- From: Wayne Dick <wed@csulb.edu>
- Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 12:45:05 -0800
- To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- CC: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>, public-comments-wcag20@w3.org, "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
WCAG 2.0 Latest Draft is not perfect. It is just great. I think further work is unnecessary and it time to go forward. It's time to click champagne glasses. We have interim technical reports like ARIA to fill the gap until the next giant shift. An accessibility standard should stand for a decade, and this one can. Many people point to a specific medical class of disabilities that are not met. I say, show me the functionality that is not met by WCAG 2.0. If there is missing functionality we can tag it on in an update or a change to Understanding and the Quick Ref. At university we hare held to an honest, but less definite rule: equally effective access. I have looked at the functional needs served by WCAG 2.0 and the sufficient techniques, and as far as they go, the techniques for WCAG 2.0 meet my gut test for equally effective access. Web sites and web technologies that meet WCAG 2.0 and use sufficient techniques provide equal timeliness, equal quality and information in a form that a user can in the mode suitable to their needs. Wayne
Received on Saturday, 9 February 2008 20:45:27 UTC