Comments on: WCAG review period extended

By: Even academics can’t understand it – Le «blog personnel» de Joe Clark

Even academics can’t understand it – Le «blog personnel» de Joe Clark — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:52:59 +0000

[...] and wouldn’t need a set of cheat sheets treble or quadruple the length of the original. ☛ 2006.06.10 12:48 — Category(ies): Research, WCAG2 Recent postings← PreviousCitroën ClusterPhenomenonNext → [...]

By: Bruce Lawson’s personal site : WCAG 2.0: when I want a beer, don’t give me shandy

Fri, 02 Jun 2006 06:34:38 +0000

[...] There’s been some excellent discussion about the last call for comments on WCAG 2.0, both on the Web (see Joe Clark’s “To Hell with WCAG 2” and on w3c lists), and also in the hollowed-out volcano where the WaSP Accessibility Task Force meet. The fact that the w3c have extended the review period shows that they’re listening to legitimate criticism. [...]

By: Karl Dubost

Karl Dubost — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 06:42:58 +0000

Tanny,

That’s an interesting comment: “When writing specifications I believe that it is a good idea to create examples so that you can see if it works in the “real” world.”

There are many ways to develop a technical specification. Keep in mind that WCAG 2.0 is a Last Call Working Draft. The next step is usually “Candidate Recommendation” (CR). During the CR phase, most of the time, W3C WGs produce a test suite for the technology. It means a series of test cases (what you label examples) which shows if the techniques/features are implementable. When these test cases have been produced, we can check if the techniques/features are implementable and produce an implementation report.

It is also a very good way to review a specification. When one’s doesn’t agree with a feature in a specification, the best way to demonstrate that it has flaws or that it is underspecified, is to create a test case. Then it’s easier to articulate the discussion on a concrete example.

I encourage any person commenting to create concrete test cases when sending a comment, it helps a lot to move forward the discussion. A specification is a difficult and long process, it is even more difficult when the topic is popular (CSS/HTML/Accessibility).

By: Bruce Lawson’s personal site : Grump.

Bruce Lawson’s personal site : Grump. — Sat, 27 May 2006 07:50:22 +0000

[...] Update: Actually, it turns out I’ve got another three weeks to finish the WCAG 2 reading. The deadline for comments has been extended by three weeks to Thursday 22 June 2006. [...]

By: Scott L Holmes

Scott L Holmes — Sat, 27 May 2006 00:42:50 +0000

In case you missed it, be sure to read Joe Clark's review of WCAG2: To Hell with WCAG 2. Did I say review? I meant vociferation; yeah, vociferation.

By: Tanny O'Haley

Tanny O'Haley — Fri, 26 May 2006 23:51:36 +0000

When writing specifications I believe that it is a good idea to create examples so that you can see if it works in the “real” world. To be widely accepted the text should be clear and to the point. I believe that WCAG 2 is a failure in that it is unclear and not to the point.

By: Tanny O'Haley

Tanny O'Haley — Fri, 26 May 2006 23:49:55 +0000

When writing specifications I believe that it is a good idea to create examples so that you can see if it works in the "real" world. To be widely accepted, text should be clear and to the point. I believe that WCAG 2 is a failure in that is unclear and not to the point. Not to mention Joe Clark's To Hell with WCAG 2 article at A List Apart.

By: mattmay

mattmay — Fri, 26 May 2006 20:35:12 +0000

Both.

By: Joe Clark

Joe Clark — Fri, 26 May 2006 20:14:23 +0000

Which is actually the case: WCAG 2 has general usability faults that cause it to be unapproachable or it is naturally long, dense, and no fun to read because specifications *specify*?