W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Exclusion of Visual Readers with Low Vision form WCAG 2.0 and the 508 Revise

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:42:43 +0100
Message-ID: <4E9DF2D3.6020601@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Phill Jenkins wrote:

> * Stronger legislation and enforcement at the Federal and State levels, 
> both
> in the USA and in other countries around the world, directed at software
> vendors and content authors.

There is the question of legislation and of enforcement.

With regard to legislation, I believe the paper was arguing that the 
legislators were effectively using WCAG documents as the legislation, 
either by including it by reference, or by directly copying it.  I think 
the argument was that the legislation will only be as good as the WCAG 
guideline documents.

Whilst I think that section 508 is relatively prescriptive, UK 
legislation sets broad principles.  Something like WCAG then comes in in 
that you can mount a reasonable defence to a charge under the 
legislation if you have complied with some recognized standards, like WCAG.

With this sort of legislation, enforcement is always a problem.  Often 
governments don't put enough resources into enforcement, in some cases 
because they have introduced it for political reasons (happens a lot 
with EU legislation but also with health and safety), but they actually 
believe that it is bad for the economy.

In the UK it is a criminal offence to jam a fire door open, but it is 
very unlikely you will get prosecuted unless someone dies in a fire, so 
most people jam them open with impunity.  The legislation exists, but it 
is ineffective.

> * Better education directed at content authors to use appropriate 
> structural
> markup, and to have a cleaner separation of content and style (i.e. linked
> style-sheets rather than embedded or in-line style markup).

I think this will have very limited effect until the legislation gets 
teeth, as marketing documents, which is mostly what the web is, just 
aren't designed like that.

David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 21:43:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:43 UTC