WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: Karl Groves
Date: Dec 1, 2015 5:33AM

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 5:31 PM, 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.
>

I don't know what value statements like that add to the conversation.
It seems like an ad hominem attack and if anything it betrays a high
degree of ignorance. The subject of this conversation is WCAG,
authored by a working group within the Web Accessibility Initiative of
the Worldwide Web Consortium. "Worldwide" !== DC or Moscow or
anywhere else. WCAG's goal is accessibility for all people regardless
of geographical location (BTW, Chaals is in Madrid anyway)

WCAG was found to be sufficiently clear to be adopted as an ISO standard

> My firm consults with lawyers about accessibility issues...such as what's enforceable, where the standards can be enforced, etc.

Apologies for what's undoubtedly going to sound quite harsh, but given
your self-proclaimed difficulty in reading WCAG, I hope you consult
for defendants and not plaintiffs.

> 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.

As Chaals stated, you should file bugs against the materials. While
the spec itself is not going to be changed anytime soon (sad, IMO) you
can still contribute to the numerous additional materials.

WCAG does (most of) its work out in the open. You merely need to take
the time to identify specific shortcomings and log them as issues in
their Github repository at https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues


>
> 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).
>

Well WCAG isn't a law, so...

Steve Faulkner already mentioned some, but here's a long (and
incomplete) list of lawsuits and settlements, the overwhelming
majority of which call for compliance with WCAG 2.0 Level AA as the
settlement criteria:
http://www.karlgroves.com/2011/11/15/list-of-web-accessibility-related-litigation-and-settlements/


> 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.


I'm sorry but this also betrays a very high degree of ignorance of how
*any* standards are written and how the W3C works and who's been
involved in WCAG. The WCAG Working Group isn't exactly the PTA.
Here's the list of Acknowledgements for WCAG 2.0:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#acknowledgments

While there may be some people in that list that I have more respect
for than others, this is a pretty impressive list of experts.


> In other words, it's the W3C/WAI that owns and is responsible for the standards...NOT the volunteers themselves.

I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise and I'm confused about where
that would even come from.

>
> 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.

You're obviously confused about *who* these volunteers are. Your
continued use of the word "volunteers" is either the result of
ignorance or is meant as an underhanded dig at the people who created
the standard.

I don't know everyone who has come & gone in the WCAG Working Group
but of the names I do recognize, most have had very long careers in
accessibility.

>
> 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).

Wait, the W3C isn't a bonafide standards organization?


>
> 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.
>

Clearly they need your help. I'm connected with Jeff Jaffe on
LinkedIn. Do you want an intro?


> And if W3C/WAI don't have the money to hire professional editors, then they should consider holding a bake sale

Again with the PTA stuff. Seriously unproductive.


I've stayed out of the thread mostly because I agree that even the
informative documentation associated with WCAG can be unclear,
contradictory, and difficult for laypersons to understand.
But some of the things said in the email to which I'm replying are
just too inappropriate and incorrect to let slide.

As Chaals said: "Every "W3C Recommendation" has a section called
"Status of This Document" right near the front, that says how to file
comments on it. Please do so."




--

Karl Groves
www.karlgroves.com
@karlgroves
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
Phone: +1 410.541.6829

Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks

www.tenon.io