This document:Public document·View comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Other specs in this tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group's Issue tracker
Quick access to LC-2651 LC-2652 LC-2653 LC-2654 LC-2655 LC-2656 LC-2657 LC-2658 LC-2659 LC-2660 LC-2661 LC-2662 LC-2663 LC-2664 LC-2665 LC-2666 LC-2667 LC-2668 LC-2669 LC-2670 LC-2671 LC-2672 LC-2673 LC-2674 LC-2675 LC-2676 LC-2677 LC-2678 LC-2679 LC-2680 LC-2681 LC-2682 LC-2686 LC-2687 LC-2688 LC-2689 LC-2690 LC-2691 LC-2692 LC-2693 LC-2694 LC-2695 LC-2698 LC-2700 LC-2701 LC-2702 LC-2817 LC-2818
Previous: LC-2692 Next: LC-2653
INTEROPERABILITY IGNORED I have this same complaint about WCAG 2.0 but the same problem is enormously magnified when the scope blooms (as per WCAG2ICT’s remit). Interoperability is key not only to developing agreement on outcomes but in the economics of software development and real-world adoption. As an economic matter, accessibility is an area that lends itself to the question of conformance and thus potentially, to litigation. If vendors cannot (or believe they cannot) achieve agreement on the technical means of conformance they will tend to shy away from developing in these areas. Application of WCAG 2.0 “directly as written” to non-Web ICT does little or nothing to assist developers who find they have to climb into web-based concepts that may be entirely alien to them simply to begin a conversation about developing towards accessibility.