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-2659 Next: LC-2701
NOT A TECHNICAL STANDARD While offering broad value at the Principles and Guidelines level, the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria do not provide much technical guidance that’s applicable directly to non-web ICT. In an informal (but not-inconsiderable) survey of implementers regarding WCAG 2.0 over the past year, I’ve found that: - Even Web developers (HTML/CSS/JavaScript) often disagree over key provisions of WCAG 2.0. - Non-web developers find WCAG 2.0 both vague and woefully underspecified with respect to technical guidance; SC 1.3.1 is particularly overloaded in this regard.