WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: holding software vendors accountable for accessibility

for

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Sep 14, 2016 2:25AM

And to specifically address the issue with how inconsistently/badly
browsers have handled the "keyboard focus should move when following an
in-page link", the crux of the problem was that nothing had ever been
officially specified in any specification, and browsers had to make up
their own interpretation of what should happen.

Finally, the correct/expected behavior has now been properly documented
https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/editing.html#sec-sequential-focus-navigation
(thanks to the hard work of people working on specs, including browser
vendors), so browsers have a well-documented behavior that they can
consistently implement (see for instance the recent change in Chrome's
behavior
https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2016/03/focus-start-point?hl=en).

P

On 14/09/2016 09:01, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> Brook appears to point to browser vendors as the issue, in my experience
> browser vendors are the bright light in accessibility implementation on the
> web, they provide an open process for filing bugs and implement standards.
> It is mostly the Assistive tech vendors that are a problem as they do not
> generally have an open development process and do not participate in the
> development of standards.
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> SteveF
> Current Standards Work @W3C
> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>;
>
> On 13 September 2016 at 23:33, Jennifer Sutton < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> >> >> >> >>
> > > > >


--
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke