We interrupt our irregularly scheduled series on web accessibility for a not so late breaking news flash (sans Flash, of course.) It seems that the W3C is on the verge of releasing a whole new set of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines called WCAG 2.0. With numerous changes in place, it now seems that the whole set of guidelines that many of us have worked so hard to implement are all kind of up in the air.
In many ways, the discussions about the document reflect the disparate philosophical positions within the community on what "accessibility" means.
-- Bruce Lawson WCAG 2.0: when I want a beer, don't give me shandy
...new set of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines...
Whether this new set of guidelines is the incredibly forward-looking, non-technology-dependent vision of accessibility it claims to be or whether it's a backsliding, meaningless bunch of drivel meant to pander to corporate interests is currently the subject of much debate across the Internet by people far smarter and better informed than I. Perhaps at some point these discussions will include real people with real disabilities who, for some reason, have very little to do with this, but currently that doesn't seem to be the case.
WCAG 2 backtracks on basics of responsible web development that are well accepted by standardistas. WCAG 2 is not enough of an improvement and was not worth the wait.
-- Joe Clark A LIST APART: To Hell with WCAG 2
To be fair, the new guidelines are, in fact, a work in progress and not formally approved yet. Still, it's a hard read. I mean it. I actually sat down to read the complete documentation and was only two pages into it before I found myself thinking how much I'd rather be at a dental appointment. So, I apologize for not having time to wade through the massive, unreadable documentation. I'll have to leave that to others.
I'm fully aware of the fact that not everyone who reads Joe's article will wade through several hundred pages from the 3 WCAG specifications, and who could blame you? I read them, but the specs are certainly long, tedious and, in many cases, extremely difficult to comprehend.
-- Lachlan Hunt WCAG 2.0
Perhaps groups like the WCAG Samurai wouldn't have to exist if the WAI committee didn't tend to move and operate like a sumo wrestler itself. After all, there is something to be said for open discussion and actual accomplishment.
...simply a matter of good design and usability...
The simple fact of the matter is that I actually have to work for a living. I build real websites that serve real needs in real communities and are used by real people--only some of whom have disabilities. Frankly, I don't get paid for any of this. Not one client of mine has ever asked for or even commented on having an accessible website. It's something that I do on my own because I consider it to be part of the job. It's simply a matter of good design and usability.
The only ray of hope I can find in the whole thing is that perhaps this will encourage website owners (especially those in the public sector) to think beyond checking the WCAG checkbox. Maybe this will make them think about how to really make their site more accessible rather than simply concentrating on covering their collective arses.
-- Paul Boag Body blow to web accessibility guidelines
What do we do in the face of all this debate? Quite simply, those of us that actually make websites and care about making them useful and accessible to real people are just going to have to go on doing the best we can on our own--as, in fact, we've pretty much been doing. We will continue to use our own brains to think about what we're doing and how we can make it as useful as possible to all users. That's all there is to it. We're already going above and beyond the requirements of our sites.
...underlying budget and time limitations...
So, before we get too carried away, keep this in mind. Even the home page of the W3C itself only claims WCAG 1, level 1 compliance. Yes, we can and should go above that. Section 508 alone gets into levels 1 and 2. However, lets not lose track of our underlying budget and time limitations. We don't expect an accessible building to have a hospital built into it. We don't have to go that far with our websites either.
WCAG 2.0, like WCAG 1.0 before it, is a set of guidelines. It's not a wall or a fence. If it leads you where you need to go, great. If not, then you gotta find your own way. After all, it's you that your clients and users depend on, not the W3C.
Thank you all, code well, and good night.
If you enjoyed this post, then make sure you subscribe to the RSS feed!
Fan Me >>
Follow Me >>
Terrific article. Superb writing. I’m left with so much to think about I have no other words to say and that’s highly unusal.
tt
I actually amazed and disgusted.
with your article – which was a nice lead into the WCAG 2.0… but with the actual WCAG 2.0 itself.
It really highlights, on many levels and aspects – that they have had no input what so ever from disabled people.
Use sign-language alongside audio/video content? REALLY ? So, what type of signlanguage? Which dialect or sub-form ?
Things like saving data after a timeout… erm – wasn’t that the point of timing out sessions? For security of public access and private data?
Further, you last comment was fantastic… and one that I may print and frame….
“After all, it’s you that your clients and users depend on, not the W3C.”
Yes indeed – I’d rather make moderate effort that provide the ability to get around a site and ensure that general content is available – whilst also ensuring that my clients dead-line is met…. and I don’t loose jobs due to the time for developement tripling or that cost quadrappling… which is where the accessibility battle is going to fail I’m afraid.
Little businesses (both those that want websites and those that produce them) are not going to be able to afford such measures.
Shame, but true.
Keep up the good work…. and shall be reading more and more.