WCAG 2.0之后，我们是否应该遵循WCAG 1.0的任何指导方针？
WCAG 2.0 发布了，我们应该只遵循 WCAG 2.0 指南还是应该结合两者，现在不需要考虑 WCAG 1.0？
或者，如果我正在考虑 WCAG 指南，那么我是否需要考虑 WCAG 以外的任何其他指南，例如 RNIB、DDA 法案、第 508 条等。或者如果我已经在考虑 WCAG 指南，那么无需查看其他特定于地区的指南/ 对于任何地区的网站来说，
仅 WCAG 指南是否就足够并且最好遵循任何其他指南？
WCAG 2.0 is released should we follow only WCAG 2.0 guideline or we should combination of both no need to consider WCAG 1.0 now?
or if I'm considering WCAG guideline then do i need to consider any other guideline along with WCAG like RNIB, DDA Act, Section 508 etc. or if I'm already considering WCAG guideline then no need to look at other region specific guideline/act etc.
Is WCAG guideline alone enough and best to follow over any other guideline, for website from any region?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（2）
这取决于您想要实现的目标。
通过确保您符合相关 WCAG 2 可访问性指南（A、AA、AAA），您可以在您的网站上显示徽标，表明您遵守这些标准。
但是，如果您希望在网站上实现实用的可访问性级别，并且不担心显示徽标，那么请务必从可用的指南中进行挑选，以创建最易于访问的网站。
WCAG 2 是 W3C 关于可访问性的指南的当前版本，并取代了 WCAG 1，但是我仍然认为 WCAG 1 的一个特定问题很重要：提供描述性链接文本。
WCAG 1 规定，如果脱离上下文阅读链接应该有意义。这意味着您不应该有“阅读更多”或“立即购买”之类的链接。原因是屏幕阅读器用户经常使用链接列表浏览页面，该列表仅显示页面上的所有链接。如果连续有多个“阅读更多”或类似的链接，每个链接都链接到不同的页面，这对于无法轻松地将它们放在上下文中的人来说将是有问题的。
WCAG 2 规定链接文本应在相关文本的上下文中有意义，例如前一段或标题。这允许诸如“阅读更多”之类的链接。
虽然在某些情况下，多个具有相同文本的链接是不可避免的，例如在购物网站上（您可能有多个“添加到购物篮”链接），但我认为首先遵循 WCAG 1 建议是明智的，并努力在您的网站上拥有描述性的独立链接。
这只是一个示例，但确实表明您可以从每组指南中选择最有用的要求。也就是说，我认为 WCAG 2 将根据当前可用的指南提供最佳的基本可访问性水平；您可能希望使用自己的自定义检查点来增强它，但只需遵循 WCAG 2 建议（以及下面提到的用户测试），您应该可以达到良好的可访问性水平。
我认为普遍的共识是，无论您遵循哪种准则，为了实现最佳的可访问性，您还应该考虑对您的网站进行用户测试，选择具有各种残疾的用户来完成典型的用户旅程。
我发现这几乎总是会出现可访问性和可用性方面的问题，而遵循现有指南（WCAG1\2、DDA、508 等）无法涵盖这些问题。
It depends on what you are trying to achieve.
BY satisfying yourself that you are compliant with the relevant WCAG 2 accessibility guidelines (A, AA, AAA), you can display the logo on your site, proclaiming your compliance to these standards.
However, if you are wanting to achieve a practical level of accessibility on your site, and are not worried about displaying a logo, then by all means pick and choose from the available guidelines to make the most accessible site you can.
WCAG 2 is the current edition of the W3C's guidelines on accessibility, and supersedes WCAG 1, however there is one particular WCAG 1 issue that I still feel is important: providing descriptive link text.
WCAG 1 states that links should make sense if read out of context. This means that you should not have links like "read more" or "buy now". The reason for this is that screenreader users will often browse a page using a links list, which just displays all of the links on a page. If there are multiple "read more" or similar links in a row, each linking to a different page, this will be problematic for someone who cannot place them in context easily.
WCAG 2 states that link text should make sense in the context of related text e.g. the previous paragraph or heading. This allows for links such as "read more".
While there may be situations where multiple links with the same text are unavoidable, such as on a shopping site (You may have a multiple "add to basket" links), I think it is wise to follow the WCAG 1 recommendation here first and foremost, and strive to have descriptive, standalone links on your site.
This is just one example, but does show that you can pick the most useful requirements from each set of guidelines. That said, I think WCAG 2 would provide the best base level of accessibility from the current available guidelines; you may wish to augment it with custom checkpoints of your own, but by just following WCAG 2 recommendations (and the user testing mentioned below), you should be achieving a good level of accessibility.
I think general consensus would be that, regardless of which guidelines you follow, to achieve optimum accessibility you should also be looking at undertaking user testing of your site, picking users with a range of disabilities to run through typical user journeys.
I've found that this nearly always turns up issues both of an accessibility and of a usability nature that just would not be covered by following the existing guidelines (WCAG1\2, DDA, 508 etc).
当我从 WCAG 1.0 过渡到 WCAG 2.0 时，我发现此资源非常有用：http://wipa.org.au/papers/wcag-migration.htm
无论您决定遵循哪个标准都无关紧要，只要您了解这两个标准都会引导您获得更易于访问的内容。大多数时候，措辞不同，但意图几乎相同。 WCAG 2.0 确实具有作为标准更新版本的优势，它考虑到了 Web 技术的发展，因此这可以被视为一个优点。
但如果您决定坚持使用 WCAG 1.0，您仍然可以获得完全可访问的结果。我认识的一些人不想与 WCAG 2 有任何关系。其他人在 WCAG 2.0 采用的那天就埋葬了 WCAG 1.0。其他人则喜欢两者兼而有之。只要以适当的方式应用需求，一切都很好。
WCAG 1.0 和 WCAG 2.0 只是工具：重要的是您如何使用它们。
您在代码中投入的每一点努力，无论是来自 WCAG 1.0 还是 2.0，都将为残障用户提供帮助。
I have found this resource to be quite helpful when I made the transition from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0: http://wipa.org.au/papers/wcag-migration.htm
Whichever standard you decide to follow is irrelevant, as long as you understand that both will guide you towards more accessible content. Most of the times, the wording is different, but the intent remains pretty much the same. WCAG 2.0 does have the advantage of being an updated version of the standard that takes into account the evolution of web technologies so this could be considered a plus.
But if you decide to stick to WCAG 1.0, you can still achieve perfectly accessible results. Some people I know don't want anything to do with WCAG 2. Others have buried WCAG 1.0 the day WCAG 2.0 was adopted. Others like to play around with both. It's all good, as long as requirements are applied the appropriate way.
WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 are nothing but tools: it's what you do with them that counts.
Every little effort you put into your code, whether it comes from WCAG 1.0 or 2,0 will help users with disabilities.