W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: The Problem with WCAG (was RE: CSS Techniques for WCAG 2.0)

From: RUST Randal <RRust@COVANSYS.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:15:27 -0400
Message-ID: <1A729C6059E7CD4CA1DFE3985E6004210623ADE1@fth-ex02.CVNS.corp.covansys.com>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Patrick Lauke wrote:

> Because otherwise what you have is a document detailing 
> purely "technical accessibility",

I understand, and actually agree to a point. Let me make my point this
way. In the United States, people, especially decision makers in
business, make decisions based on quantifiable numbers. Those numbers
need to translate into positive dollars. If you can't quantify things,
most people don't care. 

Making a Web page WCAG 1.0 AAA compliant doesn't really mean anything to
most people, especially if you see a BOBBY Report that still lists
several warnings that need to be manually checked. Again, it is too
ambiguous for the common person to understand.

Markup that has passed validation means something, because people can
see (or read) and understand the result.
 
> the goal of real accessibility.

It seems to me that despite the fact WCAG has been a Recommendation for
more than five years a lot of people are still debating even how to
define accessibility. That is evident by the discussions that have been
going on for the past few days.

Accessibility guidelines are a wonderful idea, I just happen to think
they need to be less subjective in order to gain wider acceptance.

----------
Randal Rust
Covansys Corp.
Columbus, OH
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 13:15:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:44 UTC