|
caz -> RE: WCAG2 - Disaster Looms? (7/9/2007 12:31:54)
|
If you continue to read the discussion following Joe Clark's article it is even more depressing when you realise that a lot of the work of the committee has been sabotaged by personality conflicts and that the final say rests with the corporate members of the group, who appear to put their own interests first. Although I could argue with most of the recommendations, this took the biscuit:-
quote:
14. You also have to provide an alternate document if a reader with a “lower secondary education level” couldn’t understand your main document. (In fact, WCAG 2 repeatedly proposes maintaining separate accessible and inaccessible pages. In some cases, you don’t necessarily have to improve your inaccessible pages as long as you produce another page.)
I thought that extra explanatory pages had gone the way of the dinosaurs, but this epitomises the depths to which this 'guidance' has sunk.
I suspect that a group of chimps with crayons and writing pads could have produced better than this committee.
"Along the way, it lost the ability to apply to the real things real developers work on every day—plain-Jane HTML, CSS, and JavaScript."
A fine epitaph for the inclusive web.
|
|
|
|
