 |
 |
I would whole heartedly agree with this Brian. There is a checkbox mentality within many organisations which is less about helping those with accessibility needs and more about covering ones 'collective ass'. Quotes like the one you included below are about 'living to the letter of the law' rather than 'living by the spirit of the law'. This does nobody any good and its great that the loophole has been closed. I accept that WCAG 2 brings some ambiguity which is uncomfortable for organisations that have to be safe from a legal standpoint. However, this belief that one day they are suddenly going to get sued is naive. People only resort to litigation as a last resort. If you respond to complaints in a timely manner things will never get that far. Anyway that is my two pence worth. Apologises for the near rant. Thanks, Paul On 12 Dec 2008, at 08:42, Brian Kelly wrote: > Hi Patrick > I gave a hurrah too in a blog post - > http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2008/12/12/wcag-20-is-now-an-official-w3c-re > commendation/ > But as I said in the post, there will be lots of interesting > implications > for organisations - which shouldn't have come as a surprise as WCAG > 2.0 has > been bubbling beneath the surface for a number of years. > One area of interest will be the format-neutrality of WCAG 2.0. > With > WCAG 1.0 some people regarded it as only applying to HTML content e.g. > > "The PowerPoint file isn't "web content". Not even if there's a web > page > that makes it accessible. Sticking content in a powerpoint file isn't > "putting it on the web", it's deciding not to put it on the web." > Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner > http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/videoing-talks-as-a-means-of-prov > iding-equivalent-experiences/#comment-69248 > > But now the PDFs and the PowerPoints are covered by the guidelines. > And as > I suspect institutions won't have checked that PDFs (and MS Office > files, > for example) don't implement the POUR principles (you can create > accessible > PDFs, but how many do) there'll be a need to remove WCAG AA logos. > > And anyone who claimed there Web site was universally accessible > yesterday > will have to stop making such claims :-) > > Let's encourage widening participation and social inclusion, I would > argue - > and drop the mantra that universal accessibility is possible. > > Brian > > PS Additional thoughts on this matter are given at > http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/category/accessibility/ > > -------------------------------- > Brian Kelly > UKOLN, University of Bath, BATH, UK, BA2 7AY > Email: [log in to unmask] > Phone: +44 1225 383943 > Web site: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ > Blog: http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/ > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Managing institutional Web services >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Patrick Lauke >> Sent: 11 December 2008 16:24 >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0. >> >>> Paul Boag >>> http://www.w3.org/2008/12/wcag20-pressrelease.html >>> Looks like we have new accessibility guidelines. >> >> And about time too! We can finally abandon the outdated >> (technical) advice in parts of WCAG 1 and focus on accessible >> outcomes. >> >> P >> ________________________________ >> Patrick H. Lauke >> Web Editor >> Enterprise & Development >> University of Salford >> Room 113, Faraday House >> Salford, Greater Manchester >> M5 4WT >> UK >> >> T +44 (0) 161 295 4779 >> [log in to unmask] >> >> www.salford.ac.uk >> >> A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY >> > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________