JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for WEBSITE-INFO-MGT Archives


WEBSITE-INFO-MGT Archives

WEBSITE-INFO-MGT Archives


WEBSITE-INFO-MGT@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

WEBSITE-INFO-MGT Home

WEBSITE-INFO-MGT Home

WEBSITE-INFO-MGT  September 2008

WEBSITE-INFO-MGT September 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Now that WCAG 2.0 is a candidate recommendation

From:

David Hulbert <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

David Hulbert <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:07:33 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (65 lines)

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!


David Hulbert

Web Developer
Bournemouth & Poole College
01202 205983
[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Well, it's a bit passé to quote Joe's article, as it's now out of date *
he's even rescinded it publicly in his retirement announcement
http://blog.fawny.org/2007/06/08/retired/ 

"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:
http://www.webstandards.org/2007/06/11/review-wcag2-may2007-working-draft/ 

P
-- 
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 
http://redux.deviantart.com 
__________________________________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/ 
__________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
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 
emailing us.  
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
virus free.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager