E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 7 (In chronological order)

From: Julie Lewis
Date: Mon, Nov 30 2015 2:07PM
Subject: Using github for sharing accessibility techniques
No previous message | Next message →

With all due respect Cliff, why does it matter who hosts it?

All developers should be treating accessibility the same way they treat
performance and device independence. Why create a silo for it?

Github allows for everything you describe below. Start-up cost is minimal.
And most importantly, developers already go there to discuss and share
technical problems and solutions. As a matter of fact it's already there:

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/


If the problems are being solved, then compliance and conformance to
standards are less of an issue.

The open source community has pushed web technology farther and faster
than any government entity or standards body ever will.

>
>From: Cliff Tyllick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>
>Julie, it would have to be hosted by an entity that nations, their
>courts, and corporations would recognize as being authoritative.
>Otherwise, it's just some group's notion of best practices―not a resource
>for ensuring compliance with laws or conformance to standards.
>
>So who hosts it is far more important than how it's hosted.
>
>Cliff Tyllick
>
>
>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Julie Lewis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>wrote:
>>
>> Is there any reason the accessibility community can¹t use github for
>>this?
>> We could even maintain a plain language version of the WCAG
>> recommendations there. ;^)
>>
>>>
>>> 2. The accessibility community should build and maintain an
>>> application any Web professional can use to discover known
>>> techniques for producing usable and accessible interactions in
>>> the presentation technology they are using. The same application
>>> would allow developers to submit new techniques they have used to
>>> solve a previously unsolved problem or to improve upon an
>>> existing solution. Each technique submitted should be specific;
>>> include appropriate examples of its implementation; be tagged
>>> according to the interface or interaction (form, text input,
>>> error checking, labels for fieldsets, navigation menus, and so
>>> on), the presentation technology (HTML, PDF, XHTML, Word for
>>> Windows, Open Office, Drupal, WordPress, Plone, Bootstrap.js, and
>>> so on), the presentation environments in which it works (video,
>>> audio, wearables, smart phones, large monitors, haptic
>>> interfaces, and others), the disability addressed, the relevant
>>> WCAG success criteria, and other relevant features if I've missed
>>> any; and be linked to closely related solutions, relevant
>>> tutorials, explanations of the underlying principles, and the
>>> like.
>>
>>

From: Cliff Tyllick
Date: Mon, Nov 30 2015 11:36PM
Subject: Re: Using github for sharing accessibility techniques
← Previous message | Next message →

Julie, it matters who hosts it because the host is the entity that affirms that these are valid solutions. If it's produced by everyone on this list collaborating as friends of mine, then the attorneys who opine on whether a corporation is protected from the risk of having done the wrong thing will say, "Well, that's interesting, but it's just what Cliff's friends say. What does the body that made the standards say?"

But if the very same people do the very same work as a working group of the WAI, those attorneys will say, "Yes, our developers and project managers can adequately reduce our risk by using these tools, because the body that developed the standards also developed these tools."

You're right—either way, the information should be the same. Either way, if the tool is used properly, project teams will quickly find known solutions when they are available and quickly recognize when they will need time and resources to develop a novel solution. Either way, the result should be an interface that is as accessible as possible.

But the corporate compliance officers and chief accessibility officers won't agree that the tool solves their problem unless it is produced by a group that a court would consider to be authoritative.

There's a lot of good information online that isn't given the respect it's due simply because it isn't developed by WAI. A simple example is the version of WCAG in plain language you can find at wuhcag.com. I can't find anything wrong with it. But corporate compliance officers won't stand for it to be used as a reference—not even as a supplemental document. Why not?

Because it isn't published by the WAI.

I'm with you—ideally, it shouldn't matter who developed it. The only thing that should matter is whether it works.

But to you and me, "works" means "leads us to the best answer as quickly as possible."

Conversely, to people documenting compliance, "works" also means "will be widely recognized as valid." And the most effective way to gain that recognition is to have the blessing of the body that developed the standards.

So ask them: "Is the word of 'Friends of Cliff' good enough? Or does it have to be the word of WAI?"

Cliff Tyllick

Sent from my iPhone
Although its spellcheck often saves me, all goofs in sent messages are its fault.

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 3:07 PM, Julie Lewis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> With all due respect Cliff, why does it matter who hosts it?
>
> All developers should be treating accessibility the same way they treat
> performance and device independence. Why create a silo for it?
>
> Github allows for everything you describe below. Start-up cost is minimal.
> And most importantly, developers already go there to discuss and share
> technical problems and solutions. As a matter of fact it's already there:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/
>
>
> If the problems are being solved, then compliance and conformance to
> standards are less of an issue.
>
> The open source community has pushed web technology farther and faster
> than any government entity or standards body ever will.
>
>>
>> From: Cliff Tyllick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>
>>
>> Julie, it would have to be hosted by an entity that nations, their
>> courts, and corporations would recognize as being authoritative.
>> Otherwise, it's just some group's notion of best practices―not a resource
>> for ensuring compliance with laws or conformance to standards.
>>
>> So who hosts it is far more important than how it's hosted.
>>
>> Cliff Tyllick
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Julie Lewis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there any reason the accessibility community can¹t use github for
>>> this?
>>> We could even maintain a plain language version of the WCAG
>>> recommendations there. ;^)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. The accessibility community should build and maintain an
>>>> application any Web professional can use to discover known
>>>> techniques for producing usable and accessible interactions in
>>>> the presentation technology they are using. The same application
>>>> would allow developers to submit new techniques they have used to
>>>> solve a previously unsolved problem or to improve upon an
>>>> existing solution. Each technique submitted should be specific;
>>>> include appropriate examples of its implementation; be tagged
>>>> according to the interface or interaction (form, text input,
>>>> error checking, labels for fieldsets, navigation menus, and so
>>>> on), the presentation technology (HTML, PDF, XHTML, Word for
>>>> Windows, Open Office, Drupal, WordPress, Plone, Bootstrap.js, and
>>>> so on), the presentation environments in which it works (video,
>>>> audio, wearables, smart phones, large monitors, haptic
>>>> interfaces, and others), the disability addressed, the relevant
>>>> WCAG success criteria, and other relevant features if I've missed
>>>> any; and be linked to closely related solutions, relevant
>>>> tutorials, explanations of the underlying principles, and the
>>>> like.
>>>
>>>
>
> > > >

From: Jon Metz
Date: Mon, Dec 14 2015 10:15AM
Subject: Re: Using github for sharing accessibility techniques
← Previous message | Next message →

If I'm understanding the original question correctly, it seems to be more
of a repository of best practices and techniques, not a development of
formal standards. Therefore, since it's has informational purposes, I fail
to see the requirements of where it would be held either. Based on the
suggestion, this isn't a normative development process.

Should lawyers actually be looking at these best practices for use as
practical examples, they would obviously need to do the extra leg work to
determine why in fact they are considered best practices or tools endorsed
in use.

So I'm not sure I understand what difference it makes either.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:36 AM, Cliff Tyllick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Julie, it matters who hosts it because the host is the entity that affirms
> that these are valid solutions. If it's produced by everyone on this list
> collaborating as friends of mine, then the attorneys who opine on whether a
> corporation is protected from the risk of having done the wrong thing will
> say, "Well, that's interesting, but it's just what Cliff's friends say.
> What does the body that made the standards say?"
>
> But if the very same people do the very same work as a working group of
> the WAI, those attorneys will say, "Yes, our developers and project
> managers can adequately reduce our risk by using these tools, because the
> body that developed the standards also developed these tools."
>
> You're right—either way, the information should be the same. Either way,
> if the tool is used properly, project teams will quickly find known
> solutions when they are available and quickly recognize when they will need
> time and resources to develop a novel solution. Either way, the result
> should be an interface that is as accessible as possible.
>
> But the corporate compliance officers and chief accessibility officers
> won't agree that the tool solves their problem unless it is produced by a
> group that a court would consider to be authoritative.
>
> There's a lot of good information online that isn't given the respect it's
> due simply because it isn't developed by WAI. A simple example is the
> version of WCAG in plain language you can find at wuhcag.com. I can't
> find anything wrong with it. But corporate compliance officers won't stand
> for it to be used as a reference—not even as a supplemental document. Why
> not?
>
> Because it isn't published by the WAI.
>
> I'm with you—ideally, it shouldn't matter who developed it. The only thing
> that should matter is whether it works.
>
> But to you and me, "works" means "leads us to the best answer as quickly
> as possible."
>
> Conversely, to people documenting compliance, "works" also means "will be
> widely recognized as valid." And the most effective way to gain that
> recognition is to have the blessing of the body that developed the
> standards.
>
> So ask them: "Is the word of 'Friends of Cliff' good enough? Or does it
> have to be the word of WAI?"
>
> Cliff Tyllick
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> Although its spellcheck often saves me, all goofs in sent messages are its
> fault.
>
> > On Nov 30, 2015, at 3:07 PM, Julie Lewis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
> >
> > With all due respect Cliff, why does it matter who hosts it?
> >
> > All developers should be treating accessibility the same way they treat
> > performance and device independence. Why create a silo for it?
> >
> > Github allows for everything you describe below. Start-up cost is
> minimal.
> > And most importantly, developers already go there to discuss and share
> > technical problems and solutions. As a matter of fact it's already
> there:
> >
> > https://github.com/w3c/wcag/
> >
> >
> > If the problems are being solved, then compliance and conformance to
> > standards are less of an issue.
> >
> > The open source community has pushed web technology farther and faster
> > than any government entity or standards body ever will.
> >
> >>
> >> From: Cliff Tyllick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>
> >>
> >> Julie, it would have to be hosted by an entity that nations, their
> >> courts, and corporations would recognize as being authoritative.
> >> Otherwise, it's just some group's notion of best practices―not a
> resource
> >> for ensuring compliance with laws or conformance to standards.
> >>
> >> So who hosts it is far more important than how it's hosted.
> >>
> >> Cliff Tyllick
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Julie Lewis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Is there any reason the accessibility community can¹t use github for
> >>> this?
> >>> We could even maintain a plain language version of the WCAG
> >>> recommendations there. ;^)
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. The accessibility community should build and maintain an
> >>>> application any Web professional can use to discover known
> >>>> techniques for producing usable and accessible interactions in
> >>>> the presentation technology they are using. The same application
> >>>> would allow developers to submit new techniques they have used to
> >>>> solve a previously unsolved problem or to improve upon an
> >>>> existing solution. Each technique submitted should be specific;
> >>>> include appropriate examples of its implementation; be tagged
> >>>> according to the interface or interaction (form, text input,
> >>>> error checking, labels for fieldsets, navigation menus, and so
> >>>> on), the presentation technology (HTML, PDF, XHTML, Word for
> >>>> Windows, Open Office, Drupal, WordPress, Plone, Bootstrap.js, and
> >>>> so on), the presentation environments in which it works (video,
> >>>> audio, wearables, smart phones, large monitors, haptic
> >>>> interfaces, and others), the disability addressed, the relevant
> >>>> WCAG success criteria, and other relevant features if I've missed
> >>>> any; and be linked to closely related solutions, relevant
> >>>> tutorials, explanations of the underlying principles, and the
> >>>> like.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >

From: Cliff Tyllick
Date: Mon, Dec 14 2015 11:13AM
Subject: Re: Using github for sharing accessibility techniques
← Previous message | Next message →

To determine whether the techniques and the information about them are valid, skeptics would first ask what the organization that develops and maintains the standards thinks.

If that organization also produces this resource, then that question is answered right away. Otherwise, there would never be a clear answer.

For example, how many organizations accept W3 Schools as an authoritative source on the validity of HTML? None that I know of. Yet even when the W3C's validator threw false errors, it was widely if not universally accepted as the best resource available.

One is the advice of a consultant the organization hasn't hired. Every answer it offers would be open to question. If the validity of an answer were challenged, then the burden of proof would be on the person who relied on the resource.

The other is guidance from the source of the standards itself. Answers in it would be accepted as valid. If anyone wanted to challenge an answer, the burden of proof would be on them.

That's just the way it is.

Cliff Tyllick




Sent from my iPhone
Although its spellcheck often saves me, all goofs in sent messages are its fault.

> On Dec 14, 2015, at 11:15 AM, Jon Metz < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> If I'm understanding the original question correctly, it seems to be more
> of a repository of best practices and techniques, not a development of
> formal standards. Therefore, since it's has informational purposes, I fail
> to see the requirements of where it would be held either. Based on the
> suggestion, this isn't a normative development process.
>
> Should lawyers actually be looking at these best practices for use as
> practical examples, they would obviously need to do the extra leg work to
> determine why in fact they are considered best practices or tools endorsed
> in use.
>
> So I'm not sure I understand what difference it makes either.
>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:36 AM, Cliff Tyllick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> Julie, it matters who hosts it because the host is the entity that affirms
>> that these are valid solutions. If it's produced by everyone on this list
>> collaborating as friends of mine, then the attorneys who opine on whether a
>> corporation is protected from the risk of having done the wrong thing will
>> say, "Well, that's interesting, but it's just what Cliff's friends say.
>> What does the body that made the standards say?"
>>
>> But if the very same people do the very same work as a working group of
>> the WAI, those attorneys will say, "Yes, our developers and project
>> managers can adequately reduce our risk by using these tools, because the
>> body that developed the standards also developed these tools."
>>
>> You're right—either way, the information should be the same. Either way,
>> if the tool is used properly, project teams will quickly find known
>> solutions when they are available and quickly recognize when they will need
>> time and resources to develop a novel solution. Either way, the result
>> should be an interface that is as accessible as possible.
>>
>> But the corporate compliance officers and chief accessibility officers
>> won't agree that the tool solves their problem unless it is produced by a
>> group that a court would consider to be authoritative.
>>
>> There's a lot of good information online that isn't given the respect it's
>> due simply because it isn't developed by WAI. A simple example is the
>> version of WCAG in plain language you can find at wuhcag.com. I can't
>> find anything wrong with it. But corporate compliance officers won't stand
>> for it to be used as a reference—not even as a supplemental document. Why
>> not?
>>
>> Because it isn't published by the WAI.
>>
>> I'm with you—ideally, it shouldn't matter who developed it. The only thing
>> that should matter is whether it works.
>>
>> But to you and me, "works" means "leads us to the best answer as quickly
>> as possible."
>>
>> Conversely, to people documenting compliance, "works" also means "will be
>> widely recognized as valid." And the most effective way to gain that
>> recognition is to have the blessing of the body that developed the
>> standards.
>>
>> So ask them: "Is the word of 'Friends of Cliff' good enough? Or does it
>> have to be the word of WAI?"
>>
>> Cliff Tyllick
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> Although its spellcheck often saves me, all goofs in sent messages are its
>> fault.
>>
>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 3:07 PM, Julie Lewis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> With all due respect Cliff, why does it matter who hosts it?
>>>
>>> All developers should be treating accessibility the same way they treat
>>> performance and device independence. Why create a silo for it?
>>>
>>> Github allows for everything you describe below. Start-up cost is
>> minimal.
>>> And most importantly, developers already go there to discuss and share
>>> technical problems and solutions. As a matter of fact it's already
>> there:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/
>>>
>>>
>>> If the problems are being solved, then compliance and conformance to
>>> standards are less of an issue.
>>>
>>> The open source community has pushed web technology farther and faster
>>> than any government entity or standards body ever will.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Cliff Tyllick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Julie, it would have to be hosted by an entity that nations, their
>>>> courts, and corporations would recognize as being authoritative.
>>>> Otherwise, it's just some group's notion of best practices―not a
>> resource
>>>> for ensuring compliance with laws or conformance to standards.
>>>>
>>>> So who hosts it is far more important than how it's hosted.
>>>>
>>>> Cliff Tyllick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Julie Lewis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any reason the accessibility community can¹t use github for
>>>>> this?
>>>>> We could even maintain a plain language version of the WCAG
>>>>> recommendations there. ;^)
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. The accessibility community should build and maintain an
>>>>>> application any Web professional can use to discover known
>>>>>> techniques for producing usable and accessible interactions in
>>>>>> the presentation technology they are using. The same application
>>>>>> would allow developers to submit new techniques they have used to
>>>>>> solve a previously unsolved problem or to improve upon an
>>>>>> existing solution. Each technique submitted should be specific;
>>>>>> include appropriate examples of its implementation; be tagged
>>>>>> according to the interface or interaction (form, text input,
>>>>>> error checking, labels for fieldsets, navigation menus, and so
>>>>>> on), the presentation technology (HTML, PDF, XHTML, Word for
>>>>>> Windows, Open Office, Drupal, WordPress, Plone, Bootstrap.js, and
>>>>>> so on), the presentation environments in which it works (video,
>>>>>> audio, wearables, smart phones, large monitors, haptic
>>>>>> interfaces, and others), the disability addressed, the relevant
>>>>>> WCAG success criteria, and other relevant features if I've missed
>>>>>> any; and be linked to closely related solutions, relevant
>>>>>> tutorials, explanations of the underlying principles, and the
>>>>>> like.
>>>
>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > >

From: Jon Metz
Date: Mon, Dec 14 2015 2:00PM
Subject: Re: Using github for sharing accessibility techniques
← Previous message | Next message →

In your opinion, how do these same skeptics view the dialog that's shared
here? Many people here are from recognizable, if not influential sources.
If set up appropriately, a more formal repository for information could
actually be beneficial. Because the nature of Github provides a solution
for a community driven moderation, the advice on it could be quite valuable.

I don't think the OP was requesting for some random company like W3 schools
to host such a platform. I mean, these are simply risks that we should take
into consideration, but throwing out the idea because it isn't sponsored
from a notable organization is a little short sighted in my opinion.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Cliff Tyllick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> To determine whether the techniques and the information about them are
> valid, skeptics would first ask what the organization that develops and
> maintains the standards thinks.
>
> If that organization also produces this resource, then that question is
> answered right away. Otherwise, there would never be a clear answer.
>
> For example, how many organizations accept W3 Schools as an authoritative
> source on the validity of HTML? None that I know of. Yet even when the
> W3C's validator threw false errors, it was widely if not universally
> accepted as the best resource available.
>
> One is the advice of a consultant the organization hasn't hired. Every
> answer it offers would be open to question. If the validity of an answer
> were challenged, then the burden of proof would be on the person who relied
> on the resource.
>
> The other is guidance from the source of the standards itself. Answers in
> it would be accepted as valid. If anyone wanted to challenge an answer, the
> burden of proof would be on them.
>
> That's just the way it is.
>
> Cliff Tyllick
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> Although its spellcheck often saves me, all goofs in sent messages are its
> fault.
>
> > On Dec 14, 2015, at 11:15 AM, Jon Metz < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >
> > If I'm understanding the original question correctly, it seems to be more
> > of a repository of best practices and techniques, not a development of
> > formal standards. Therefore, since it's has informational purposes, I
> fail
> > to see the requirements of where it would be held either. Based on the
> > suggestion, this isn't a normative development process.
> >
> > Should lawyers actually be looking at these best practices for use as
> > practical examples, they would obviously need to do the extra leg work to
> > determine why in fact they are considered best practices or tools
> endorsed
> > in use.
> >
> > So I'm not sure I understand what difference it makes either.
> >
> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:36 AM, Cliff Tyllick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >>
> >> Julie, it matters who hosts it because the host is the entity that
> affirms
> >> that these are valid solutions. If it's produced by everyone on this
> list
> >> collaborating as friends of mine, then the attorneys who opine on
> whether a
> >> corporation is protected from the risk of having done the wrong thing
> will
> >> say, "Well, that's interesting, but it's just what Cliff's friends say.
> >> What does the body that made the standards say?"
> >>
> >> But if the very same people do the very same work as a working group of
> >> the WAI, those attorneys will say, "Yes, our developers and project
> >> managers can adequately reduce our risk by using these tools, because
> the
> >> body that developed the standards also developed these tools."
> >>
> >> You're right—either way, the information should be the same. Either way,
> >> if the tool is used properly, project teams will quickly find known
> >> solutions when they are available and quickly recognize when they will
> need
> >> time and resources to develop a novel solution. Either way, the result
> >> should be an interface that is as accessible as possible.
> >>
> >> But the corporate compliance officers and chief accessibility officers
> >> won't agree that the tool solves their problem unless it is produced by
> a
> >> group that a court would consider to be authoritative.
> >>
> >> There's a lot of good information online that isn't given the respect
> it's
> >> due simply because it isn't developed by WAI. A simple example is the
> >> version of WCAG in plain language you can find at wuhcag.com. I can't
> >> find anything wrong with it. But corporate compliance officers won't
> stand
> >> for it to be used as a reference—not even as a supplemental document.
> Why
> >> not?
> >>
> >> Because it isn't published by the WAI.
> >>
> >> I'm with you—ideally, it shouldn't matter who developed it. The only
> thing
> >> that should matter is whether it works.
> >>
> >> But to you and me, "works" means "leads us to the best answer as quickly
> >> as possible."
> >>
> >> Conversely, to people documenting compliance, "works" also means "will
> be
> >> widely recognized as valid." And the most effective way to gain that
> >> recognition is to have the blessing of the body that developed the
> >> standards.
> >>
> >> So ask them: "Is the word of 'Friends of Cliff' good enough? Or does it
> >> have to be the word of WAI?"
> >>
> >> Cliff Tyllick
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >> Although its spellcheck often saves me, all goofs in sent messages are
> its
> >> fault.
> >>
> >>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 3:07 PM, Julie Lewis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> With all due respect Cliff, why does it matter who hosts it?
> >>>
> >>> All developers should be treating accessibility the same way they treat
> >>> performance and device independence. Why create a silo for it?
> >>>
> >>> Github allows for everything you describe below. Start-up cost is
> >> minimal.
> >>> And most importantly, developers already go there to discuss and share
> >>> technical problems and solutions. As a matter of fact it's already
> >> there:
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If the problems are being solved, then compliance and conformance to
> >>> standards are less of an issue.
> >>>
> >>> The open source community has pushed web technology farther and faster
> >>> than any government entity or standards body ever will.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Cliff Tyllick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Julie, it would have to be hosted by an entity that nations, their
> >>>> courts, and corporations would recognize as being authoritative.
> >>>> Otherwise, it's just some group's notion of best practices―not a
> >> resource
> >>>> for ensuring compliance with laws or conformance to standards.
> >>>>
> >>>> So who hosts it is far more important than how it's hosted.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cliff Tyllick
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Julie Lewis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is there any reason the accessibility community can¹t use github for
> >>>>> this?
> >>>>> We could even maintain a plain language version of the WCAG
> >>>>> recommendations there. ;^)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. The accessibility community should build and maintain an
> >>>>>> application any Web professional can use to discover known
> >>>>>> techniques for producing usable and accessible interactions in
> >>>>>> the presentation technology they are using. The same application
> >>>>>> would allow developers to submit new techniques they have used to
> >>>>>> solve a previously unsolved problem or to improve upon an
> >>>>>> existing solution. Each technique submitted should be specific;
> >>>>>> include appropriate examples of its implementation; be tagged
> >>>>>> according to the interface or interaction (form, text input,
> >>>>>> error checking, labels for fieldsets, navigation menus, and so
> >>>>>> on), the presentation technology (HTML, PDF, XHTML, Word for
> >>>>>> Windows, Open Office, Drupal, WordPress, Plone, Bootstrap.js, and
> >>>>>> so on), the presentation environments in which it works (video,
> >>>>>> audio, wearables, smart phones, large monitors, haptic
> >>>>>> interfaces, and others), the disability addressed, the relevant
> >>>>>> WCAG success criteria, and other relevant features if I've missed
> >>>>>> any; and be linked to closely related solutions, relevant
> >>>>>> tutorials, explanations of the underlying principles, and the
> >>>>>> like.
> >>>
> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Mon, Dec 14 2015 3:08PM
Subject: Re: Using github for sharing accessibility techniques
← Previous message | Next message →

Not quite understanding this discussion, but note that w3c uses GitHub to
host and develop many of its specs including WAI stuff.
https://github.com/w3c

On Monday, 14 December 2015, Jon Metz < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> In your opinion, how do these same skeptics view the dialog that's shared
> here? Many people here are from recognizable, if not influential sources.
> If set up appropriately, a more formal repository for information could
> actually be beneficial. Because the nature of Github provides a solution
> for a community driven moderation, the advice on it could be quite
> valuable.
>
> I don't think the OP was requesting for some random company like W3 schools
> to host such a platform. I mean, these are simply risks that we should take
> into consideration, but throwing out the idea because it isn't sponsored
> from a notable organization is a little short sighted in my opinion.
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Cliff Tyllick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > To determine whether the techniques and the information about them are
> > valid, skeptics would first ask what the organization that develops and
> > maintains the standards thinks.
> >
> > If that organization also produces this resource, then that question is
> > answered right away. Otherwise, there would never be a clear answer.
> >
> > For example, how many organizations accept W3 Schools as an authoritative
> > source on the validity of HTML? None that I know of. Yet even when the
> > W3C's validator threw false errors, it was widely if not universally
> > accepted as the best resource available.
> >
> > One is the advice of a consultant the organization hasn't hired. Every
> > answer it offers would be open to question. If the validity of an answer
> > were challenged, then the burden of proof would be on the person who
> relied
> > on the resource.
> >
> > The other is guidance from the source of the standards itself. Answers in
> > it would be accepted as valid. If anyone wanted to challenge an answer,
> the
> > burden of proof would be on them.
> >
> > That's just the way it is.
> >
> > Cliff Tyllick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > Although its spellcheck often saves me, all goofs in sent messages are
> its
> > fault.
> >
> > > On Dec 14, 2015, at 11:15 AM, Jon Metz < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > If I'm understanding the original question correctly, it seems to be
> more
> > > of a repository of best practices and techniques, not a development of
> > > formal standards. Therefore, since it's has informational purposes, I
> > fail
> > > to see the requirements of where it would be held either. Based on the
> > > suggestion, this isn't a normative development process.
> > >
> > > Should lawyers actually be looking at these best practices for use as
> > > practical examples, they would obviously need to do the extra leg work
> to
> > > determine why in fact they are considered best practices or tools
> > endorsed
> > > in use.
> > >
> > > So I'm not sure I understand what difference it makes either.
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:36 AM, Cliff Tyllick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Julie, it matters who hosts it because the host is the entity that
> > affirms
> > >> that these are valid solutions. If it's produced by everyone on this
> > list
> > >> collaborating as friends of mine, then the attorneys who opine on
> > whether a
> > >> corporation is protected from the risk of having done the wrong thing
> > will
> > >> say, "Well, that's interesting, but it's just what Cliff's friends
> say.
> > >> What does the body that made the standards say?"
> > >>
> > >> But if the very same people do the very same work as a working group
> of
> > >> the WAI, those attorneys will say, "Yes, our developers and project
> > >> managers can adequately reduce our risk by using these tools, because
> > the
> > >> body that developed the standards also developed these tools."
> > >>
> > >> You're right—either way, the information should be the same. Either
> way,
> > >> if the tool is used properly, project teams will quickly find known
> > >> solutions when they are available and quickly recognize when they will
> > need
> > >> time and resources to develop a novel solution. Either way, the result
> > >> should be an interface that is as accessible as possible.
> > >>
> > >> But the corporate compliance officers and chief accessibility officers
> > >> won't agree that the tool solves their problem unless it is produced
> by
> > a
> > >> group that a court would consider to be authoritative.
> > >>
> > >> There's a lot of good information online that isn't given the respect
> > it's
> > >> due simply because it isn't developed by WAI. A simple example is the
> > >> version of WCAG in plain language you can find at wuhcag.com. I can't
> > >> find anything wrong with it. But corporate compliance officers won't
> > stand
> > >> for it to be used as a reference—not even as a supplemental document.
> > Why
> > >> not?
> > >>
> > >> Because it isn't published by the WAI.
> > >>
> > >> I'm with you—ideally, it shouldn't matter who developed it. The only
> > thing
> > >> that should matter is whether it works.
> > >>
> > >> But to you and me, "works" means "leads us to the best answer as
> quickly
> > >> as possible."
> > >>
> > >> Conversely, to people documenting compliance, "works" also means "will
> > be
> > >> widely recognized as valid." And the most effective way to gain that
> > >> recognition is to have the blessing of the body that developed the
> > >> standards.
> > >>
> > >> So ask them: "Is the word of 'Friends of Cliff' good enough? Or does
> it
> > >> have to be the word of WAI?"
> > >>
> > >> Cliff Tyllick
> > >>
> > >> Sent from my iPhone
> > >> Although its spellcheck often saves me, all goofs in sent messages are
> > its
> > >> fault.
> > >>
> > >>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 3:07 PM, Julie Lewis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> <javascript:;>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> With all due respect Cliff, why does it matter who hosts it?
> > >>>
> > >>> All developers should be treating accessibility the same way they
> treat
> > >>> performance and device independence. Why create a silo for it?
> > >>>
> > >>> Github allows for everything you describe below. Start-up cost is
> > >> minimal.
> > >>> And most importantly, developers already go there to discuss and
> share
> > >>> technical problems and solutions. As a matter of fact it's already
> > >> there:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> If the problems are being solved, then compliance and conformance to
> > >>> standards are less of an issue.
> > >>>
> > >>> The open source community has pushed web technology farther and
> faster
> > >>> than any government entity or standards body ever will.
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Cliff Tyllick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <javascript:;>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Julie, it would have to be hosted by an entity that nations, their
> > >>>> courts, and corporations would recognize as being authoritative.
> > >>>> Otherwise, it's just some group's notion of best practices―not a
> > >> resource
> > >>>> for ensuring compliance with laws or conformance to standards.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So who hosts it is far more important than how it's hosted.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Cliff Tyllick
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Julie Lewis <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <javascript:;>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Is there any reason the accessibility community can¹t use github
> for
> > >>>>> this?
> > >>>>> We could even maintain a plain language version of the WCAG
> > >>>>> recommendations there. ;^)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 2. The accessibility community should build and maintain an
> > >>>>>> application any Web professional can use to discover known
> > >>>>>> techniques for producing usable and accessible interactions in
> > >>>>>> the presentation technology they are using. The same application
> > >>>>>> would allow developers to submit new techniques they have used to
> > >>>>>> solve a previously unsolved problem or to improve upon an
> > >>>>>> existing solution. Each technique submitted should be specific;
> > >>>>>> include appropriate examples of its implementation; be tagged
> > >>>>>> according to the interface or interaction (form, text input,
> > >>>>>> error checking, labels for fieldsets, navigation menus, and so
> > >>>>>> on), the presentation technology (HTML, PDF, XHTML, Word for
> > >>>>>> Windows, Open Office, Drupal, WordPress, Plone, Bootstrap.js, and
> > >>>>>> so on), the presentation environments in which it works (video,
> > >>>>>> audio, wearables, smart phones, large monitors, haptic
> > >>>>>> interfaces, and others), the disability addressed, the relevant
> > >>>>>> WCAG success criteria, and other relevant features if I've missed
> > >>>>>> any; and be linked to closely related solutions, relevant
> > >>>>>> tutorials, explanations of the underlying principles, and the
> > >>>>>> like.
> > >>>
> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >


--
--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>;

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, Dec 14 2015 3:20PM
Subject: Re: Using github for sharing accessibility techniques
← Previous message | No next message

On 14/12/2015 22:08, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> Not quite understanding this discussion, but note that w3c uses GitHub to
> host and develop many of its specs including WAI stuff.
> https://github.com/w3c

I believe the overall outline of this discussion is/was:

- using github would be good, as anybody can set up a repo to host stuff
and we can all collaborate

- the repo should actually be owned by w3c (i.e. under github.com/w3c)
to lend it some credibility and gravitas - but there's concerns that
this would stifle collaboration, and questions around whether or not w3c
would need to officially review the materials, creating
bottlenecks/bureaucracy

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke