Lisa,
I posted on some other lists that this conversation
was taking place but people may not make the effort
if they aren't on DC-ACC. Do you mind if I post your
points, attributed to you, on other lists where there
are people that may wish to respond to the issues ?
andy heath
> 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
>
>
>
--
andy
___________________
Andy Heath
http://axelrod.plus.com
|