WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: IAAP Certification Update

for

From: Jon Metz
Date: Sep 16, 2015 11:14AM

Hi Katie and Paul,

Thank you for responding to my message and I appreciate you taking the
time to personally provide some insight. I also wanted to wait a little
bit, because I can¹t help but feel a little sensitive to some of your
comments. I¹m terrible with context or making a big deal out of things,
but I feel it¹s necessary to respond in kind with a little clarification
about my reservations about the certification approach at IAAP.

On 9/14/15, 5:54 PM, "WebAIM-Forum on behalf of Paul Bohman"
< <EMAIL REMOVED> on behalf of <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:

> - To your points about PDF files, I'll mention that there are good and
> bad aspects to it. PDF files can be fully screen reader accessible on
> Windows, but not so much on a Mac, iOS device, or Android. I will
>mention
> that the IAAP has considered offering another professional level
> certification for e-documents, such as PDF, Word, EPUB, and ebook
>formats
> of other kinds.

This is like saying we shouldn¹t advocate the use of ARIA because
Assistive Technology has irregular consistency when using a different
browser from Safari on a Mac. The fact that AT doesn¹t play well with one
particular type of ICT is not a limitation of the ICT. It¹s an inability
from one side of the specifications game to play well with others. Of
course, this could be solved if the AT industry would hop on board the
Specification Wagon, but this has been an uphill battle to say the least.

Making vendor specific certifications are also kind of silly because each
of them (mostly) already have their own certification: Adobe has the ACE,
MS has the Office Expert, etc. You can also go the complete route and get
a certification in Information Management or The AIIM certification as
well and call it a day. Why spend money on a fledgling organization on
something that is already recognized in the industry.

> Generally, for these people, accessibility is not their main focus on
>the
> job. They do accessibility as a part of their larger set of
> responsibilities. That doesn't make their job less important at all. It
> just means that they themselves probably would not think of themselves
>as
> "accessibility professionals." They would think of themselves as
>project
> managers, UX specialists, etc., who happen to have some accessibility
> knowledge.

My biggest problem here is that separating these fields from those working
specifically in programming, it becomes an affirmation that if one is not
a web developer, one couldn¹t possibly be considered an Accessibility
Professional. For example, my career is centered around helping
contractors and Federal agencies to interpret the specifications and
integrate them into their design and project management processes. My
specific job is not to implement the code or remediation myself (though I
do occasionally), but mostly train others on how to identify these things
before they become bugs and to strategically implement at a policy or
organizational level first.

This is not a case of individuals who "don¹t consider themselves
Œaccessibility professionals¹,² but rather that the IAAP simply does not
consider these fields eligible to be accessibility professionals. Your
obvious bias against people who do not work specifically in the trenches
is dictating what makes a real Accessibility Professional, and I can¹t
help but be offended.

I¹m rarely an optimist, but I have a belief that eventually people will
stop looking at accessibility as a ³feature,² and just equate it to
"Standards-Based Design". I believe this will happen because it already
has happened. Way back in the day, Jeffrey Zeldman made a strong push for
making what a real Designer or Developer was, and that was one that was
able to meet or exceed the Standards that were in place. Soon, we ended up
with people making incredibly complex web sites that had badges of honor
stating how their sites were W3C compliant, and all sorts of other badges
followed. You could tell who was amazing because of how their site
achieved some sort of achievement.

This did not happen because some random group of companies in the field
got together and said the Only True Way (tm) to be a Web Professional is
someone who stops calling themselves a Graphic Designer. It became
relevant because their work was specification-driven. By focusing on
labels as to what dictates a true profession, IAAP is doing a disservice
to the accessibility community.

On 9/14/15, 4:08 PM, "WebAIM-Forum on behalf of Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL"
< <EMAIL REMOVED> on behalf of <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:

>
>How do those people, who are very skilled without creds, or a name for
>themselves, get traction? Find a job, or a new job? How do new people
>just getting into this work build up a skill set that can help them move
>into any kind of Accessibility related environment?
>
>I think the day for certification in our industry has come.

I 100% agree. And as I stated in my original message as well as this one,
I believe that this can be accomplished via more productive and inclusive
means.

The problem is, the Associate level is totally ridiculous as it stands
right now. It¹s meant to be a stepping stone towards something where many
of the titles Paul mentioned elsewhere can progress to being a Web
Professional. The problem is, there¹s *already* certifications that these
same professions will likely do instead of the basic IAAP one. There¹s the
PMP for Project Managers, DoD 8570 for IT, Human Factor¹s CXA for UX
people, etc. After doing all of these, many which are already
requirements; what is the point of burning an extra $400 on such a
rudimentary certification when the IAAP has already decided these titles
shouldn't qualified for consideration to be an accessibility professional?

Further, it doesn¹t help that in our field, we end up having to pay our
own way for conferences, travel expenses and other things. You volunteer
your time at IAAP, so certainly you can understand the desire to make sure
your money goes to things that matter more crucially.

>They asked all and anyone. I answered. I do not work for any founding
>member or current member organization of IAAP. I wanted the opportunity
>to help and have a voice - so that the committees were NOT only run by
>founding members and large companies.

As did I. On April 8th of 2014, I responded to IAAP about the Roadmap
process when they asked for suggestions, and it echoed many of the
sentiments I¹m arguing here: Be less vendor specific, get rid of the
rudimentary certification or make it more relevant, streamline the process
of the professional certification to be in line with how people do their
jobs, not what their jobs areŠ What did I get in return? Crickets. No one
responded to my comments. No one confirmed that it was even read.

Now, I assume the difference between you and I are that you have 15+ years
of experience over me and your Accessibility Kung Fu is probably more
refined than mine. I would argue that I still have something to add to a
conversation however, yet when I tried to engage them, I did not have the
same results. It¹s unfair of you to believe that they¹ll listen to anybody
who offers an opinion. It became more obvious that they were only
interested in those who did not dissent too far from their already set
opinions. Therefore, I did not renew my membership.

>And frankly, I am tired of people bitching without offering viable
>options to what IAAP could offer. If the people who are so concerned
>would just come to the table and add their voice, and frankly, their time
>and hard work - it is much less likely to go off the rails - where many
>unknowing people - assume it has already gone.

I¹m not sure if you are directing this to me or not. But Katie, I¹m not
bitching about the IAAP, and no one else is either. I have provided
opinions about how they could be doing better, and voiced a strong opinion
about how I feel they are not doing things correctly. In fact, I¹m not
alone. All the other blogs and comments out there from Karl, Leonie,
Shannon, et al are backed up with reasons and ideas for how to move
forward. If quick snark appears in the commentariat right now, it¹s
because the IAAP has ignored, is ignoring, and will continue to ignore the
opposition to their progress.

The concept of the IAAP is awesome. But it¹s currently very one-sided. You
have a group of big players who really only want to see their side of the
conversation see the light. So realistically, it¹s obvious none of my
comments really matter anyway. IAAP will do what it wants, to he[ck] with
anyone disagrees, and move forward with it¹s direction. And eventually,
after being brow-beaten by all the true Accessibility Professionals out
there, many companies will give up on the certification process altogether
because their direction is making it as useless as the Certified Web
Design certification.

Those same companies, IAAP included, will cry and say, ³We tried to make
this a more relevant field and position but no one listened!² In reality
though, it¹s the IAAP who hasn¹t listened, won¹t listen, and doesn¹t seem
to be interested in listening now.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond personally.

Best,
Jon


On 9/14/15, 5:54 PM, "WebAIM-Forum on behalf of Paul Bohman"
< <EMAIL REMOVED> on behalf of <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:

>Jon,
>
>A few points:
>
> - Thank you for the feedback. I'm always interested in understanding
> people's thoughts about certification.
> - Certification isn't so much about weeding out undesirables as it is
> about providing a common definition and metric that people can
>reference.
> - The hope is that the certification exam will be a meaningful,
>accurate
> metric of a person's knowledge and analytical skills. There are
>certainly
> limitations to what an exam can test. I would not expect that the
> certification would be the only way to measure or prove one's
>accessibility
> skills. It will be one way among several.
> - To your points about PDF files, I'll mention that there are good and
> bad aspects to it. PDF files can be fully screen reader accessible on
> Windows, but not so much on a Mac, iOS device, or Android. I will
>mention
> that the IAAP has considered offering another professional level
> certification for e-documents, such as PDF, Word, EPUB, and ebook
>formats
> of other kinds.
> - The associate level is not just for managers. In a previous email in
> this thread, I named managers as one category. I also named UX
>specialists,
> visual designers, content writers and contributors, account
> representatives, salespeople, and people in other non-technical roles.
> Generally, for these people, accessibility is not their main focus on
>the
> job. They do accessibility as a part of their larger set of
> responsibilities. That doesn't make their job less important at all. It
> just means that they themselves probably would not think of themselves
>as
> "accessibility professionals." They would think of themselves as
>project
> managers, UX specialists, etc., who happen to have some accessibility
> knowledge.
> - You are right that it is a challenge to get a group of accessibility
> professionals to agree on testing methods or priorities. Welcome to
>one of
> the challenges of what we're trying to accomplish! It's also an
> opportunity. It will take time to bring clarity to all aspects of
> accessibility. We're trying to do our part.
>
>
>
>Paul Bohman, PhD
>Director of Training, Deque Systems, Inc
>703-225-0380, ext.121
>https://DequeUniversity.com
>>>>