WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Using github for sharing accessibility techniques

for

From: Jon Metz
Date: Dec 14, 2015 2:00PM

In your opinion, how do these same skeptics view the dialog that's shared
here? Many people here are from recognizable, if not influential sources.
If set up appropriately, a more formal repository for information could
actually be beneficial. Because the nature of Github provides a solution
for a community driven moderation, the advice on it could be quite valuable.

I don't think the OP was requesting for some random company like W3 schools
to host such a platform. I mean, these are simply risks that we should take
into consideration, but throwing out the idea because it isn't sponsored
from a notable organization is a little short sighted in my opinion.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Cliff Tyllick < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> To determine whether the techniques and the information about them are
> valid, skeptics would first ask what the organization that develops and
> maintains the standards thinks.
>
> If that organization also produces this resource, then that question is
> answered right away. Otherwise, there would never be a clear answer.
>
> For example, how many organizations accept W3 Schools as an authoritative
> source on the validity of HTML? None that I know of. Yet even when the
> W3C's validator threw false errors, it was widely if not universally
> accepted as the best resource available.
>
> One is the advice of a consultant the organization hasn't hired. Every
> answer it offers would be open to question. If the validity of an answer
> were challenged, then the burden of proof would be on the person who relied
> on the resource.
>
> The other is guidance from the source of the standards itself. Answers in
> it would be accepted as valid. If anyone wanted to challenge an answer, the
> burden of proof would be on them.
>
> That's just the way it is.
>
> Cliff Tyllick
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> Although its spellcheck often saves me, all goofs in sent messages are its
> fault.
>
> > On Dec 14, 2015, at 11:15 AM, Jon Metz < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> >
> > If I'm understanding the original question correctly, it seems to be more
> > of a repository of best practices and techniques, not a development of
> > formal standards. Therefore, since it's has informational purposes, I
> fail
> > to see the requirements of where it would be held either. Based on the
> > suggestion, this isn't a normative development process.
> >
> > Should lawyers actually be looking at these best practices for use as
> > practical examples, they would obviously need to do the extra leg work to
> > determine why in fact they are considered best practices or tools
> endorsed
> > in use.
> >
> > So I'm not sure I understand what difference it makes either.
> >
> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:36 AM, Cliff Tyllick < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Julie, it matters who hosts it because the host is the entity that
> affirms
> >> that these are valid solutions. If it's produced by everyone on this
> list
> >> collaborating as friends of mine, then the attorneys who opine on
> whether a
> >> corporation is protected from the risk of having done the wrong thing
> will
> >> say, "Well, that's interesting, but it's just what Cliff's friends say.
> >> What does the body that made the standards say?"
> >>
> >> But if the very same people do the very same work as a working group of
> >> the WAI, those attorneys will say, "Yes, our developers and project
> >> managers can adequately reduce our risk by using these tools, because
> the
> >> body that developed the standards also developed these tools."
> >>
> >> You're right—either way, the information should be the same. Either way,
> >> if the tool is used properly, project teams will quickly find known
> >> solutions when they are available and quickly recognize when they will
> need
> >> time and resources to develop a novel solution. Either way, the result
> >> should be an interface that is as accessible as possible.
> >>
> >> But the corporate compliance officers and chief accessibility officers
> >> won't agree that the tool solves their problem unless it is produced by
> a
> >> group that a court would consider to be authoritative.
> >>
> >> There's a lot of good information online that isn't given the respect
> it's
> >> due simply because it isn't developed by WAI. A simple example is the
> >> version of WCAG in plain language you can find at wuhcag.com. I can't
> >> find anything wrong with it. But corporate compliance officers won't
> stand
> >> for it to be used as a reference—not even as a supplemental document.
> Why
> >> not?
> >>
> >> Because it isn't published by the WAI.
> >>
> >> I'm with you—ideally, it shouldn't matter who developed it. The only
> thing
> >> that should matter is whether it works.
> >>
> >> But to you and me, "works" means "leads us to the best answer as quickly
> >> as possible."
> >>
> >> Conversely, to people documenting compliance, "works" also means "will
> be
> >> widely recognized as valid." And the most effective way to gain that
> >> recognition is to have the blessing of the body that developed the
> >> standards.
> >>
> >> So ask them: "Is the word of 'Friends of Cliff' good enough? Or does it
> >> have to be the word of WAI?"
> >>
> >> Cliff Tyllick
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >> Although its spellcheck often saves me, all goofs in sent messages are
> its
> >> fault.
> >>
> >>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 3:07 PM, Julie Lewis < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> With all due respect Cliff, why does it matter who hosts it?
> >>>
> >>> All developers should be treating accessibility the same way they treat
> >>> performance and device independence. Why create a silo for it?
> >>>
> >>> Github allows for everything you describe below. Start-up cost is
> >> minimal.
> >>> And most importantly, developers already go there to discuss and share
> >>> technical problems and solutions. As a matter of fact it's already
> >> there:
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If the problems are being solved, then compliance and conformance to
> >>> standards are less of an issue.
> >>>
> >>> The open source community has pushed web technology farther and faster
> >>> than any government entity or standards body ever will.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Cliff Tyllick < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Julie, it would have to be hosted by an entity that nations, their
> >>>> courts, and corporations would recognize as being authoritative.
> >>>> Otherwise, it's just some group's notion of best practices―not a
> >> resource
> >>>> for ensuring compliance with laws or conformance to standards.
> >>>>
> >>>> So who hosts it is far more important than how it's hosted.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cliff Tyllick
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Julie Lewis < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is there any reason the accessibility community can¹t use github for
> >>>>> this?
> >>>>> We could even maintain a plain language version of the WCAG
> >>>>> recommendations there. ;^)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. The accessibility community should build and maintain an
> >>>>>> application any Web professional can use to discover known
> >>>>>> techniques for producing usable and accessible interactions in
> >>>>>> the presentation technology they are using. The same application
> >>>>>> would allow developers to submit new techniques they have used to
> >>>>>> solve a previously unsolved problem or to improve upon an
> >>>>>> existing solution. Each technique submitted should be specific;
> >>>>>> include appropriate examples of its implementation; be tagged
> >>>>>> according to the interface or interaction (form, text input,
> >>>>>> error checking, labels for fieldsets, navigation menus, and so
> >>>>>> on), the presentation technology (HTML, PDF, XHTML, Word for
> >>>>>> Windows, Open Office, Drupal, WordPress, Plone, Bootstrap.js, and
> >>>>>> so on), the presentation environments in which it works (video,
> >>>>>> audio, wearables, smart phones, large monitors, haptic
> >>>>>> interfaces, and others), the disability addressed, the relevant
> >>>>>> WCAG success criteria, and other relevant features if I've missed
> >>>>>> any; and be linked to closely related solutions, relevant
> >>>>>> tutorials, explanations of the underlying principles, and the
> >>>>>> like.
> >>>
> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >