WCAG 2.0 Working Draft May 2007: A closer look

Since learning about the May 2007 update of the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft, which I wrote about it WCAG 2.0 Working Draft updated, I’ve been trying to find time to read the whole thing in order to be able to write a more thorough piece on it. However, because of the size of the WCAG 2.0 documentation I just haven’t been able to get through it yet.

You don’t have to wait until I manage to read it, understand it, and write something about my opinion on it though. Jack Pickard has already done that work, and presents his verdict in WCAG 2.0: Woeful to Wonderful in One Easy Draft?, an article split into three pages (WCAG is a large document, so commenting on it may require using quite a few words after all).

Judging by the result of Jack’s assessment, the updated WCAG 2.0 Working Draft is a vast improvement over the Working Draft released in April 2006:

I was critical of WCAG 2.0 before, and it deserved that criticism. Now, I’m prepared to praise it, because it deserves that praise.

What I’ve read of WCAG 2.0 so far is definitely much better than the April 2006 Working Draft, but I’m not going to stand up and praise it before I have read it thoroughly.

Posted on May 28, 2007 in Accessibility

Comments

  1. Roger, I’m glad you and Jack are reading and assessing it because to be honest I am one of those people who, after 2006, would not have bothered. Not because I don’t care about accessibility or the direction this draft is going, but because it was so hard to understand I had already signed it off as irrelevant and convoluted junk. So its nice to see there is some light at the end of the tunnel for this.

    A big part of the issue has been, I think, that what people really need above all else is a usable document which we can take into the commercial environment and implement with some degree of certainty and without having every single person on the team spend 3 months every night just trying to fathom the meaning of each part. Technical documentation makes me very sleepy…

    If the general concensus shifted to say that this was in fact a readable, understandable and relevant document I might then, but only then, bother to pick it up. Comments in 2006 by certain WCAG people had the effect of making me drop 2 right off the radar though.

    Looking forward to your assessment Roger, thanks.

  2. I hope you will because it’s look good but at some part the technique to succes or fail and understand wcag 2.0 document have still problem or need clarification and evolution.

    I already have post some comment about that on jack post or here

Comments are disabled for this post (read why), but if you have spotted an error or have additional info that you think should be in this post, feel free to contact me.