WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

holding software vendors accountable for accessibility

for

From: Jennifer Sutton
Date: Sep 13, 2016 4:33PM

Brooks and all:


I'm taking the liberty of changing your subject line to one that might
catch people's attention and will certainly be more searchable in the
archives.


I'll also be bcc-ing some folks I know who work on browsers on this
message, including the link to the previous thread, though as we all
know, filing bugs gets much more attention than email ever does. For the
record, the link to the previous thread is this:


In-page Links and Programmatic Focus

http://webaim.org/discussion/mail_thread?threadv88



While I very much understand your frustration, Brooks, I've been around
the comments process for these things, i.e. the ADA regs., for many
years (since the beginning, in fact). I'm not at all concerned by the
relatively small number of comments you note, so far. People tend to
take a while to prepare these things, especially if they are commenting
on behalf of organizations/companies where several people may need to
review and approve. When I worked with folks to file comments, in the
early '90s, we never filed before the last day or two.


That being said, your reminder to submit comments is, I imagine, a
welcome one to those of us in the United States who needed one (like me).


I hope you will keep in mind that most folks on this list are not
representatives of software vendors; most of us are "on your side,"
(including, I expect, the software vendor reps. who are here). So maybe
it would be productive if we brainstormed here about specific
campaigns/collaborations. Typically, beating companies over the heads
with law doesn't make them very cooperative/happy, at least in my
experience, but proposing solutions where vendors are able to see and
take action sure as heck can.


Note that there are many people in the higher ed. arena who are working
with software vendors, either collaboratively, or as individual
entities, but many folks on this list might not know that.


Perhaps folks on this list have missed this post and may take heart from
it, or maybe it was posted, and I missed it:


Why Can't We Make It Easier To Be Accessible - Rosenfeld Media

http://rosenfeldmedia.com/announcements/cant-make-easier-accessible/


I want to stress that this issue of software accessibility reaches far
beyond Microsoft and Adobe, and it is going to be a very big ship to
turn. Will a change in U.S. regulations, if that happens, be enough to
impact this international issue? Time will tell.


In my experience, strategic, steady, and tactfully reasoned efforts win
the game.


So, who wants to propose some constructive next steps to reach out to
software companies -- browser vendors and others -- where they are
(which is typically not on this list, with thanks to those companies who
are here)?


What do software vendors who are here have to say? How can we help you
make change happen?


It seems to me that we've been talking about these kinds of software
issues on this list for well over a decade, now; what can we do that's
new and different? That is assuming that this list is an appropriate
place to coordinate advocacy efforts.


Filing comments is certainly one thing that those of us in the U.S. can
do, but that effort will take a good while to have an impact, so what else?


Best,

Jennifer




On 9/13/2016 2:41 PM, Brooks Newton wrote:
> If browser manufacturers are left out of the culpability loop for ensuring digital accessibility, we can expect to see sporadic support of accessible user experiences as the norm moving forward. Why on earth would these organizations give up one red cent of profit or one hour of "feature building" to develop and test for accessibility if they aren't compelled by law to do so? I am being facetious here, because I can in fact think of many good reasons, other than direct profit potential, to back standardized accessibility support on the part of user agents and other necessary software.
>
> I'd like to ask why software manufacturers have been very specifically excused from being obligated to support standard accessible interaction patterns via regulations, such as the case with the ADA do-over (Title II SANPRM). Who in this close-knit community of ours is giving the DOJ or other regulators the idea that site owners are the only ones who should have legal obligations to support Web accessibility and what is your rationale?
>
> If anyone is interested in reading more along these lines, I encourage you to read my formal response to the latest ADA SANPRM, and to file your own responses to the landmark ruling that will be coming down the pike as a result of this proposed rule making.
>
> Here is a PDF version of my extended remarks about the absurdity of not holding software manufacturers accountable for upholding their end of the digital accessibility equation.
>
> https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=DOJ-CRT-2016-0009-0052&attachmentNumber=2&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf
>
> Here is the link to comment on the proposed regulation of Web accessibility for U.S. state and local entities. The comment deadline has been extended until October 7, 2016.
>
> https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=DOJ-CRT-2016-0009-0047
>
> It looks to me like there have been a grand total of 58 responses submitted and posted to date in regard to this critically important pending regulation. Are people afraid to post personal responses for fear of retribution by their employers? What gives? I know there are at least a hundred passionate followers of this discussion list who have relevant perspectives to share with the Department of Justice on the future of Web accessibility in America.
>
> Brooks Newton
>
>
>