WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Dec 1, 2015 7:12AM

> 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.

I think this is the crux of the argument, or the part I can agree with, at
least. While we have identified that WebAIM is not the standard-setter, but
we cannot deny the fact it is one of the popular ways to get assistance
with WCAG.

If we jump into the WebAIM archives we'd find a thread asking which SC is
best suited. A good portion of the time it is cut and dry, but there are a
few that are like "well you can think of it this way, that way, or this
other way." I remember a few were the thread got to two dozen replies, and
the person who originally asked was like "....so guys what SC should they
be dinged with?"

Where I work, luckily (maybe not so lucky) I am one of the people who can
authoritatively use this SC. The thing that keeps me awake at night is when
people will want to push it, or won't accept less than a 3 page reply why x
was chosen over y.

--
Ryan E. Benson

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Karl Groves < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> 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
> > > > >