W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > January 2008

WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission

From: WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:48:24 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-Id: <20080121234824.1F5A26B62D@kent.w3.org>


Name: Roger Hudson
Email: rhudson@usability.com.au
Affiliation: 
Document: W2
Item Number: (none selected)
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: general comment
Summary of Issue: 
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
The previous two drafts generated 1,500 comments which according to the Working Group, \"comprises a significant community contribution to the guidelines\". Much of the response by the Working Group to these comments was in the form of additional clarifications and techniques in two non-normative documents that do not have the status of WCAG 2.0. 



WCAG 1.0 adopted a general position of offering guidance in the area of accessibility; whereas during the development of WCAG 2.0, it appears that a prime aim has been to prepare a document that is more akin to a \"standard\". Perhaps, this is best illustrated by the Working Group\'s determination that the value of a Success Criteria be determined by its testability, and in particular machine testability.



Given this apparent move from offering guidance to providing a (machine) testable standard, it would seem likely that the normative components of WCAG 2.0 will be the main area of concern when determining legal liability or responsibility for ensuring web accessibility. It should be noted, that in regard to the definition of \"normative\" the WCAG 2.0 Glossary states, \"Content identified as \"informative\" or \"non-normative\" is never required for conformance\".



I am concerned that many issues relating directly to people with cognitive, learning or language difficulties, which were raised in response to the previous two drafts of WCAG 2.0, are still not addressed in the core WCAG 2.0 document. In fact, I believe it could be argued that from a legal perspective WCAG 2.0 offers less rather than more protection or support than WCAG 1.0 for what is arguable the largest community of disabled people in many countries.

Proposed Change:
Received on Monday, 21 January 2008 23:48:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:24 GMT