WCAG 2.0 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Accessibility



Message

jaybee -> WCAG 2.0 (6/16/2006 11:38:07)

OK, now we've waited for this new set of rules that the gurus and boffins have been slaving over for what seems like years and they're on the brink of arriving. Yee Hah!

More like Yee Uck I'm afraid.

Case in point and something we've debated on here in depth several times - <abbr> and <acronym>

Well I kind of thought, misguidedly, that version 2.0 would sort out the confusion and it has. It says in no uncertain terms that there's been confusion in the past with <abbr> and <acronym> and so, to make it all a lot simpler, they're doing away with <acronym> so the only one you need to worry about is <abbr>

I see one small problem here...... IE ignores <abbr> completely. I mean, that's where the darned confusion stemmed from in the first place.

You have an abbreviation on your page but IE ignores them, so do you use an acronym instead, which isn't correct but works, and will using that confuse the screen readers.

And............. (takes breath and rant continues)

what about all the sites that have implemented acronyms because the darned abbr didn't show up in IE and suddenly find it's been deprecated.

This stuff is tough enough to implement without the idiots who are supposed to be helping us making it worse.

This article on A List Apart gives a workaround that I'm about to try but for heaven's sake we shouldn't be trying to find hacks!!!!



dpf -> RE: WCAG 2.0 (6/16/2006 11:53:12)

hers a great example of the standards and good browser issue. if i understand correctly, you had two tags..one used by the browser that has 90% of the market - so the standards writers decide to set the other as a standard and now "good" browsers will presumable be configured for that one and now everyone can continue to say IE is "broke" and doesnt support standards and is "bad"

think about it



jaybee -> RE: WCAG 2.0 (6/16/2006 12:05:55)

Yes and no. apparently IE7 will support abbr and not acronym, complete switch.

So I've come to a decision before my head explodes as I read the List Apart thing and I don't, in this case, want to turn my abbreviations into links to a glossary. If people are using a decent browser or IE7 then they get the abbreviations. If they're on IE6 or earlier then tough.

It's not vital info anway.



dpf -> RE: WCAG 2.0 (6/16/2006 12:10:59)

quote:

It says in no uncertain terms that there's been confusion in the past with <abbr> and <acronym> and so, to make it all a lot simpler, they're doing away with <acronym> so the only one you need to worry about is <abbr>
lets look at this logic... suppose in the real world, two sets of browsers use 2 different tags to do the same thing. Are standards writers really "making it simpler" if they pick one as a standard and render the other obsolete - and thereby rendering one browser set "wrong"? who is it simpler for? not users who have the wrong browser (as determined by which tag the standards writers pick) - or easier for web writers so they dont have to remember 2? interesting

im not against standards - take the box model for example - it doesnt work to have 2 different implementations - we all know that... but while one choice might be good if setting standards at the begining - it can cause havoc in the real world and i still content that some of the bad browser stuff is becuase of standards written after the fact ..
anyhoo..im saying no more..lol



jaybee -> RE: WCAG 2.0 (6/16/2006 12:29:43)

Whatever the motive, or no motive just sheer stupidity, I'm worried that this one is just the tip of the iceberg. I know there are some reports on the whole thing knocking around but I've not had a chance to read them yet.



Tailslide -> RE: WCAG 2.0 (6/16/2006 13:02:13)

What you have to remember is that Microsoft were part of the group that wrote the standards!

It's not a case they they were presented with something and told "here you go these is the rules!" They wrote them... then ignored them! Microsoft were part of the group that agreed on the correct box model etc etc. Then they ignored it. But the W3C "standards" (e.g. writing valid markup) is a different thing entirely to the WCAG and shouldn't be confused.

I don't think WCAG2 is a step forward - in fact it's a very confusing, deliberately (in my opinion) obtuse document. There is (I think) still time for changes before the document is finalised and the "standards crowd" are in uproar about how generally rubbish these new guidelines are. I think they were hoping for something simple, easy to understand and implement.

Thing is in the end the WCAG are guidelines about accessibility. They're not as "strong" as the W3C recommendations regarding markup for instance . So whereas using correct markup is (in my mind at least) a black and white issue - it's either right or wrong; how you apply the WCAG guidelines are more up to you.

I personally will apply common sense to the issue - if I understand that something is a barrier to accessibility I will avoid it no matter what the WCAG2 says. Likewise if I believe one of their recommendations are possibly harmful then I will ignore it. Common sense and a bit of thought should prevail with this.

I think it's a sad lost opportunity to lay out easy to understand guidelines for developers.



womble -> RE: WCAG 2.0 (6/16/2006 14:35:12)

I think as Tail says, the key word is "common sense". Yes, I believe in accessibility. No, I don't always follow WCAG to the letter because in some cases it's counter-productive. Take the 'accesskey' issue - WCAG says you must use accesskeys (is that still in WCAG 2.0 I wonder?) - accesskeys can interfere with the normal operation of keyboard shortcuts, particularly for assistive browsers such as screen readers. Do you use them because WCAG says you have to, or risk further disadvntaging a group of the very people you're trying to assist by following the WCAG? Personally, I'd use the common sense option, ditch the accesskeys and use a combination of skip links and a logical tab order that works for everyone.

It's just sad that due to what I'm not sure whether is incompetence or just plain common stupidity, decisions are made that in many respects hinder the drive for accessibility rather than help it. It's decisions like this that give accessibility a bad name. What we should remember though is that while the implementation of it may be flawed and as with many 'decisions by committee' you end up with a sow's ear of a mess rather than a silk purse, the principles of accessibility are good.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875