WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Using github for sharing accessibility techniques

for

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Dec 14, 2015 3:08PM

Not quite understanding this discussion, but note that w3c uses GitHub to
host and develop many of its specs including WAI stuff.
https://github.com/w3c

On Monday, 14 December 2015, Jon Metz < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> 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>
> <javascript:;>> 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>
> <javascript:;>> 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>
> <javascript:;>> 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>
> <javascript:;>>
> > >>> 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> <javascript:;>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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> <javascript:;>>
> > >>>>> 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.
> > >>>
> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >


--
--

Regards

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