To be honest, I haven't read the current version of WCAG 2 in detail. Looking through it now, much of it has changed for the better but there are still parts that to me don't seem very sensible or achievable. As far as I can tell WCAG 2 still doesn't require valid code and it allows you to say a site conforms, but not include certain URIs.
Guidelines (even if they're as extensive as the 16,000 words WCAG 2) cannot cover every scenario on the web. My point about the automated checking was that the SCs are written so you can pass many of them by just checking the code (e.g. HTML). A smaller number of SCs aimed at getting real people to test a website could do far better.
That being said, I think WCAG 2 will make for some light reading this weekend!
Bournemouth & Poole College
[log in to unmask]
>>> "Patrick H. Lauke" <[log in to unmask]> 29/09/2008 15:37 >>>
Well, it's a bit passé to quote Joe's article, as it's now out of date *
he's even rescinded it publicly in his retirement announcement
"Web accessibility *is being handled*. I haven't read the new version of
WCAG 2, but I've read the change documents, and it's clearly much better."
Have you actually checked the current version of WCAG 2? It *has* changed
considerably since 2001. The concepts laid out in 2 are, for the most part,
completely sensible and achievable. It's tech agnostic, so won't age quite
as badly as WCAG 1 * but admittedly the informative tech documents need a
good bit of work yet. The automatic checker stuff is simply wrong, sorry *
there's a difference between ensuring that each SC is testable and saying
that it's geared towards automated checks.
For info, my own take at the time ofon the significant changes in WCAG 2
that prompted Joe's reconsideration:
Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
This email has been scanned for viruses by the Email Protection Agency
For more information please visit http://www.epagency.net
Confidentiality: This email and its attachments are intended for the
above named only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in
error, you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show
them to anyone; please reply to this email and highlight the error.
Security Warning: Please note that this email has been created in the
knowledge that Internet email is not a 100% secure communications medium.
We advise that you understand and accept this lack of security when
Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and
attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with
good computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually