Taking a quick look at the representation on the board, you can see why this is the new direction for 2.0. If you are not happy with this draft, post your comments, and let’s pray the W3C will not ratify…

I THINK what this refers to is the practice of using a graphic image as a validation mechanism for an input form, to ensure that’s it’s a human filling out the form, rather than an automated bot. I’m not sure how that could be made accessible to a blind person, however. Maybe using a sound file that directs them to press a key when they hear the tone or something.

I’m telling you, this is a laywer conspiracy to prevent suites against big companies. This number 2 and “at least one” are perfectly possitioned to hide meaning. How can you “check for input errors”? Is it interger or not? Yeh right. Point is now if I check, I DONT HAVE TO allow YOU to review it.

For forms that cause legal or financial transactions to occur, that modify or delete data in data storage systems, or that submit test responses, at least one of the following is true:

1. Actions are reversible.
2. Actions are checked for input errors before going on to the next step in the process.
3. The user is able to review and confirm or correct information before submitting it.

That sounds perfectly reasonable. Go with #3 - have a confirmation page before the changes are enacted. They aren’t saying that you have to go through all three points, but that (at least) one of them should be provided to avoid mistakes being made.

Its like they took out all common names and replaced them with purely artificial terms for what? So in 150 years in future they could apply the same standard to something new? WTF are they thinking? In 5-10 years its all gonna be outdate anyway.

Accessibility by the way has nothing to do with this document. Its some kind of corporate lawsuite protection initiative. Im telling you, its designed not to embrace accessibility of the web, but rather to create a legal espace for corporations which now can defend themselfs with this “common web standard” against any lawsuite from a disabled person.

I not anyone else can define ANY baseline. And then whatever I do within it is complient. Yeah right. I define “xmlhttprequest” and here you go - my AJAX is “tripple A” ppl.

Checkpoints are joke, read 2.5.3 for instance. Think about it.

“
For forms that cause legal or financial transactions to occur, that modify or delete data in data storage systems, or that submit test responses, at least one of the following is true:

1. Actions are reversible.
2. Actions are checked for input errors before going on to the next step in the process.
3. The user is able to review and confirm or correct information before submitting it.
..
“

so all i need to verify if the email mathes the pattern and integer values are not strings and it complies. Yeah right. I put asp.net dynamic validators which use dthml to show a lable which blind ppl will never hear in the reader and her you go - complient site.

Or take 2.4.1

“A mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web units”

means literary “any part of layout should have a skip link” because many “blocks of content” can be repeated on multiple web units. Like a sidebar with something on several pages. Yet if I have one page nothing is “repeated on a multiple web units” so I can do whatever I want without any skip links.

What was wrong with link to a transcript? Now you have to have captions on any video. And i’m tellign you right now that no1 will even bother with captions because creative departments dont want to see videos half covered with text captions.

Who will ever do “Sign language interpretation is provided for multimedia. ” show me these people? Are this W3C guys for real?

PS

wtf does that mean?

“…If the purpose of non-text content is to confirm that content is being operated by a person rather than a computer, different forms are provided to accommodate multiple disabilities…”

i can argue that ALL content is operated by a person, since you click and show any page. At the same time I can claim that all content in the world is “operated” by the computer because computers server them.

If the big name companies on the working group dont do anything useful with the new standard after watering it down so far, then it would be a good argument to change the working processes for v3 perhaps

Not if the document is convoluted and requires extra salesmanship to sell an accessible design under the spec.

Nor if the client will find some vague or ambiguous way to claim that work was not done to spec.