WCAG 2.0 Working Draft

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Karl Groves, Aug 13, 2004.

  1. Karl Groves

    Karl Groves Guest

    Karl Groves, Aug 13, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Karl Groves wrote:
    > Anyone here have comments on the new working draft of WCAG?
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20040730/


    They're abstract concepts. Interesting read, but not so practical. I
    prefer the more hands-on HTML Techniques for WCAG 2.0,
    <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-HTML-TECHS/>.


    Matthias
    Matthias Gutfeldt, Aug 13, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Karl Groves

    mark | r Guest

    why dont they add image wrapping on images - it could be plimilemted really
    simply using the same system as an image map (only reverse)

    mark
    mark | r, Aug 13, 2004
    #3
  4. Karl Groves

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "mark | r" <> wrote:

    >why dont they add image wrapping on images - it could be plimilemted really
    >simply using the same system as an image map (only reverse)


    Could you give us an example of a page where you've used "image
    wrapping" and tell us why you think it improves accessibility?

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
    Steve Pugh, Aug 13, 2004
    #4
  5. Matthias Gutfeldt <> wrote:

    > Karl Groves wrote:
    >> Anyone here have comments on the new working draft of WCAG?
    >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20040730/

    >
    > They're abstract concepts.


    Well, abstract ideas too. It seems that they are not making great
    progress - the draft is _still_ very sketchy.

    Worst of all, they are breaking continuity with WCAG 1.0, by making the
    structure of the recommendation completely different. And WCAG 1.0 has
    received widespread (and often too religious) acceptance - e.g., it has
    been explicitly recommended by the European Parliament. Politicians and
    authors alike will get confused if WCAG 2.0 ever becomes a W3C
    recommendation.

    > I prefer the more hands-on HTML Techniques for WCAG 2.0,
    > <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-HTML-TECHS/>.


    Not much new there, as compared with the corresponding document for
    WCAG 1.0. And actually it's getting worse. They now say we shouldn't use
    title="..." for <img> and they still promote the clumsy and unimplemented
    longdesc="..." idea.

    But anyone who believes in the fundamental ideas of WCAG 2.0 should
    probably comment on it on the mailing list mentioned in the draft - that
    way the comments have a much better chance of getting notified than
    comments on other fora.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
    Jukka K. Korpela, Aug 13, 2004
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. yb
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    494
    Alan J. Flavell
    Nov 22, 2005
  2. wolf.lammen

    working draft C++, program model

    wolf.lammen, Oct 26, 2008, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    356
    wolf.lammen
    Oct 26, 2008
  3. Ganesh

    WCAG 1.0 vs WCAG 2.0

    Ganesh, Aug 25, 2009, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,570
    Ganesh
    Sep 2, 2009
  4. VK
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    97
    Jim Ley
    Apr 6, 2006
  5. Ivan Shmakov
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    275
    Ivan Shmakov
    Dec 11, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page