WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Inclusive Design 24, by The Paciello Group for GAAD

for

From: Denis Boudreau
Date: May 16, 2014 6:31AM

Don,

If I may add... not having been involved in this effort, but being witness to similar things all the time in efforts of various sizes.

We (the accessibility community) are often very quick to condemn any effort at publishing content about accessibility that is not 100% accessible. We need to be more pragmatic about all of this. In an ideal world, of course, every bit of published information would be accessible, whether it’s content on a web site, video, podcast and so on. But it’s not always possible. Sometimes, there just isn’t enough resource available to go all the way. Or time. Or skills. Or money. Other times, like in this particular case, the technology is just not there (let’s not pretend sub par solutions can compete with Connect for this). What were the other serious options?

I’m not talking about situations where content is published by people who don’t bother with going the extra mile, I’m talking about those who do care, but simply cannot, for whatever reason. The folks at TPG are amongst the best experts in the world, they are very much aware of the implications and know how important this is. They truly get it. Adobe Connect wasn’t perfect, but it was the best professional option available. Adobe too is committed to accessibility and they have some of the best accessibility minds in the business as well. They too, really get it. So again, what was the other option? Simply cancel all 24 hours worth of content for ID24, because they couldn’t get everything perfect? How would that have helped further the cause of accessibility on Global Accessibility Awareness Day?

I just stop for a second to think about how much time was collectively put into this effort and I’m mind blown. Think how much time was put in by the organizers to put this together… easily 100 is my guess. Most likely more. Then, think about how much time each speaker put into his or her materials to be ready for the event. If all of them spent an average of 25 to 50 hours, it amounts to 600 to 1200 hours of preparation. That’s anywhere between 30 and 50 people collectively devoting well over 1000 hours just to share information about accessibility to all of us for free. Who else does something like this in the larger web development community?

When you share comments like that, you are dismissing all these efforts and you boil it down to "a bad event organized by clueless people”. I understand it wasn’t your intent, but thatS how it comes out. No wonder people outside our field of interest look at the accessibility folks and talk about zealots. What TPG did is by far the most ambitious accessibility marathon I’ve ever seen. One usually has to wait until an event is organized into his or her city to go and listen to maybe 4 or 5 sessions. We had 24 sessions, for free, delivered to our doorstep. It wasn’t perfect, granted, but really? Can we just say thank you publicly instead, and bring our concerns discreetly through email? These guys are easy to find...

So yes, constructive criticism goes a long way. But criticism on its own only depreciates the outstanding effort that was out together by TPG and the speakers. I often find that a lot of people who ask questions like “I’m in the business of being truthful, is that so bad” are surprised when they get other people upset. Maybe the people in the business of being truthful should try to be in the business of being tactful and appreciative for a change. Or maybe in the business of actually being part of the solution. Who knows what might happen then?

/Denis





On May 16, 2014, at 4:07 AM, Léonie Watson < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Don Mauck wrote:
> "I guess I don't understand why my comments upset folks. I'm in the
> business of being truthful, is that so bad!!!!"
>
> Let me see if I can explain. When we began planning the event, we looked for
> the most accessible platform we could find. We looked at different options,
> all of which fell a long way short of even basic accessibility. Connect met
> a lot of our accessibility criteria, and in the specific case of screen
> readers it enabled people to connect and listen to presentations, and to
> give presentations using a screen reader.
>
> We put a lot of time and effort into ID24, and many people gave their time
> and knowledge to help plan, promote and deliver the 24 talks. If you feel
> your comments upset anyone, it's perhaps because the implication was that
> no-one put enough thought into choosing an accessible platform.
>
> Constructive criticism is always welcome. It will help us make ID24 even
> better next time around. Criticism on its own not so much.
>
>
> Léonie.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >