WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission

Name: Brian Kelly
Email: b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk
Affiliation: UKOLN
Document: W2
Item Number: (none selected)
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: general comment
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
Whilst WAI has been a political success, the WAI model (reliant of WCAG, ATAG and UUAG) is fundamentally flawed and has quite clearly failed.  The individual guidelines themselves are flawed, as we are seeing with the move to WCAG 1.0.

In addition, the WAI guidelines, which seek to address *Web* accessibility can act to the detriment of wider accessibility, which may be addressed at an operating system level, for example, or by other approaches, such as that taken by the IMS AccessForAlll approach.

It should also be noted that IMS has a different definition of disability to WAI, which is based on a social model, rather thab WAI\'s medical model.  It is unfortunate that the WAI approach is based on a model which is not universally applicable.

However rather than seeking to develop a more open and user-focussed approach, WCAG 2 takes a very technical approach which is difficult to understand.  It also fails to allow for a diversity of approaches to accessibility.

This is very worrying, as WAI should be seeking to develop a broad model which will provide a solid foundation for building accessibility.  Attempting to build a standard on the flawed approach of WCAG 2.0 will be counter-productive for accessibility and undermine the work of W3C.

It should also be noted that an over-prescriptive appoach can (is) leading to continued use of provietary solutions (e.g. on Intranets) as there is less of a legal reliance to make non-Web applications accessible.

For further information see:

Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility Guidelines, <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/w4a-2006/>

Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity? A Framework for Applying the WCAG in the Real World, <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/w4a-2005/>

Proposed Change:
My proposals:

o Withdraw WCAG 2.0

o Produce an errata for WCAG 1.0

o Develop an open approach/model for accessibility

o Be explicit in \'difficult\' examples of applications of WAI guidelines (e.g. Podcasting)

Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2006 18:52:51 UTC