WCAG Samurai Errata for WCAG 1.0 Is Now Available

[Dan Schulz]

Roger Johansson has published an article on his blog about the WCAG Samurai's recent update and errata to the WCAG 1.0 guidelines, noting that this update will likely be the final one. As noted by Roger, "[t]he WCAG Samurai consisted of a group of accessibility and standards-aware web developers brought together by Joe Clark in 2006" with the aim of creating an update to version 1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

Go check it out: http://wcagsamurai.org/errata/

[DaveWoods]

Wasn't even aware that this was in development but a lot of what's contained within those pages is common sense

To comply with WCAG+Samurai, you have to meet all Priority 1 and 2 guidelines, as corrected. That includes Guideline 3.2, which requires valid code (“documents that validate to published formal grammars”). We know from experience that a document that is valid HTML may still be inaccessible. The classic example is a page that uses tables for layout. A more relevant example is a page that has valid HTML but poor semantics (e.g., every block of text is marked up as a paragraph p, even if the text is really a list or a heading). We cannot really criticize the W3C for omitting document semantics when WCAG 1.0 was written in the late 1990s, but we must correct that omission now.

Under WCAG+Samurai, not only must you write valid HTML documents (with valid CSS), you must use the correct semantics for your content.

I don't think anyone here would disagree?

There's also a few things mentioned which should have been simple but the original WCAG 1.0 guidelines complicated slightly, for example...

Guideline 4.2: You don’t have to expand abbreviations and acronyms unless a person with a disability cannot understand the document without the expansion, as explained previously.

Guideline 9.4: Do not attempt to create your own tab order. That is a job for a browser and adaptive technology.

Guidelines 10.4 and 10.5: Do not use placeholder text in forms. That is a job for a browser or adaptive technology. (Form fields may include text after processing – e.g., after verifying that a desired user ID is unavailable, a site may propose a new one – but such is not “placeholder” text. Or a site may store a cookie with already-entered information and repopulate form fields on request. That also is not “placeholder” text.)

I'm sure that most people who deal with accessibility issues regularly, will have come across these or similar issues anyway but it's nice to see them spelled out, especially for those developers new to accessibility as WCAG Samurai does clear up a lot of the more debatable points when it comes to accessibility.

[Stormrider]

Yeh, I've been keeping my eye on this for a while now. They make some good, sensible and practical points, and I think it is a really good set if guidelines to try and stick to.

[revsorg]

Having spent some time over the last few weeks using Acrobat 8 Professional trying (and failing) to add semantic tagging to PDF documents I think Samurai recommendations for use of PDF in accessible documents is wishful thinking.

[dethfire]

Yes!! I've been waiting for this. Good news, time to read up on this.

[Dan Schulz]

I just love how they came right out and said "Don't use Priority 3. Forget it even exists."

[Raffles]

Do not use ASCII art.

That made me laugh.

[2kool2]

Exactly what the WCAG needed.
Excellent work guys, well worth the wait.

[revsorg]

Having read their advice in more detail now I found it to be very inspiring, giving real world accessibility guidance that is far more useful than the original Priority 3 checkpoints. I particularly like the clarity of thought that distinguishes those checkpoints that should actually be thought of in terms of usability instead of accessibility.

[DevinTheDude]

Great news!