I have been keep my eyes on the blogosphere for reaction and comments to the latest draft of the W3C’s WCAG 2.0.
It has been pretty quiet. Typically the blogosphere only gets in a frenzy when they have something to complain about.
There has also been a bit of positive feedback. Jack Pickard wrote the following…
It’s usable, it’s a vast improvement on the previous draft, and it’s an improvement on WCAG 1.0 as well.
Ok, it’s not perfect, not by a long chalk — it’s significantly lacking in relation to cognitive disability for example, and I’d like to see this improved before the final release — but it’s still pretty damn good nonetheless.
I agree with Jack. I think the latest version of WCAG 2.0 is a big step forward.
In an era of Web 2.0, having a set of Web accessibility guidelines that will be relevant and current with the times is CRUCIAL. Its our responsibility as the Web community to grab a tasty beverage, sit back with WCAG 2.0, and give it a read.
What are your thoughts? Do you think its an improvement? How could it be better?
Oatmeal Stout - Justin Thorp's blog 
it’s just a design improvement, the content have still big problem, not on the guidelines itself but on the succes criteria technique and failure exemple
@goetsu: Can you be a little bit more specific with whats not working for you?
just some exemple
like i tell in accessites, the suffisent technique for text resizing is full of non sense, you always meet the succes criteria.
Another exemple is the color contrast for text or image with background image or gradient look at this image for exemple :
it perfectly pass the criteria but in my mind is totaly unreadable.
the “accessibility supported” is still bullshit, yes it’s more understandable but you can still make a full flash website only for IE7 with any fallback because for sure we can trust adobe flash is an accessibility supported technology it’s work with jaws and ie in pc, great!
@goetsu, I haven’t made it through the Understanding WCAG 2.0 document yet. I’ll read through it this week and get back to you.
On “accessibility supported,” wouldn’t it depend if Adobe Flash met the criteria of being accessibility supported. I do think there should be some type of central body which reviews technologies and says whether or not they support accessibility. It shouldn’t be up to Adobe to self-proclaim.
That not what actualy say the wcag document, they say they are going to make list only for w3c document. For others technology it can be made by everybody.
The second problem is the conditions to be a accessibility supported technology. The only one who is good in my mind is the close environnement. The others it too unclear (on how many AT, plateform, UA supported is needed and what exactly is a widely aviable plugin and UA for exemple)
Currently the only way to avoid that is that every country who already have a law about web accessibility update it and give the “official accessibility supported technology”.