Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Now Final

Posted by kdawson on from the standards-grind-slow dept.

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."

7 of 57 comments (clear)

  1. Nine years? by Jeff+Hornby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?
  2. Oh, crap... by Curien · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    Well, so much for all MY code!

    --
    It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
  3. nine years? by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  4. A welcome change by Spikeman56 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  5. Solutions in search of a problem? by twmcneil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!"
    1. Re:Solutions in search of a problem? by FatMacDaddy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
  6. Reading Level by nuigi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.