Open jspellman opened 3 years ago
jspellman
commented
3 years ago Thank you for your comment. Project members are working on your comment. You may see discussion in the comment thread and we may ask for additional information as we work on it. We will mark the official response when we are finished and close the issue.
jspellman
commented
3 years ago Second email from Bob in response to Alastair: Hi Alastair, Thanks so much for your feedback – I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I think I'm really trying to make two related points. The first is that, to grow, WCAG definitely needs to be rebranded, which is ironic, because 'accessibility' should always apply to everyone, right? If the guidelines had been called 'disability access guidelines', that would have made it clear who the target population was. Instead, 'we', the a11y folks, have our own special subset of people in mind when we use the word accessibility, and I think that is limiting and ableist. If the web is for everyone, and it should be, then all web standards should respect the variety of everyone's needs and abilities. As you say, the web is a super-dynamic environment consisting of an ever-evolving profusion of products and products (whew! it's tiring just thinking about it). But that is exactly why we should be attempting to embed the core principles of accessibility in to the web's DNA by repositioning WCAG at the heart of webs standards. I realize I didn't express that point very well before – I am proposing the WCAG become the key foundation of a broader 'web building code' (sort of like when Neo subsumes Agent Smith). I think it would have a liberating effect on the web ecosystem and lead to better alignment between the various components of the web ecosystem. Which brings me to the second point – the impact and value of WCAG itself. How do we measure impact? One way, obviously, is by how many organizations adopt it and how many governments point to it in their regulations. What is really being adopted are the compliance criteria (a quick search brings up plenty of a11y testing that promises automated testing for WCAG compliance). This is well and good, but the number of lawsuits against major companies for inaccessible websites would seem to indicate there is still a long way to go (we should be measuring the difference we are making for people with disabilities accessing the web). So, how could a 'building code' model help make such a difference? Well, just as physical buildings undergo inspection before getting a permit to open, why not apply the same principle to websites? Let me illustrate with a hypothetical: A new pizza chain readies its website for the public. It does thorough user and a11y testing, and when they think they have it right and it meets code, they apply for a permit to begin operation (you can envision various scenarios of testing, variances, etc., and it would be up to regulators how to handle the permit process, etc., but the basics are pretty straight forward).
Now is the time for the W3C to step back and take a look at the big picture. They can take the blue pill and stick with good, old WCAG, or take a chance on the red pill, and chart an exciting new future for a truly accessible and inclusive web. Peace out, Robert
Comment from Email Comments on WCAG 3 by Robert G. Martinengo 1/30/21
With all due respect to the Silver working group, please just stop for a moment. I have been in the accessibility field for over twenty years and have come to understand that after a certain point, continued emphasis on accessibility as a separate topic only serves to further distance people with disability from the mainstream. The WCAG is at that point, and it's time to make a decision.
I reviewed the various posted materials on WCAG 3. The amount of time, effort, and care that went in to them is impressive, evident, and admirable. But as it stands, WCAG 3 is bound to fail to live up to the lofty goals set for it. This is not a prediction, but an observation based on experience.
The most important thing that needs to happen with WCAG is removing the words 'accessibility' and 'guidelines'. Replace them with something like 'building codes': "...sets of regulations governing the design, construction, alteration and maintenance of structures. They specify the minimum requirements to adequately safeguard the health, safety and welfare of building occupants." https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/earthquake/seismic-building-codes https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/earthquake/seismic-building-codes
Adopting the building code model for the web is not just a matter of semantics – it's a seismic shift in the way accessibility is conceptualized. Not to overstretch parallels with construction, but if mark-up languages, scripts, style sheets, etc are the raw materials, web building codes are the specifications for how these parts can be assembled in to web sites and applications that safeguard access for all users (authoring tools and user agents fit nicely in to this framework as well). The main levels of web building codes should be 'personal', 'commercial', and 'government'. The main point is, accessibility is woven into the codes, not as a separate topic but simply as the way things are done.
Here's some good news: if the W3C adopts this approach, all of the great resources and experience generated by WCAG, and the terrific research and work done on v.3 will definitely not go to waste. Instead, WCAG will become the backbone of the new web building codes, ensuring accessibility becomes fundamental to the web and second-nature to those who design, build, use, and pay for web sites and apps. There will still be specific testing criteria, just as there are for building codes, but compliance with web building codes will be more holistic than testing for accessibility alone.
On the surface, it's a classic Catch-22: the only way to achieve sustainable accessibility is to stop talking about accessibility. Yes, there will be plenty of challenges transitioning from accessibility guidelines to web building codes, but the difference is between continuing to head down a dead end road, versus merging with the mainstream freeway of web development to ensure that people with disabilities will be in the front seat.
Thanks for your time, and I'm happy to respond to any comments or questions. Robert G. Martinengo