- 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
Name: Rick Hill Email: <rrhill@ucdavis.edu> Affiliation: 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