Edit comment LC-2597 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Previous: LC-2617 Next: LC-2618

Comment LC-2597: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Brenda Haverkamp <brendahaverkamp@srs.ks.gov>; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
Life needs to be simplified. WCAG2 gave the appearance of that but the longer i look the more i find it is an illusion. Too much wiggle room is given without enough strong wording to say exceptions only if you have a good reason. The confusing and ambiguous language around this topic was enough to make me want to scream.

Proposed Change:
Simply cut out all the ifs ands and buts. No one really has to use a string of read mores on any page. This confuses and confounds all efforts at simple enforcement, and give the (hopefully false) impression that this whole effort is a hypocritical farce - a case of the emperor wears no clothes. Somehow these guidelines have become bloated with so much wiggle room that they are no longer by any stretch of the sane mind perceievable, operable, understandable, or robust. Thanks for listening.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Resolution: Thank you for your message. The reason for the qualifications on things is that these were designed to allow them to be REQUIREMENTs versus guidelines or "would be good if you did". As a result, we had to be sure to have the qualifications or exceptions where they were needed. If not, then it would be easy to point to these situations (where the SC did not make sense -- or where it was not reasonable to require them) and use those as examples as to why the WCAG should never be required. So the working group tried our best follow the advice of Albert Einstein which was "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." Because the formal rules had - to be exact, - to be testable - to work for technologies that have not yet been released - to be applied to essentially all websites (at least for the A and AA levels) we did sometimes find the language was harder. So we created the Understanding WCAG Document. We understand this results in a suite that is not as easy to use as we might all hope. If you can provide specific suggestions for how we might improve the guidance, particularly at the level of the Understanding document, we would welcome it.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)