Accessibility Standards
I think I'm actually pretty thankful to get to report on this issue, at least in the sense of comparing the two sets of guidelines. I have thought to myself all semester that it incredibly ironic that the web site that is devoted to telling the world what makes sites accessible is so difficult to navigate and to get the information needed on any given topic.
As I researched this topic, I felt at the very outset that the WCAG 2.0 web site was much less hypocritical in this respect. I wouldn't say it's perfect by any means but it was much easier to find what I needed. I could only simulate the experience whereas I have had real life frustration with the other one.
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are developed by the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). They are responsible for deciding what is and is not accessible in web development. Much of the world is oblivious to their existence and more obviously, ignorant of the guidelines they should be following. Some, such as Joe Clark, author of the article "How to Save Web Accessibility from Itself", feel that the WAI is somewhat out of touch with what is really going on.
The WAI does not claim any expertise in any of the areas that it imposes restrictions on. The jargon used is often understandable only by the person who wrote it. The guidelines are frequently impossible to meet. Occasionally, they simply don't make any sense and should not be imposed as content governing guidelines.
As far as the comparison between 1.0 and 2.0, I feel much more comfortable with the latter. I am not as versed in the individual guidelines as I am with 1.0 but it seems much easier to use.
WCAG 1.0 was displayed as a single web page in text format. It contained a table of contents list that would redirect you to somewhere else on the page. This is, of itself, against usability principles. Each guideline is broken up into checkpoints that contain links that lead to various other places within the same page. Without the back button, there is no way I would ever find my way back out. The checkpoints are rated by priority levels 1,2, and 3.
WCAG 2.0 is broken up into several pages which are easier to navigate. There is also a WCAG quick reference where one can hide content that isn't pertinent to their needs. I found this page extremely useful. All at once, the guidelines are very overwhelming. However, this page has the ability to only turn on certain standards levels such as A, AA, and AAA (Corresponding to priorities 1,2, and 3). This allows a developer to raise their bar little by little.
Overall, I believe that the Web Accessibility Guidelines have great intentions but are quite overwhelming. I believe that there is still a far better way to portray them where they make sense and look doable. I do appreciate the advances made in 2.0 but believe there is further to go. Joe Clark suggested that we get involve and I believe he's right, I will do my best to contribute my ideas as they come.
