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."

Comments

Nine years?

[Jeff Hornby]

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.

Re:Nine years?

[Anonymous Coward]

[new joke needed]

Oh, crap...

[Curien]

Guideline 2.3 Seizures: Do not design content in a way that is known to cause seizures.

Well, so much for all MY code!

Re:Oh, crap...

[tsalmark]

Whats wrong with your code?

nine years?

[girlintraining]

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

i wonder...

[pwolf]

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 to the lazy ones

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with your non-CSS, table-based layout, javascript and Flash-required things you like to refer to as "websites".

A welcome change

[Spikeman56]

The title has to be the farthest I've seen "Web" away from "two-point-oh" in a long time... a whole three words!

Solutions in search of a problem?

[twmcneil]

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.

Re:Solutions in search of a problem?

[Shados]

long before all this well-intentioned madness starts to limit the amount of good material that is published?

It already does. Some companies that are bound by these standards or regulation (since in certain case, it is enforced by law) have been slapped on the wrists (or more) for publishing things without following all accessibility rules, and the result sometimes has been to simply not publish them at all, because it ended up being too much worse (let say, for a professor who wanted to publish some extra info cuz he had it on hand, but would have had to make it "accessible", which would have taken time he simply did not have).

So yes, it already happens, a lot. Its an awkward situation, because people lose out no matter what you to... Don't have any standards and regulations, and no one will give a shit about people with disabilities... Have them enforced, and people simply will not publish things that are covered under the standard.

The best solution is to improve the tooling, and give insensive for the people that makes tools to enhance the experience for those with disabilities to make even more tools. If there's something semi-reliable to make a captioning of any podcast in real time, well, it won't be perfect, but better than nothing no? Stuff like that.

Re:Solutions in search of a problem?

[FatMacDaddy]

I couldn't disagree more.

I guess they're not worth your time and trouble as long as you can get to most of what you want. Nearly one in four Americans has some sort of disability, so savvy publishers who don't want to lose out on a big chunk of marketshare find it worthwhile to comply.

In the case of commerical sites, vendors find that disabled users are a loyal lot and will keep frequenting sites and businesses that support their needs. And they won't waste time struggling with a non-compliant site if the competition is compliant.

The argument that this puts undue burden on content providers is BS. The same thing was said about forcing car makers to include seat belts, and on and on. Like the cutouts in sidewalks, not just disabled people benefit from the efforts to accommodate their needs; the general public does, too.

Lastly, while it is well intentioned for general use, 508 applies only to things being provided to the (US) Government. If you didn't factor in the costs of accessibility into your bid, then too bad for you.

Re:Solutions in search of a problem?

[Metaphorically]

Sorry but wtf are people doing on Mount Everest that's so important?

To use your metaphor, there's been a lot of sending people up Mount Everest while someone in a wheelchair can't get around at work.

Reading Level

[nuigi]

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.

Re:Reading Level

[mad_robot]

One is behooved to concord that perspicuity is indubitably the sine qua non of all linguistic pereginations.

WCAG is only for people without disabilities

[oneiros27]

Or at least, the writing of the standards were. From Joe Clark's comments from early 2006:

The process stinks
And now a word about process, which you have have to appreciate in order to understand the result. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is the worst committee, group, company, or organization I've ever worked with. Several of my friends and I were variously ignored; threatened with ejection from the group or actually ejected; and actively harassed. The process is stacked in favour of multinationals with expense accounts who can afford to talk on the phone for two hours a week and jet to world capitals for meetings.

The WCAG development process is inaccessible to anyone who doesn't speak English. More importantly, it's inaccessible to some people with disabilities, notably anyone with a reading disability (who must wade through ill-written standards documents and e-mails--there's already been a complaint) and anyone who's deaf (who must listen to conference calls). Almost nobody with a learning disability or hearing impairment contributes to the process--because, in practical terms, they can't.

What WAI is supposed to be doing is improving the web for people with disabilities. Something's wrong if many participants work in a climate of fear, as they tell me they do. I never hear of similar complaints from WAI's other groups. WCAG Working Group is a rogue element within the W3C, one that chair Tim Berners-Lee must urgently bring to heel.

The process is broken, so let's not be surprised that the result of that process is broken, too.