Lisa
thanks for pointing out those as the potential problems - others  
might be interested in these issues. I suggest that comments are  
posted to the W3C comments list but welcome discussion on this list  
as WCAG is very relevant to the work we do in developing an  
Application Profile for accessibility.

Liddy

On 18/05/2006, at 8:35 PM, Lisa Seeman wrote:

>
> Hi Liddy, I don't think WCAG 2.0 will make content as accessible as  
> one can. I have three basic concerns.
>
> 1. There is no game plan for real inclusion of people with learning  
> disabilities. The guidelines sound right, but the success criteria  
> lack the substance to do much good.  (Try using their techniques  
> document and imagine you have a naming disability and can not cross  
> reference between success criteria numbers and what each one  
> means.... They follow their own guidelines but it doesn't do it).  
> As such they need to lose the claim (at least in the short term)  
> that following WCAG will give accessibility to people with Learning  
> Disabilities.
>
> 2. What makes sites inoperable by assistive technology has not been  
> adequately  covered.  I think AJAX sites that are unusable need to  
> be tested against the success criteria to see if conforming to  
> success criteria result in an accessible application. In my  
> experience some issues such as encapsulation of the functions and  
> behaviors of each element is essential. Issues like a correct  
> element always having focus etc,  also fundamentally brakes this  
> type of application. (They have touched on it with  1.3.1  
> Information and relationships conveyed through presentation can be  
> programmatically determined, ...and others but I don't think they  
> are requiring what is needed)
>
> 3, I am not sure if language tag issues have been understood, Level  
> two requirements may be hugely burdensome and I think not hugely  
> necessary on non English sites.
>
> It is implied above but it does not seem that WCAG has tested that  
> conformance results in accessibility. I think the direction is good  
> but, what is needed is a full range of testing in new and upcoming  
> web scenarios as well as for a full range access related issues.
>
> All the best
> Lisa
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Liddy Nevile"  
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:39 AM
> Subject: new work from W3C
>
>
>> W3C have their new version of the Web Content Guidelines (Version   
>> 2.0) out for public comment - so it might be a good time to take  
>> a  look. See http://www.w3.org/2006/03/dial-pressrelease The  
>> closing  date for comments is May 31 - see http://www.w3.org/WAI/ 
>> WCAG20/comments/
>>
>> There has been some concern about the provision for people with   
>> cognitive disabilities. Perhaps if you are an expert in this  
>> field,  you could comment?
>>
>> W3C also has a new language being developed which should be of   
>> particular interest to people who care about the adaptability of   
>> resources - see http://www.w3.org/2006/03/dial-pressrelease
>>
>> Liddy