<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rock &#8216;n&#8217; roll monkey Kung Fu</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.standardease.co.uk/blog/rock-n-roll-monkey-kung-fu/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.standardease.co.uk/blog/rock-n-roll-monkey-kung-fu/</link>
	<description>Standard Ease is a consultancy of Web Accessibility and Best-Practice specialists based in the UK.</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 10:14:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Stuart Johnston</title>
		<link>http://www.standardease.co.uk/blog/rock-n-roll-monkey-kung-fu/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>Stuart Johnston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:11:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.standardease.co.uk/blog/?p=8#comment-4</guid>
		<description>Hi Gav,

Joe Clark wrote this quite a while back and I must admit I never really saw the problem with WCAG 2.  When I first read it it made  lot of sense to me.  Maybe because as a developer in the field, I already had strong context and understood that the underlying principles in WCAG 2 were similar to its predecessor.  It's still about aiming high and doing what we can to be inclusive.

WCAG 1 had ambiguity issues especially at the higher level and there will be ambiguity issues with WCAG 2.   But communities tend to find common solutions and new conventions will evolve.  

Individual opinions about the inadequacies of guidelines shouldn't detract from t he fact that it's a common foundation to build upon.  I wonder if Joe has had a change of heart since 2006 when the article was written?

WCAG 2 going to happen so let's agree to do our best with what we have.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Gav,</p>
<p>Joe Clark wrote this quite a while back and I must admit I never really saw the problem with WCAG 2.  When I first read it it made  lot of sense to me.  Maybe because as a developer in the field, I already had strong context and understood that the underlying principles in WCAG 2 were similar to its predecessor.  It&#8217;s still about aiming high and doing what we can to be inclusive.</p>
<p>WCAG 1 had ambiguity issues especially at the higher level and there will be ambiguity issues with WCAG 2.   But communities tend to find common solutions and new conventions will evolve.  </p>
<p>Individual opinions about the inadequacies of guidelines shouldn&#8217;t detract from t he fact that it&#8217;s a common foundation to build upon.  I wonder if Joe has had a change of heart since 2006 when the article was written?</p>
<p>WCAG 2 going to happen so let&#8217;s agree to do our best with what we have.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GBJ</title>
		<link>http://www.standardease.co.uk/blog/rock-n-roll-monkey-kung-fu/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>GBJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:28:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.standardease.co.uk/blog/?p=8#comment-3</guid>
		<description>What are you views on the following article?

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tohellwithwcag2</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What are you views on the following article?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tohellwithwcag2" rel="nofollow">http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tohellwithwcag2</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

