WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: WAVE 3.0 and Toolbar

for

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Aug 14, 2003 9:11AM

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 <EMAIL REMOVED> wrote:

> Misquoted, misinterpretted, misunderstood, wrong! Actually, if you re-read
> my message, you will find that I DID NOT EVER say that I was going to put
> the WCAG icon on it or that my suggestion of the "Congrats" message would be
> put on my web page.

Well, you referred to "discussions regarding the value of the WCAG
'badges'", which have specifically revolved around the idea of putting
them onto pages that purportedly conform to WCAG,

> As it works now, I have to review all of the icons to see what
> they are refering to and determine if their presence is an indicator of
> "passing" or "failing" - -

If you think that the understandability of the report is not good, why not
say that, instead of referring to "badges"? Most accessibility tools have
poor accessibility in their reports, and their authors don't seem to
realize this. But it's an entirely different topic.

> So, are you suggesting that accessibility validation cannot be programmed?

I'm not suggesting anything, just stating a fact. If you think it can be
programmed, you haven't understood the accessibility criteria. Even those
that look programmatically checkable are something quite different.
The classical example is the alt attribute. You can check whether it is
present for each <img> element, for example; actually, even a validator (a
real validator, i.e. markup validator) will do that, if you use any modern
document type definition. But it is impossible to check automatically that
the requirement of providing an _alternate_ text has been fulfilled, i.e.
text that adequately replaces the image when the image is not displayed.

> The WCAG group created their own validation tests
> against their different levels of priorities.

I'm not sure I see what tests you are referring to. The checklist?
It's not an automated test.

> When, as best as the program
> can do, a page has been determined to meet the requirements of a particular
> level, the WCAG suggests that you are welcome to place the badge on the
> page. If I remember correctly, UsableNet, Bobby and A-Prompt are similar -
> pass the test and you can use the badge. So, what is false about that?

The fact that the claim of the badge does not correspond to reality.
Actually, you can use any reasonable truth theory and find out that
the claims are false.

> If I
> review the manual tests and find that I have met those requirements too,
> then, personal taste aside, I am welcome to put the badge on my page.

No, you are not, since your "manual tests" give wrong results.

> Are you suggesting that the standards are false?

No, a standard is by definition neither false nor true. It is a norm.
A claim about conformance to a standard is true or false.

> If any one of us wants
> to "tell" prospective clients that we are capable of creating accessible
> webpages, what quicker way is there than to make our own pages accessible
> and demonstrate that with the WCAG badge.

To make your pages accessible and demonstrate it with actual
demonstrations involving people and modes of use for which accessibility
is essential.

Besides, now you _are_ writing about the WCAG badge as a seal of
accessibility, something that you strongly denied first. How could a seal
that you give yourself, after convincing yourself of the adequacy of the
automated test and the correctness of _your_ evaluations of the "manual
tests", prove anything? You are looking for pseudo-objectivity.

> Another option would be to explain how you have
> incorporated accessibility features into your page but again, that might
> take a lot of reading.

And surely pointless, if embedded into the pages themselves. Such
information should not be given to users. If you wish to convince
potential clients, explain things to them. And it'll be relatively
irrelevant _how_ you have incorporated accessibility features.

> If you really don't agree with the standards as they
> are right now,

The so-called standards cover some aspects of accessibility, mostly in a
correct way. Anyone who understands what accessibility is realizes that
standards _cannot_ cover but a limited scope of accessibility.

> you could state why they don't meet the true needs for
> accessibility but can you prove that or demonstrate that?

Why would I need to do that?

> Again, a
> long-winded explanation may be used but do you want to force your
> prospective clients to read your treatise?

Yeah, it would be pointless to give them real information, wouldn't it?

If they ask for WCAG 1.0 compliance, give them a compliance report,
including a neutral person's or organization's evaluation of the "manual
checks". Ditto for 508.

If they ask for accessibility, demonstrate what functionality your pages
have for people with disabilities. For example, make a speech browser read
your page for them. You could also ask what types of accessibility are
relevant to their potential users.

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/