Scott wrote: >> WCAG2.0 is still in draft but if you were to >> start updating your existing policies/standards, >> what would your priorities be?
Mike wrote: > At this point in time I have no intention of even > acknowledging the existence of WCAG 2 [...] No argument from me, Mike. To answer your question Scott I plan to do nothing. At some point I will adopt new practices that make sense, whether they are part of the WCAG 2 or not, but at this point I won't subscribe to the draft. Currently, unless I am compelled to change my mind, my priorities will be the same tomorrow as they are today: To try and make my sites as accessible and as usable as possible without foregoing the ever-important elements of appealing design and SEO and everything else that goes into making a marketable site. In the US the speed limit on our highways was 55 miles per hour. Later it was upped to 65 on most major routes. Made sense. Most everyone, myself included, was driving about 65 anyway. Prior to the change people didn't drive to be within the letter of the law, they drove as they saw fit, and to stay with the flow of traffic, just like it is today. The lawmakers eventually saw it through the eyes of the drivers and met our needs instead of demonstrating belligerence. In my mind, the same applies here. I have little interest in compliance to the draft because it is the latest thing. >From what I've seen, there is little, if anything, that is better about it (unless word-count is a plus). I'd much prefer that the draft meet our needs instead of developers blindly going along. If fact, the W3C really needs to get together with the development community concerning this instead of just asking if a couple changes need to be made now that it's basically done. I'm completely in favor of web accessibility, but for every rule I adopt and implement, I do it because it makes sense, not because that's what the sign says. I don't usually cite the guidelines in my accessibility statements, though on one site I did write: " This site was written in the spirit of W3C WAI, following the W3C WCAG guidelines as defined by the World Wide Web Consortium." But rather, in my statements, I go into more detail that will mean something to the user, such as explaining what was done and why. Features, barriers removed, etc. The other stuff doesn't mean much to users (unless it's some legal department itch that needs scratching). I don't think most users care what guideline I follow, but they do get some value from telling them I have a style changer, or explaining to them how their browser works. For my own sanity, I have to take a more practical approach. Sharing Mike's concern, I hope this response doesn't spark a wildfire. I wouldn't fault anyone for following the WCAG 2.0 implicitly. But I sure hope it makes their sites more accessible in the end. If it does, I will probably adopt the real improvements I see, whatever they may be, and continue to filter out the rest of the noise. Disclaimer: IMO Sincerely, Mike Cherim ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
