Re: WCAG 1.0 or 2.0?

On 10/19/06, David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I don't know what Flickr is, so I would say that this fails both by
> using jargon and because it would only appropriate in an article
> promoting, crticising, or providing a discussion about Flickr.


That's a really good point, one I hadn't thought of. In my own personal
circle, Flickr is well-known and needs no further explanation, but I can see
the danger in keeping that assumption as the circle widens.  It underscores
the importance of testing with actual users rather that relying on the
"letter of the law."

Yes.  It did occur to me that you are trying to work around tools which
> were designed without any consideration of accessibility.  In a world
> where most software tools are not designed to promote accessibility,
> you may have to reject some tools.


On a Web where I can populate my page with product information from one
site, geographical information from another, and images drawn from a third,
I end up having to trust that the content I get from those disparate  sites
will be (or at least can be made to be, but preferably will already be)
accessible.  That trust can easily be broken, and that will likely become
more and more of a problem as Web content continues to get remixed in the
future.

Chris