Comments on: WCAG 2.0 Release Candidate 5 of 5: Summary http://www.thepickards.co.uk/index.php/200805/wcag-20-release-candidate-5-of-5-summary/ ranting and rambling to anyone willing to listen Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:07:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Steven Clark http://www.thepickards.co.uk/index.php/200805/wcag-20-release-candidate-5-of-5-summary/comment-page-1/#comment-31738 Steven Clark Sun, 08 Jun 2008 06:14:10 +0000 http://www.thepickards.co.uk/?p=605#comment-31738 Thanks for posting this series. Like you I was very critical in 2006 and basically just ignored WCAG 2.0 until it became a Release Candidate. It appears vastly improved. While I can appreciate the technology agnostic approach, its a shame that validation and a lot of that specific HTML stuff from WCAG 1.0 had to go... but I see the point I guess. I think an important thing on a personal level (not technology agnostic) its our job to create quality software. That's where semantic markup and validation come to the fore. Although these things aren't specifically required they do, I'd suggest, mean the difference between quality software and crap. For example, although its not in WCAG its still bad practice to write obfuscated unmaintainable inefficient code... its just not a WCAG issue necessarily. So I've reconciled that issue in my own head now. I appreciate the time and effort you've taken to write these five articles. Excellent work. Thanks for posting this series. Like you I was very critical in 2006 and basically just ignored WCAG 2.0 until it became a Release Candidate. It appears vastly improved.

While I can appreciate the technology agnostic approach, its a shame that validation and a lot of that specific HTML stuff from WCAG 1.0 had to go… but I see the point I guess.

I think an important thing on a personal level (not technology agnostic) its our job to create quality software. That’s where semantic markup and validation come to the fore. Although these things aren’t specifically required they do, I’d suggest, mean the difference between quality software and crap. For example, although its not in WCAG its still bad practice to write obfuscated unmaintainable inefficient code… its just not a WCAG issue necessarily. So I’ve reconciled that issue in my own head now.

I appreciate the time and effort you’ve taken to write these five articles. Excellent work.

]]>