Comments on: WCAG 2.0: when I want a beer, don’t give me shandy

By: reverta

reverta — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:53:27 +0000

First we just had to worry about PCs, notebooks and a handful of browsers, now pages have to be readable on all sorts of phones, Androids and iPads. It would be nice if there was one standard that works for everyone.

By: Orjin Krem

Orjin Krem — Wed, 26 May 2010 12:02:33 +0000

You want rid of the word Tagged? Try:
“Content delivered over the web should have its internal structural meaning recorded in such a way”

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:53:09 +0000

WCAG 2 is “CRAP”. WCAG 1 is “tough enough”. Why make a Succession based criteria that has criteria that is worse that its predecessor?

Cancel WCAG 2 and leave WCAG 1 for now.

By: Estetik cerrahi

Estetik cerrahi — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 11:55:42 +0000

Excellent article. Criticism entirely justified.

In my opinion WCAG2 should be a modernising of WCAG1 to make it relevant and remove the barrier between online display technologies and content even further. And deprecating tables for layouts should have been in there.

There is huge potential for this to be ignored by designers and authorities alike.

By: burun

burun — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:42:55 +0000

Considering WCAG 2.0 guidelines whereas guideline 2.2 is framed in terms of “time limits” on reading and interaction. criterion 2.2.1 instead uses the term “time-out”. Neither “time limit” nor “time-out” is defined. This difference in terminology raises the question of whether there is meant to be a distinction between the two concepts. I don’t think there is, or ought to be, such a distinction.

By: Keith Trigwell

Keith Trigwell — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:51:16 +0000

Excellent article. Criticism entirely justified.

There is huge potential for this to be ignored by designers and authorities alike.