[Home page](/) [Latest blog](../all.html)
# slef-reflections on Accessibility
* Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
* * *
## Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
[WCAG 1.0](http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/) was a good thing as far as it went.
Even though it's looking a little bit long in the tooth at 8 years old, it's
still a useful reference. Why don't more web sites follow it properly?
### Last Chance for the Working Draft of the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 2.0
As a result of commenting on some problems in [CUBA's Jam Busting June
site](http://www.jambustingjune.com/) I was made aware of [the Working Draft
of WCAG 2.0](http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/) or the Not-Working Draft, as I
think it could be called. If you want to comment on it yourself, you had until
the end of 27 June 2007 (US EDT, I assume).
Put simply, it's too confusing for both web developers and site managers. Even
the Quick Reference is rather long for practical use. It's very indirect -
it's not even clear whether xhtml over HTTP is preferred. I submitted [a
comment about that](http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-
wcag20/2007Jun/0067.html) \- also rather disappointing to find that W3C appear
to fail to use [stripslashes()](http://www.php.net/stripslashes) when needed.
I submitted [another comment](http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0066.html) about the backwards step of allowing
Javascript-required sites to be called accessible. Javascript is dangerous for
accessibility and bad for power consumption. What the blue blazes is an AJAX-
only webmail doing as one of the accessibility examples?
I see that [notable](http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tohellwithwcag2)
[sites](http://evolt.org/can_wcag_2_be_simpler) have already criticised WCAG
2.0. While I don't necessarily agree with everything they say, this is a very
disappointing situation. Will WCAG 2 be rescued? Are accessible-friendly
webmasters screwed if WCAG 1.0 is replaced by 2.0 in our national standards?
It lets all the Flash-only cowboys claim WCAG-conformance as long as they note
their site relies upon Flash. (Question: is a site still WCAG-2.0-accessible
if it requires Flash to view the note that says it requires Flash?)
Should we start looking towards [MACCAWS,](http://www.maccaws.org/)
[WHATWG,](http://www.whatwg.org/) expanding [IETF](http://www.ietf.org/) to
cover the web, or starting another democratic/meritocratic standards body?
2007-06-28T10:28:00Z Alex Hudson commented:
> "Similar comments about another W3C WG:
>
>
[http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1181118077&order=-1&count=1](http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1181118077&order=-1&count=1)
>
> W3C should be about authoring material for the web. It seems at the moment,
they're more concerned with the stuff that happens after authoring - e.g., how
stuff relates in "the semantic web". IMHO we still don't have any powerful
tools for authoring either, so the idea that authoring tools will automate
many of the "bolt on accessibility" tasks is pretty naive."
After implementing pingback, I have some respect for hixie. It's disappointing
but not surprising to read those comments.
Not sure what is meant by powerful authoring tools there. My tools are
powerful, but I know they're not easy for new users. As I'm getting old and
cynical, I'm not sure whether power tools can ever be correct **and** truly
easy \- just look at the pigswill spewing out of some Web 2.0 sites.
[niq](http://bahumbug.wordpress.com/) sent me a link to [the WCAG Samurai
Errata](http://wcagsamurai.org/errata/intro.html) and commented:
> "The problem with WCAG 2, as with WCAG 1, is precisely that it's a Work of
Committee, and seeks to represent too many irreconcilable viewpoints and egos.
>
> In some cases, even the ideas behind it are inconsistent. Many (myself
included) regard accessibility as being about ensuring a reader with a
physical disability can make use of a site (think Steven Hawking). That's also
what HTML is designed to support. Others are concerned with the mentally
impaired, also a worthy cause, but one that becomes counterproductive when its
advocates fail to distinguish between a site that's inherently inaccessible
because it presents a complex and challenging subject, and one that's
unnecessarily difficult due to poor presentation.
>
> Add the two together, blend in some stupidity, and you get "accessible"
sites full of classic "friendly" little illustrations like a "helpful"
government booklet, and a horribly intrusive "alt" to explain each pointless
"ethnic mummy and child" picture."
I think a Work of Committee could be useful, as long as you have the right
committee. Thinking about that, I found [the group membership
list](http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/participants.html) and I'm not sure that's the
right committee. For example, I think the ex-Adobe Google-worker must surely
have an irreconcilable conflict of interest (inappropriate use of Adobe's
Flash and PDF formats and Google's Web Apps have done more than many to harm
accessibility in the past IMO), yet is a leading light of WCAG 2.0 - maybe
that's why it's gone so dark?
2007-06-28T10:46:00Z Update: Thijs Kinkhorst comments:
> "As I read in the draft, suggestions are still possible until the 29th, not
the 27th of June."
I'm sure that's different to the email which started me writing this, but
please [go comment](http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/) and see if we can make
WCAG-2.0 useful.
* Start of this section
* Start of this page
* [Latest posts](../all.html)
[Comment form for non-frame browsers](../../comp/respond.pl).
Comments are moderated (damn spammers) but almost anything sensible gets
approved (albeit eventually). If you give a web address, I'll link it. I won't
publish your email address unless you ask me to, but I'll email you a link
when the comment is posted, or the reason why it's not posted.
This is copyright 2007 MJ Ray. See fuller notice on [front page](/).