WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: holding software vendors accountable for accessibility

for

From: Brooks Newton
Date: Sep 14, 2016 1:00PM

Hi Jennifer,

Thanks for changing the subject line of my post. My apology for that screw up.

If you have taken the time to read my SANPRM comment, which I assume you have Jennifer and Steve, you'll notice that I included all software manufacturers that have an impact on the Web browsing experience as ones who should be regulated, in addition to site owners.

For those who haven't read my response (which, by the way was translated to PDF stamped "Accessible" beyond my control), it is available here:

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=DOJ-CRT-2016-0009-0052&attachmentNumber=2&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

In my DOJ response, I also provided some positive next steps that we as an industry can take now to bring about a more accessible Web experience for folks who browse with one or more disabilities. Patrick is right on point with the idea that we must first develop software standards, before we can hold software to account under the law.

I'm not interested complaining without offering a positive path forward. Make no mistake about it, I'm in awe of the phenomenal groundwork that has been laid by our colleagues to set the stage for inclusion of software regulation in laws such as the ADA. However, I think it is a really bad idea, in my opinion, to craft landmark accessibility legislation without providing for the opportunity for all relevant facets of the Web user experience to be synchronized, harmonized and planned for success.

I have to tell you, that I'm more than just a little bit bothered by the notion that we have discussed the shortcomings of software accessibility support as you say "more times than I can count," yet we still get handed a proposed Web accessibility regulation that goes out of its way to specifically exclude software from the scope of those obligated under the law. Have we discussed this so much that it doesn't even need to be mentioned anymore? Frankly, I think it is just the opposite.

Sometimes I feel like this discussion list serves an echo chamber to ratify and make quasi-official the ideas of a limited number of experts who do not necessarily consider the whole accessibility ecosystem in their recommended approaches to digital accessibility. Tightly focused "small picture" work is mission-critical for making progress on especially difficult technical challenges. But I think too often we get mired in the "very specific moment" as we search for answers to technical problems the lie before us. I promise you that I have read the discussions in this forum as thoroughly as you have, and I truly want for there to be more enhanced discussion of big picture issues. It is almost like there is an assumption that we've figured out the right direction in the journey, so now it's just time to keep our heads down in code without time to look up to see if we are headed off of a cliff in our journey. I guarantee you that if we pass the Title II update to the ADA without the inclusion of software regulation, we'll go right off that cliff with our heads buried in the minutiae all the way to the bottom.

How can we possibly hope for widespread adoption of accessible digital content without coordinating site owner responsibilities with software responsibilities? Are you thinking of new kinds of change that still put the full legal burden on site owners, without also holding responsible OS/UA/AT manufacturers? If so, please explain how you think that will work?

Brooks Newton

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Jennifer Sutton < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
> All:
>
>
> Steve and Patrick, thank you for bringing focus back to the very specific moment, today, for browsers and AT vendors. It was my goal to take the historic long view, here, based on my recollections of Brooks' previous comments of software vendors, more generally. We have had these same discussions more times than I can count (beyyond browsers and AT), so I was hoping to work for new kinds of change.
>
>
> But since WebAIM seems to be down for me, such that I can't confirm my recollection by searching the archives to offer citations, I guess what you two have said is all that need be said, unless others are interested in discussing the general subject further.
>
>
> Good luck to everyone in making the change we wish to see, wherever and however we can.
>
>
> Jennifer
>
>
>
>> On 9/14/2016 1:25 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>> 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/>;
>
>