WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: IAAP Certification Update

for

From: Paul Bohman
Date: Sep 16, 2015 1:42PM

Jon, here are a few more responses:

- *With respect to who your complaint that I only consider developers to
be accessibility professionals:* I didn't actually say that, nor do I
believe that. Accessibility professionals might be developers. They might
be accessibility consultants or evaluators (like yourself). They might have
other roles within accessibility. Perhaps more importantly, I am very much
aware that accessibility tasks often fall on people whose main
responsibility is not accessibility, and the work that those people do is
extremely valuable. A person does not have to do accessibility 100% of the
time on the job to be an important part of the overall accessibility
strategy. Sometimes these are the most important people in the process.
Sometimes they even drive the process, if they have the passion for it. The
Associate level certification is meant to cover a broad range of topics at
the conceptual level, and that is exactly what many of these people need to
know about accessibility. The intent is to ensure that the Associate level
is rigorous within its scope. We don't want it to be a "fluff" credential.
We expect that people will study for it, and that many people will find it
challenging, even without the technical content specific to the web. I will
also mention that any of these people could take the professional level
certification if they want to. There is no requirement that says that a
person must be engaged in accessibility full time to qualify to take the
professional level certification. When I wrote the list of intended
audiences for the associate level exam, it was to help differentiate the
content and purpose of the two exams, but there is no restriction on who
can take them.
- *With respect to the comment that there are other certifications
already in existence for project managers (PMP), Human Factors, and so on:*
That's true. In no way do we want IAAP certification to be a replacement
for any of those. We want the content of the certification exam to be
specific to accessibility. A person could be certified as a PMP and also
receive IAAP certification if they want to.
- *With respect to the idea that IAAP certification is an unnecessary
cost burden on individuals: *Cost will certainly be one thing that
people consider before becoming certified. Some employers may cover the
cost. Others won't. There is a substantial discount for people who live in
countries with less wealthy economies ($150 rather than the full $325). For
some people the cost will be prohibitive. For others it will not. I will
first say that no one is being compelled to become certified. We hope that
it will become common, just as the PMP certification is common for project
managers, but we can't see into the future. There are project managers
without PMP certification, and there will always be accessibility
professionals without IAAP certification. That's perfectly alright. If a
specific employer requires some of their employees to become certified, we
would hope that the employer would cover that cost, but they may decide not
to. In the end, the IAAP has to be financially viable, or it will fail. If
the IAAP gives everything away all the time, the time and/or money to run
the IAAP will evaporate, and the IAAP will cease to exist. There are
probably multiple models for financial sustainability. There will be
opportunities to reevaluate pricing and other aspects of the financial
picture once the IAAP gets a feel for the market demand. As it is right
now, the price is comparable to many other certification programs.
- *With respect to the idea that a few "big players" are calling all the
shots in the IAAP certification process:* The committees are open to
participants who are willing to do the work. There is no requirement that
anybody on a committee work for any organization, large or small. Looking
at the list of people on the certification committee (the bottom of this
page: http://bit.ly/1iwGYzh), most work for small accessibility
consulting companies. My own company, Deque, is one of the larger
accessibility companies, but honestly, I'm getting zero direction from the
leadership in my company on what I should say or do in this committee, and
in fact all the time I put into it is my own. In other words, I represent
myself and my own ideas in this committee, not my company. I get the sense
that everyone else in the committee is also representing their own ideas,
and they do not have any mandates from above telling them to influence the
direction of our decisions. We get on calls together, we meet in rooms
together, and we debate and try to come to consensus. Sometimes we're more
successful at coming to consensus than others, but so far there has been a
great deal of respect within the group for the diversity of opinions, and
we consider the alternatives based on their merit.



Paul Bohman, PhD
Director of Training, Deque Systems, Inc
703-225-0380, ext.121
https://DequeUniversity.com


On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Jon Metz < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> 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 areÅ  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
> >> >> >> >>
>
> > > > >