You may be right on all counts, Michael, though you are significantly discounting the difficulty involved in compliance in some of your points. Or you may be wrong on all or some counts. Or I might be.
Now, even if we accept that a developer like you might support the intentions of WCAG 2, are you willing to concede that the documents are so unclear and so poorly written that my interpretations are not mere “perversions”? but actually viable readings? _That_ is a problem.
Let’s imagine a scenario in which WCAG Working Group absolutely sticks to its guns (quite imaginable given the levels of pique and stubbornness at work there, at least in one cochair) and changes _none_ of its requirements whatsoever. If they at least make the requirements much harder to misinterpret or actuallly unambiguous, do you not agree that such would be an improvement?
I think it would be —Â in one way. Your claim, in essence, is that I’m blowing things out of proportion. If WCAG WG made its intentions crystal clear, we could rid ourselves of what you consider a confounding factor, my exaggerations. But then I expect there would be almost the same alarm as I have allegedly caused by my exaggerations.
In other words, if WCAG 2 were crystal clear, wouldn’t people be up in arms just as much? I think more so, actually, because then they’d realize that WCAG _really meant what it says_.
By the way:
* duelling baselines are a non-starter
* deaf people are still deaf even if they’re trying to watch live video
* multiple DOM outputs are not reliable and WAI cannot prove from testing that they are
* defining content as inaccessible is a non-starter
* maintaining two documents of any kind really is twice the work and is antithetical to accessibility of electronic documents
* you misstated the business about offscreen positioning
* and I didn’t “cherry-pick”? anything