WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Fixing WAI's writing styleDoes WCAG require ...

for

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Nov 30, 2015 11:59PM

Some data points:
>
> DOJ uses WCAG 2.0 in its settlements. See http://1.usa.gov/1j49Y0E
> <https://t.co/t2gENncnVt> start Section 41. DOT uses WCAG http://
> 1.usa.gov/1lqMQuI <https://t.co/3HLzSO8J3c>

https://twitter.com/LFLegal/status/671468373771972608

private parties use WCAG 2.0 AA to settle ADA cases. See Scribd http://
> bit.ly/1I1DK1Z <https://t.co/47CHb487Mh> My cases: http://bit.ly/1bKXa3U
> <https://t.co/Gan0lSdfmb>

https://twitter.com/LFLegal/status/671469010488320001

DOJ lawsuit for EdX - it has WCAG right in it
see section 18:
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/04/02/edx_settlement_agreement.pdf

W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Approved as ISO/IEC
International Standard
http://www.w3.org/2012/07/wcag2pas-pr.html


--

Regards

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

On 30 November 2015 at 22:31, Chagnon | PubCom.com < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:

> Dear Chaals (or Charles),
>
> I can't find much to agree on in your last post.
> Your view of accessibility from the Moscow corporate world must be
> different from mine in the Federal government in Washington DC.
>
> My firm consults with lawyers about accessibility issues...such as what's
> enforceable, where the standards can be enforced, etc. It's worrisome
> whether WCAG is able to protect the rights of disabled people here in the
> United States, namely because of the reasons I've already stated: lack of
> clarity in the standards, too many loopholes, and too much confusion about
> what needs to be done to meet compliance for different types of media.
>
> Therefore, some lawyers conclude that WCAG is not enforceable in the US in
> its present state. That means there is a lesser chance of disabled people
> winning court cases or complaints against the US Federal government (and
> other state governments).
>
> However, a court case against a corporate entity is different; public
> opinion about what's accessible comes into play there.
>
> Plus, given your statement that WCAG is written by hundreds of worldwide
> volunteers, that further weakens WAI/WCAG's clout.
>
> Although the work and expertise that the volunteers contribute is central,
> they are ONLY volunteers and not legal members (or "owners") of the
> organization itself. At some point a "real" organization must take
> ownership of the standards, cull through the contributions from volunteers,
> decide what's going to be in the standards, and publish the standards to
> the public.
>
> In other words, it's the W3C/WAI that owns and is responsible for the
> standards...NOT the volunteers themselves.
>
> No United States court of law will decide a case based on the opinion of
> volunteers from various parts of the world, no matter how well intentioned
> the volunteers are.
>
> But a court can decide a case based on standards from a professional,
> bonafide standards organization...if the standards are presented accurately
> and fully (and of course, formally adopted by the government which
> hopefully will happen soon in the US).
>
> That's where W3C/WAI is failing; it's not acting like a standards
> organization because it's not doing the entire job that's needed.
>
> And if W3C/WAI don't have the money to hire professional editors, then
> they should consider holding a bake sale and getting Adobe, Apple, IBM,
> Microsoft, et. al to pony up a couple hundred thousand dollars for the
> cause...and some excellent brownies. These companies have billions stashed
> overseas to avoid taxes and this is one thing they could do for the public
> good...and probably take a tax deduction, to boot. They all donate millions
> to other nonprofit causes, why not to an accessibility nonprofit earmarked
> for editors?
>
> I'm done on this thread and won't reply to any further posts on it. We
> seem to be running in circles at this point. Rather than being a discussion
> forum for ideas and opinions, it has turned into something much less
> productive and informative.
>
> --Bevi Chagnon
>
>
> > > > >