E-mail List Archives
Thread: WCAG 2.0 Last Call
Number of posts in this thread: 6 (In chronological order)
From: Jared Smith
Date: Thu, Apr 27 2006 4:30PM
Subject: WCAG 2.0 Last Call
No previous message | Next message →
The last call working draft of WCAG 2.0 was published today. Comments will
be accepted until May 31, so now's your chance to learn what the new
guidelines have to offer and make recommendations for change and
implementation.
Specifically...
> We would like to know if you feel there is an issue that could
> present a significant barrier to future adoption and implementation of
> WCAG 2.0. In particular, we encourage you to comment on the conformance
> model and success criteria. Reviewers are encouraged to provide
> suggestions for how to address issues as well as positive feedback, and
> commitments to implement the guidelines.
There are three documents for your review:
- The WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
- Understanding WCAG 2.0
- Techniques for WCAG 2.0
As a warning, these total just over 600 printed pages by my count (does
anybody else see some implementation difficulty in this fact?).
More details and instructions for commenting at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/comments/
Jared Smith
WebAIM.org
From: smithj7
Date: Thu, Apr 27 2006 8:40PM
Subject: RE: WCAG 2.0 Last Call
← Previous message | Next message →
Regarding the number of pages of the document: Only about 20 pages per
day and 3-4 to draft comments.
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, May 01 2006 6:30PM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 Last Call
← Previous message | Next message →
> Jared Smith
>> As a warning, these total just over 600 printed pages by my count
>> (does anybody else see some implementation difficulty in this fact?).
smithj7 wrote:
> Regarding the number of pages of the document: Only about 20 pages per
> day and 3-4 to draft comments.
I suspect Jared didn't mean "do you see a problem with reviewing the
documents in one month", but rather - and far more importantly - "do you
see a problem with implementing and using WCAG 2.0 once it's finalised".
I must agree that, despite its limitations, WCAG 1.0 was fairly good
because of its relatively concise nature. You could hit a clueless
developer over the head with it without actually killing them. Now, if I
went over to a complete accessibility noob with a complete printout of
WCAG 2.0 and its supporting documents, they'd be very unlikely to work
their way through those 600 odd pages. Just look at the length of
"Understanding WCAG 2.0".
I suspect that one of the first things to do once WCAG 2.0 is finalised
will be the creation of technology (and baseline) specific
implementation guides (at least that's what I plan to do at work for our
developers...something like "How can my HTML/CSS site meet WCAG 2.0", as
our baseline will probably just feature those two technologies).
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re
From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Tue, May 02 2006 4:00AM
Subject: RE: WCAG 2.0 Last Call
← Previous message | Next message →
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> despite its limitations, WCAG 1.0 was fairly good
> because of its relatively concise nature. You could hit a clueless
> developer over the head with it without actually killing
> them.
I'm not so sure, I think I knocked out quite a few ;)
It's conciseness meant it took a lot of reading around and
help/explanations to implement properly.
> they'd be very unlikely to work their way through those 600
> odd pages.
I think they are damned either way, but good examples (technology
specific) and good linking between reasons and examples should help.
I'll just have to give up sleep to get through them myself!
Kind regards,
-Alastair
--
Alastair Campbell | Director of User Experience
t. +44 (0)117 929 7333 | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Keep up to date with industry and Nomensa news, sign up to Nomensa
newsletters:
http://www.nomensa.com/news/nomensa-newsletters.html
Nomensa Email Disclaimer:
http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer.html
From: Gez Lemon
Date: Tue, May 02 2006 5:00AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 Last Call
← Previous message | Next message →
On 02/05/06, Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Now, if I
> went over to a complete accessibility noob with a complete printout of
> WCAG 2.0 and its supporting documents, they'd be very unlikely to work
> their way through those 600 odd pages. Just look at the length of
> "Understanding WCAG 2.0".
WCAG 2 itself is about 76 printed pages. Some of the supporting
documents, such as Understanding WCAG, are informative to provide
guidance. I don't think that causes an implementation issue - if
anything, I think it makes it easier as guidance for implementing WCAG
2 can be found in one place.
> I suspect that one of the first things to do once WCAG 2.0 is finalised
> will be the creation of technology (and baseline) specific
> implementation guides (at least that's what I plan to do at work for our
> developers...something like "How can my HTML/CSS site meet WCAG 2.0", as
> our baseline will probably just feature those two technologies).
Yeah, I agree. I also think the checklist in Appendix B [1] will be
useful for people to get a quick overview of the guidelines and
success criteria. Regarding the baseline - this is more of a device
independence issue than an accessibility issue, but I would encourage
early adopters not to include CSS in the baseline. Meeting WCAG 2
without depending on CSS would be more beneficial for universality,
but relying on CSS for conformance will obviously be acceptable under
WCAG 2.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/appendixB.html
Best regards,
Gez
--
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com
From: smithj7
Date: Sat, May 13 2006 12:00AM
Subject: RE: WCAG 2.0 Last Call
← Previous message | No next message
I love the Techniques for WCAG 2.0 section!! The examples are great.