Slashdot Mirror
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Now Final
beetle496 writes "It has been going on nine years now, but finally there are formal standards for Web accessibility for technologies other than HTML. They ask that you start with the press release (lots of links), but regulars might be more entertained by the last time WCAG made the front page here. Many folks here will point out that web accessibility is old hat, and by implication this is hardly news, but if you do Web development for any government organization, you should expect that accessibility is a base requirement. The Section 508 standards are to be updated (relatively) soon too."
Is the red heading an accessibility feature,
or is it just to alert trolls that 1st post is still available?
Nine years? Nine YEARS? Are you kidding me?
Is it any wonder that so much software is not standards compliant. I mean seriously, if standards bodies really want to be taken seriously outside of academia, they really need to start working more than a few minutes a month. Have these people thought about adopting this standard: the forty hour work week.
Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
I guess this is the last day for IE :)
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
Well, so much for all MY code!
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
Nine years and this is what they come up with? What else came from 1999... Oh, right: The first delay in the release of Duke Nukem Forever. And I also believe that's the year they came out with "cooler ranch" potato chips, and they've sucked ever since. Ah, and there was that Prince song. Yes, that one. So based on empirical evidence, I conclude that this too shall suck, but we'll party like it's... *bang*
NO CARRIER
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
that half the web is not standards compliant.... good thing they are finally publishing this.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Now that this has been released, i wonder when the first lawsuit will be filed against [insert random government agency] for not having a W3C Web Accessibility Standard wesbite. Little Timmy can't read the website using his text to speech :(
Good luck with your non-CSS, table-based layout, javascript and Flash-required things you like to refer to as "websites".
If you would like to show your support for this initiative, mod this comment down.
My pleasure, you fucking idiot. I have a better idea:
Wouldn't it be easier just to kill all the idiots?
1. No more trolling
2. No more time wasted with them. Idiots are idiots and time is extremely valuable to the civilization in general. Let's save more time by killing all the idiots so we can spend it in a more productive manner than explaining to them that they're fucktards.
3. It would mean an explosion of technologies and knowledge that would ease everyone's life. These shit-for-brains just drag us down by doing nothing productive, as they just bitch about everything without taking a second to think before opening their mouths.
4. It would get rid of all the idiots
Oviously, there are no exceptions.
If you would like to show your support for this initiative, mod this comment up.
Aaahhhhhhhhh... trolling feels sooo goood!
Bureaucracy. Everyone has its own ideas on how it should be. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Must... not... Godwin... conversation.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The title has to be the farthest I've seen "Web" away from "two-point-oh" in a long time... a whole three words!
Dude. Replying to me will only encourage me. Congratulations; you have fed a troll for another day. Thanks!
Is it just me or are most of these Accessibility Standards (sadly) just not worth the time and trouble?
I am hearing impaired. What's the accessibility standard to help me enjoy a podcast? Do we require closed captioning for all podcasts? Require a written transcript to be posted with every podcast?
Sure, there's plenty of podcasts I'd like to "listen" to and can't but for each pound of extra baggage we pile on a publisher, we reduce the incentive to publish. How long before all this well-intentioned madness starts to limit the amount of good material that is published?
The inevitable end result is an artificial reduction in the amount of material available to all.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
finally there are formal standards for Web accessibility for technologies other than HTML.
<sarcasm> Sure, and they'll be followed just like everybody follows the HTML guidelines. </sarcasm>
I'd like to say that their nine years of effort have accomplished something, but given the blatant disregard that web designer have for people with different browser, you're being overly optimistic to think they'll have any regard toward people who are differently abled.
I disagree that the reading level of sites should be brought down to a 9th grade reading level [w3.org]. A reading level rating would be more appropriate. Most of the internet, slashdot included, will not have a problem with that; the web content worth reading, slashdot included, are well above that.
According to the linked page, "popular software" can determine the reading level of text in multiple languages. A quick Google search revealed a PHP project php-text-statistics; it would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between highly moderated comments and some of the reading comprehension metrics.
Or at least, the writing of the standards were. From Joe Clark's comments from early 2006:
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
> I am hearing impaired. What's the accessibility standard to help me enjoy a podcast? Do we require closed captioning for all podcasts? Require a written transcript to be posted with every podcast?
Actually, that would be lovely. I can read far faster than people can talk. Text can be searched.
I wish they do that for all informational videos and podcasts. The only time I actually want to watch or listen to things are when they're entertaining, anyhow.
And I'm not impaired at all.
Don't be afraid to give them tasks you don't understand how it can be done.
Don't be afraid to let them do things you can't do.
Don't let other managers have access to them directly, they are your people, if someone has a problem with one of them, or a task for one of them, they need to talk to you.
Don't play favorites. Spread the work load evenly (let them help you do this.)
When you assign them tasks, give them pre-determined checkpoints for checking progress. This really helps you avoid micro management.
Give them time to do research and, side projects. Too much focus on a single thing can cause the mind to muddle.
If you give an attaboy make it a real one.
Avoid market speak.
Give them an in on the why behind their tasks, they possibly have seen this kind of problem/attempted solution before and know a better/faster/working way.
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
Large companies also apply Section 508 criteria to internal systems, in an effort to comply with ADA/Rehabilitation act. Just as they would install wheelchairs for the handicapped, they promote accessibility in IT.
I've made apps compliant. It's a bitch. The HTML TABLE tag has two meanings which create confusion for screen readers: it can represent structural markup (a grid table of data, with headings), or visual markup (the whole page is a table, column 1 is the navigation, column 2 is the data.) Although visual use can eliminated through DIVs and CSS, often times, the code isn't organized in a way to do that without pain.