My Concluding Thoughts on WCAG #6.3

I received some great feedback from lots on the list regarding my complaints 
of WCAG #6.3. I just want to conclude my thoughts and point out some of the 
stuff I've learned or gathered from the feedback I've recieved.

1. Planning. It will take a lot of planning for sites to conform to WCAG 
#6.3. And I know more development companies than not will complain and drag 
their feet and/or just refuse to comply. How many times do people complain 
to the list about the absence of <ALT> tags? Requiring developers to build a 
second site or retrofit and build without the necessity of JavaScript will 
be a long haul.

2. I'm not sure an accessible web site need be one that is viewable in Lynx. 
When my equipment became outdated, I budgeted and saved and bought a new 
computer. I think this is especially true when it comes to the Internet: the 
growth and technological advancement is too much too fast. Selling Lynx, 
right or wrong, as a viable browser is going to be just as hard as 
convincing developers to drop JavaScript as a necessity for their site's 
functionality.

3. As a developer, I'll ensure my home page is WCAG conformant, and I'll 
continue to works towards that goal in my profession, but that's what it 
will be: work towards. WCAG #6.3 is, presently, too restrictive for any of 
the development companies I work and converse with. In fact, more often than 
not, the prevailing attitude is that web accessibility lies in the hands of 
the disabled and the makers of assistive tools. Dumb idea - I wonder how 
many of those same folks argued against ramps, insisting on wheelchairs that 
walked as if they were some nightmare from Star Wars <GRIN>.

4. I hope the architects of the WCAG can reconsider #6.3. I agree that 
client side JavaScript is about as necessary as a CD player in the car: it's 
great to have, lots of fun, but doesn't help the car run at all. 
Nonetheless, very few are going to buy a new car without a CD Player. It is 
probably too complicated to consider, but it would nice if a distinction was 
made in WCAG conformance levels to indicate the site doesn't require support 
for client-side scripting. That, IMHO, would make initial attempts at WCAG 
conformance much easier to attain.

Again, thanks for all the feedback!

Joel Sanda
[NOTE: new email address]
joelsanda@uswest.net

--------------------------------------------
Joel Sanda | Rocky Mountains | United States
EMAIL:     joelsanda@uswest.net
MSN MSNGR: joelsanda
--------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Received on Tuesday, 28 March 2000 09:48:38 UTC