First he was giving an update on his workover of WCAG 1.0 under the label of “the WCAG samurai,” something he announced a year ago in his article at A List Apart, To Hell with WCAG 2.0. A few anonymous people he will not disclose finished their collective update, also there were two peer reviews of the final paper without the reviewers knowing about each other. Clark said he hasn’t read the reviews either, so this was kind of a premiere.

Then he talked almost an hour about a couple of things that shouldn’t be your concern (in his opinion) as a web developer:

• Pixel units: per definition, pixels are relative units as required by the specifications. Blind people do not care anyway if text is resizable, zoom readers have their screen magnification software. But he misses the point when he concludes that therefore resizable text is not an accessibility issue because disabled users don’t have trouble with it. Accessibility doesn’t only affect severely disabled persons, it begins with elderly people who need to adjust the font size. And as long as IE6 is around on a considerable number of desktops, it is our problem to enable text resizing. We cannot just shrug our shoulders and put the blame on a certain browser vendor. Although we can get rid of those resize buttons on web pages. That is really a matter of browser vendors and user education. Patrick Lauke proposed to put such an explanation on the default page of newly installed browsers.
• Link text being used out of context: Clark showed an example of a fictitious car sales page with recurring links to the car’s features. Of course the features link of one car is different than the features link of another, but you can clarify that ambiguity through a link title. A list of links on a page is a well known and appreciated feature of screen reader software, why should we cease to support that? But one thing I agree on is using an anchors type attribute to clarify that a linked document is a PDF. Though to my knowledge screen readers don’t make use of that attribute.
• Abbreviations, acronyms, initialisms: We cannot cover all cases, and there are cases like “DVD” or e. coli where there is no written out meaning of an acronym, or an abbreviation that is so common that it is neither needed nor any help to give the full meaning. But I strongly disagree of dropping the whole concept of contextual help for abbreviations with the argument that cognitive disabled users won’t get it anyway.

Clark’s disputable (unfortunately not at the session because of a lack of time) arguments will certainly be addressed on the Royal National Institute of the Blind’s blog, so watch their space for a controversial debate. I will also try to get I got also a shot of a hilarious illustration of Joe Clark that Kristiaan Thivessen drew next to me.