>;).

>If there is no possibility of change,
>what would be the purpose of those extra stages?

Some success criteria have been defined as being "at risk"; see
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-WCAG20-20080430/#status_risk>;.
Depending on implementation feedback, some success criteria may
become less restrictive, revert to an earlier version, or
become advisory (i.e. they would become advisory techniques
instead of success critera).

In the past, some candicate recommendations have been pushed back
to the working draft stage. For example, CSS 2.1 was a candidate
recommendation in February 2004
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-CSS21-20040225/>;,
went back to working draft in 2005
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-CSS21-20050613/>;,
and is now again a candidate recommendation:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-CSS21-20070719/>;.

Best regards,

Christophe


>Steve
>
>
>
>

From: Steve Green
Date: Thu, May 15 2008 10:40AM
Subject: Re: Implementing WCAG 2.0 (was: Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines)
← Previous message | No next message

I'll have to ask Mike what he agreed with his client. My concern is that you
may build a site that meets WCAG 2.0 as it exists now, only to find that it
is non-compliant with the final version. Who pays the cost of bringing it up
to compliance, especially if it was a contractual requirement? That's not an
issue if it's your own site but it could be with an external client.

Steve