WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Do people actually want Automatic Accessibility withinWebTechnologies?

for

From: Bryan Garaventa
Date: Apr 20, 2012 11:22AM

Thanks, I agree, I'm not recommending another term, this is simply one I use
myself when I'm trying to explain the concept to others. I've found that
most people who aren't familiar with programming or accessibility, have no
idea what universal and inclusive design is, and they find it confusing.

I agree that heavy lifting is often necessary for the development of truly
accessible applications, however it is possible to automate the
accessibility of baseline processes within a framework designed for that
purpose, so that new web technologies and current ones can tap into the same
functionality.

This provides a programmatic standard that can be used as a development
platform, a framework where encapsulated widgets can be created and
distributed as scalable automatically accessible user interface components,
and a learning aid for the education of new developers at the same time.


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foliot" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
To: "'WebAIM Discussion List'" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Do people actually want Automatic Accessibility
withinWeb Technologies?


> Bryan Garaventa
>>
>> When I say Automatic Accessibility, I'm referring to a combination of
>> Universal Design (equally accessible for all) and Inclusive Design
>> (integrated accessibility within mainstream applications). I adopted the
>> term Automatic Accessibility because it's more descriptive and easier
>> for people to understand who aren't already familiar with the terms
>> Universal and Inclusive design.
>>
>> So when I refer to Automatic Accessibility for web technologies, I'm
>> talking about the incorporation of automatically accessible processes at
>> the bedrock level of enterprise development. This way, new technologies
>> can be built that include accessible features automatically, and
>> everyone wins.
>>
>> Is there something wrong with this idea?
>
> Hi Bryan,
>
> I have a few issues to consider.
>
> Introducing yet another new term:
>
> As you have already noted, we have "Universal Design", and we have
> "Inclusive Design", and within the web-world we also have "Progressive
> Enhancement" and "Graceful Degradation", and, and, and... introducing yet
> another new idea/term into the lexicon adds yet another term to
> learn/use/know, and I can hear the inevitable question now: "what's the
> difference between Universal Design and Automatic Accessibility?"
>
> "Universal Design Isn't" (and neither is Automatic):
>
> By which I mean that even the concept of Universal Design (and
> Inclusive Design as well) suffers from what I consider the "Long Tail"
> problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail) - that the universality
> of
> Universal Design has itself some limitations, and at some point, to be
> really inclusive, we need to also consider Accommodation strategies. It
> has
> been my observation (and concern) that increasingly - and notably within
> the
> web world - this basic fact is becoming lost in the rush to embrace
> "Universal Design" (and the presumption of what you are calling Automatic
> Accessibility). I see this a lot in my exchanges and work at the W3C with
> HTML5, where a significant portion of a certain working group believe that
> Universal Design principles will solve *all* accessibility issues
> (because,
> you know, they tested it with VoiceOver...)
>
> The bottom line is that to achieve the real end-goal (access for
> <del>all</del> <ins>most of</ins> of our users) requires attention,
> thought,
> and occasionally some extra effort; and while I whole-heartedly embrace
> the
> concept of Universal Design and Inclusive Design, it is with the caveat
> that
> those principles alone do not equal success. My fear is that if we
> introduce a loaded term like "Automatic" it somehow suggests that the end
> authors don't have to contribute to the heavy lifting, which I believe we
> all know to be false.
>
> Me, I will continue to use the term Universal Design, which is already a
> common term in the Design world, and teach that while Universal Design as
> a
> design principle is beneficial to all users in subtle and not-so-subtle
> ways, I will also continue to teach at the same time that it gets us 80%
> or
> better towards our ultimate goal, but that it has its limitations, and
> should not be thought of as the panacea to absolve authors/creators from
> thinking through what they are creating.
>
> My $0.02, because you asked...
>
> JF
>
>
>
>
> > >