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

WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission

From: WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:29:38 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060524152938.02C93BDD3@w3c4.w3.org>


Name: Geoff Freed
Email: geoff_freed@wgbh.org
Affiliation: WGBH National Center for Accessible Media
Document: W2
Item Number: (none selected)
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: GE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
My main objection to WCAG 2.0 is that it is simply too big.  Brevity has been abandoned in favor of excessive, often pedantic, discussion.  Developers coming to WCAG 2.0 will want immediate, accessible answers that address their problems.  Instead, they must follow multiple links in order to gain information about even the simplest topics (e.g., text alternatives).  It\'s often necessary to wade through lengthy explanations and rationalizations before arriving at useful information, and this information is frequently cloaked in roundabout language (\"baseline?\"  \"Web unit?\")  that never makes a direct point.  



If the W3C releases WCAG 2.0 in anything resembling its current form-- not just the guidelines document, but the related documents as well, because WCAG 2.0 can\'t really be used without them-- it must then be prepared to defend this document from backlash by a perplexed, bewildered general public.  WCAG 2.0 is longer and more labyrinthine than most other recommendations published by the W3C.  What does that say about accessibility?  It\'s hard to achieve?  It\'s overly complex?  It\'s a big pain in the neck?  If the WAI wants these *voluntary* guidelines to be widely adopted, they must be re-written in a concise, direct manner.

Proposed Change:
Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2006 15:29:52 UTC

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