E-mail List Archives
Thread: Re: Foreign:Re: Implementing WCAG 2.0 (was: Scaleable fonts forPriority 2 WAI guidelines)
Number of posts in this thread: 2 (In chronological order)
I really think that the risk of that is minimal. If the site is designed
with the four core principles of accessibility in mind, any techniques
used to achieve those goals will continue to remain compliant with WCAG
2.0. During the implementation, new or better implementation techniques
may be created for various platforms but the techniques themselves do
not equal compliance. That was the whole idea behind the development of
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Steve Green
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:32 AM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Foreign:Re: [WebAIM] Implementing WCAG 2.0 (was: Scaleable
fonts forPriority 2 WAI guidelines)
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.
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Christophe
Sent: 15 May 2008 17:14
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Implementing WCAG 2.0 (was: Scaleable fonts for
Priority 2 WAI guidelines)
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
>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
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
>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
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
and is now again a candidate recommendation:
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Christophe
>Sent: 15 May 2008 09:47
>To: WebAIM Discussion List
>Subject: [WebAIM] Implementing WCAG 2.0 (was: Scaleable fonts for
>Priority 2 WAI guidelines)
>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:
>(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 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.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Paul
> >Sent: 14 May 2008 15:19
> >To: WebAIM Discussion List
> >Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines
> >Thanks Rahul, that is a big help. I was refering to WCAG 1.0, I just
> >realised WCAG 2.0 has been officially released! You could still use
> >sIFR for
> >1.4.5 thought, right? Just that you have the option to use images as
> >Better start learning the new rules then...
> >Thanks again for your help.
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other "social
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD Research Group on
Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
Thanks for your reply Keith. I have done this before, but I would have
thought adding graphic text using CSS would be preferable as then
people using Mobile phones and other non-css supporting browsers would
just get the text and not a graphic that's 3 times the normal size!
Actually, on my own website I put the img tags in using a bit of
nicely like you've described and anyone who has scripts and CSS turned
off will just get the normal text...
It's on the main nav graphics:
Cheers again for your reply.
2008/5/14 Keith Parks < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >:
> On May 14, 2008, at 9:36 AM, Paul Collins wrote:
>>> This is very valid, but at least you can resize sIFR, unlike graphic
>> image replacement.
> Actually, you *can* make graphic-as-type images resizable.
> Create your graphic oversize, say... 300% of the "normal" display
> size. And then through CSS spec the size of the image to be in EMs.
> It will then resize along with other type if the user bumps the type
> size up or down.
> Of course, some browsers render the resized type better than others.
> But the technique works.
> Keith Parks
> Graphic Designer/Web Designer
> Student Affairs Communications Services
> San Diego State University
> San Diego, CA 92182-7444
> (619) 594-1046
> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> World Peace through Cascading Style Sheets.