W3C Web Accessibility Standards 2.0

WildFire42 writes "The W3C has released their W3C WCAG 2.0 Standards (that's World Wide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) for a request for comments before it becomes a standard. I've discovered quite a variety of geeks here that may access web content in a variety of methods, from screen readers, to Braille displays, to open captioning on streamed videos, etc. Web accessibility is still in its infancy (relatively), but is becoming a concern for more people every day. Once the WCAG 2.0 becomes a recognized standard (probably sometime in 2004), it will most likely be a concern for web developers, but the W3C still wants input from the public, to get a feel of the kinds of disabilities that have not received enough focus in the 1.0 standards. More information on the Interest Group is at the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative page. Your input and insight is needed!"

Comments

Re:Standards? Ok. Compulsory standards? Not ok.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

This really annoyes me. The web is a visual medium. It should not be compulsory to cater for those that can't benefit from a visual medium, in a visual medium.

I've worked with blind people : there's a lot of simple services and entertainments that aren't accessible to them simply because selfish brats like you say "to hell with them, this or that isn't designed for them so why should we go out of our way to allow them to access it.".

Guess what: blind people go to art museums to touch sculptures, they go shooting at the range, they play golf, ... and they have a ton of fun doing it, just because someone a little more open-minded than you invented some gadget or method to allow them to have fun.

I wish you'd go blind for a day, just to make you feel what it's like to be denied entertainment because of selfish people who don't give a flying fuck about anything but themselves.

Valid (x)HTML

[woogieoogieboogie]

All that should be a concern is using valid HTML. Nothing more should be needed to assist anyone. It should be up to the user and their user agent to render the delivered HTML appropriately. No developer should ever be required to compensate for any persons disability. The developers responsibility is to deliver valid HTML to the user.

Not to mention how absurd it is to assume that developers know about or understand the special needs of people. We are devlopers, not therapists or doctors.

The W3C should also consider the cost of bandwidth. By fully compling with their recs, each html page will increase in size from 25 to 50%. No problem when you are delivering a few thousand pages a month, but when you are delivering tens of millions of pages, that additional bloat translates into a lot of extra money on bandwidth.

How about no WCAG?

[Frobozz0]

--sarcasm--
I vote for not letting anyone on the web that doesn't have a P4 Win XP box with IE 6 or greater, in English, with perfect vision, no physical hindrances, and impeccable hygenie.
-- end sarcasm --

What a pain in the ass this is going to be to implement. This must be what engineers complained about when the Persons with Disabilities act passed. I'm all for it, but the logistics can make it unbelievably resource intensive. Is it bad to not want to help unless it directly effects you? :-) Yes? Damn! :-)