- From: Yvette P. Hoitink <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:11:51 +0100
- To: "'Web Content Accessibility Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Jason scetched two scenarios that argue against a fixed baseline or requiring that the technology be 'widespread' available. I have a few more: * A company develops a highly innovative new technology and develops a user agent to handle that new content. The user agent follows UAAG and interfaces well with existing assistive technologies. The technology has all the accessibility features necessary to meet the success criteria. Unfortunately, it's not possible to comply with WCAG because the technology isn't widely available yet. This means web developers that want to use the new technology won't bother with the accessibility features because they still won't comply. * A company develops a new web technology that requires a very expensive user agent. The user agent follows UAAG and interfaces well with existing assistive technologies without extra pay. The costs to use the technology are the same for people with or without disabilities. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to comply to WCAG using this technology because WCAG says it should be widespread which it isn't because it's so expensive. One of the biggest problems with WCAG 1 in my opinion is that it discourages new technologies. That makes sense for the short term, because in many cases the assistive technology won't handle the new content so people are left in the cold if authors use new technologies. But in reality, developers are going to use the new technology anyway even if that means the content won't be WCAG-compliant. The developers won't bother with the accessibility features because that still won't give them an accessible website according to the WCAG. Also, user agents will not be stimulated to support the accessibility features because they're not being used and the content still wouldn't meet WCAG 1. This leaves a lot more people in the cold in the long run. I feel that in WCAG 2 we should embrace new technologies from the start and encourage authors to use the accessibility features, even if the user agents can't handle those features yet or don't interface well with assistive technology yet. That way, the burden is on the UA-developer to support the accessibility features. Because the features are being used, the UA-developers will be much more cooperative and will be pressured to support accessibility from the developer community as well as the accessibility community. I realize that this suggestion can lead to the paradoxal case of a WCAG-compliant website that no blind person can actually use but that's just a temporary situation 'until user agents' step up to the plate. But this way our guidelines will benefit more people in the long run. Yvette Hoitink Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl WWW: http://www.heritas.nl
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 13:13:25 UTC