Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy

Chaals is correct:
> I believe Kynn was not suggesting that WCAG 1 or WCAG 2 were perfect, just
> that 508 was not as good as the (admittedly imperfect) WCAG 1.

I think 508's technical requirements are both a different kind of beast
than WCAG 1 and ultimately inferior in many ways (e.g.: don't address
the needs of enough people, don't account for the multitude of very
good things contained in WCAG 1 p2 and p3, etc); a direct comparison
is not easy, but I would put the usefulness of improving accessibility
in the following order:

    Nothing at all
    508
    WCAG 1 single A
    WCAG 1 double A
    WCAG 1 used sensibly as described by me earlier :)

WCAG 2's location has yet to be determined since it's a work in progress.

As Chaals also said, the debate over "what's good and what doesn't, and
whether Kynn is right that 508 sucks or whatever" is really not the issue
here -- to me the issue is "how do we write WCAG 2 compliance so that
it is an inclusive meta-standard encompassing all of the above and any
other appropriate and well-thought-out accessibility standard that an
informed policy maker may choose to implement, rather than hardwiring
compliance schemes _which cause people to reject our checkpoints
themselves_."

That's the hidden danger, outright rejection of WCAG work entirely, and
it comes about when we take the checkpoints/techniques/body of knowledge
which we've acquired which is _so very good and useful_, and then impose
too strict of a compliance scheme leading people to reject that entire
body of knowledge and look to something as limited as the 508 technical
requirements.

--Kynn

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2001 10:54:59 UTC