W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > June 2006

WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission

From: WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 06:31:05 +0000 (UTC)
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060606063105.6315CDAFB2@w3c4-bis.w3.org>

Name: Rick Hill 
Email: <rrhill@ucdavis.edu>
Document: W2
Item Number: (none selected)
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: GE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
I for one do not have the time to read all of the WCAG 2 documents in  

the 30-day review time-frame that has been provided.  Having read Joe  

Clark\'s comments at http://www.alistapart.com/articles/ 

tohellwithwcag2 and http://joeclark.org/access/webaccess/WCAG/ as  

well as postings at http://technorati.com/tag/WCAG2.  If only 10% of  

the issues that are identified on these sites are true, then WCAG 2  

is NOT ready for prime time.  If it is true that web pages that meet  

WCAG 2 need not be valid HTML/XHTML then that is utterly contrary to  

the concept of web standards and is a HUGE step in the wrong  

direction.  I would hope that the WCAG 2 standards build on and  

enhance the standards of WCAG 1 that many of us have worked hard to  

promote in our work places.  Other comments:

1. The provision to define a technology as a “baseline,” is not  

useful unless there is either some way to make sure that the  

technology is inherently accessible and/or that there are provisions  

to provide alternate technologies to provide accessible versions of  

the content where the baseline technology fails.

2. Being able to define entire directories of your site as off-limits  

to accessibility  should only be allowed when the content cannot be  

made accessible.

3. The compliance \"levels\" do not seem to have become simpler.   

Perhaps more cryptic.  And I would like to see a move toward  

enforcible standrads rather than merely guidelines (as in what was  

attempted with the language of 508).

4. You can’t use offscreen positioning to add labels (e.g., to forms)  

that only some people, like users of assistive technology, can  

perceive. Everybody has to see them.

5. Source order must match presentation order even at the lowest  

level ... why?

6. It would seem that WCAG 2 proposes maintaining separate accessible  

and inaccessible versions of the same pages.

Again, I wish I had the time to drop my day-to-day tasks, stop  

pushing for web standard design in our environment (including  

accessible design) and devote my time to being able to read an  

comment on the final WCAG 2 draft. However, the comments from folks  

in the know and in the filed have not been encouraging.  So, I  

decided to drop a line and express my concerns and fears.  SInce it  

took years for the committee to reach this point, it would seem a  

slightly longer review period to allow comment is in order.  And one  

would hope, if the public (those folks working to promote accessible  

design) have real concerns about the standard, then the committee  

needs to regroup and address those concerns, not publish a set of  

guidelines that will not be accepted or used in practice ...

Proposed Change:
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 06:31:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:06 UTC