WCAG 2 Requirements at Risk

Since April 30, when the WCAG 2.0 Candidate Recommendation (CR) was released, there has been a ton of posts across the web telling us the WCAG 2 is almost, almost complete.

I’m not here to do that. The news is 5 days old and I have no intention of clogging up your RSS by regurgitating the same content… as important as it is.

What I do want to highlight is that there are a number of WCAG 2 requirements at risk.

It is important to note that some WCAG 2.0 requirements are at risk; that is, they may not be included if there are not sufficient implementations [By 30 June 2008].
Web Accessibility Initiative Interest Group mail list

Get Involved

I would urge you to take a look at each of the At Risk requirements to see if there are any relevant to your area of expertise that you are able to implement over the next couple of months. Alternatively, there may be someone with complementary skills that requires your assistance in implementing one of the at risk requirements.

The primary purpose of this CR stage is for developers and designers to “test drive” WCAG 2.0 to demonstrate that WCAG 2.0 can be implemented in Web sites. WAI encourages a broad range of Web sites and Web applications to use WCAG 2.0 at this stage, and share implementation experience.
Web Accessibility Initiative Interest Group mail list

As an example, I plan to submit an implementation for success criteria 1.2.6 Sign Language, I have expertise in this area but average video editing skills. In order to implement this effectively by the due date, I’ve had to find someone with video editing skills.

My plan is to provide and record Auslan interpreting at a couple of my upcoming conference presentations and then upload them to my site. Hopefully other local Deaf organisations will do the same.

Important Dates

So if you’re interested in a little bit of grass roots people power, jot down these dates, blog about it and see if you can get involved too.

23 May 2008Register your intent to provide implementations of WCAG 2 requirements.
30 June 2008Provide implementation experience to the WAI and/or comments on barrier to adoption of requirements.

Relevant Links

And finally, if you want to get involved, you may find these links helpful:

Let us know if you submit and implementation to WAI and we’ll talk about it some more here.

Win an Annual Membership to Learnable,

SitePoint's Learning Platform

  • Ricky Onsman

    I’ve been looking at the At Risk requirements over the past week or so and I’m going to have a shot at implementing as many as I can (I have a prospective project that might be particularly suitable), but I wonder whether many people get why it matters.

    After all, if 1.2.6 becomes Advisory, doesn’t it just mean that either no-one cares or it’s impractical? Or maybe that text equivalents do the job better than sign language? Bear in mind that you don’t then have to worry about which sign language to use, let alone the technical difficulties of applying sign language interpretations to existing video and then how to stick them on a web page.

    I suspect that, like many aspects of accessibility in life, a lot of people see these kind of requirements as PC-gone-mad, catering to every tiny minority, bleeding heart, small l-liberal, etc etc.

    Maybe we need to help people to understand why this matters to everyone.

    Then maybe the really clever ones can rise to the challenge of making the web truly accessible, to the point where universal access is simply taken for granted. Maybe we’ll even have the web set an example that the rest of the perceived world can follow.

    I’ll be posting stuff here as I can, and I hope this can be one place where we can offer some practical ideas on how and why.