E-mail List Archives
Thread: two worthwhile reads
Number of posts in this thread: 19 (In chronological order)
From: Jennison Mark Asuncion
Date: Sat, Sep 06 2014 2:19PM
Subject: two worthwhile reads
No previous message | Next message →
Hi,
Once again, WebAIM has done great work and has published salary and
other useful insights into working in digital accessibility. Results
of their summer survey are here
http://webaim.org/projects/practitionersurvey/
I also came across this piece and thought I'd share it. The '100%
accessible website' joke--do web accessibility professionals have a
sense of humour?
http://www.accessiq.org/news/w3c-column/2014/09/the-100-accessible-website-joke-do-web-accessibility-professionals-have-a
Jennison
From: Bryan Garaventa
Date: Sat, Sep 06 2014 6:20PM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | Next message →
It's amazing how much effort went into ripping my motives apart...
I've posted a reply, but I guess it won't show up for a while.
From: Karl Groves
Date: Sat, Sep 06 2014 8:13PM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | Next message →
"do web accessibility professionals have a sense of humour?"
It appears not.
Sad, really.
Denis Boudreau recently asked "A question for y'all this morning: why
do you think people feel that web accessibility is so hard?"
(https://twitter.com/dboudreau/status/508275085942464512)
Here's why I think it is so hard: because accessibility people expect
perfection and they're so willing to name and shame people who aren't
perfect. Accessibility people are constantly fighting among each
other and looking for stuff to complain about.
Bryan tried posting something humorous. Yeah, it was off-topic for the
mailing list, but who cares? I'd rather see humor on WAI-IG than
another idiotic debate about whether everything needs to work on Lynx
or not.
People need to stop looking around every corner for the next thing
that offends them and start looking for real, tangible, impactful ways
to advance accessibility into the mainstream.
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Jennison Mark Asuncion
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Once again, WebAIM has done great work and has published salary and
> other useful insights into working in digital accessibility. Results
> of their summer survey are here
> http://webaim.org/projects/practitionersurvey/
>
> I also came across this piece and thought I'd share it. The '100%
> accessible website' joke--do web accessibility professionals have a
> sense of humour?
> http://www.accessiq.org/news/w3c-column/2014/09/the-100-accessible-website-joke-do-web-accessibility-professionals-have-a
>
> Jennison
> > > --
Karl Groves
www.karlgroves.com
@karlgroves
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
Phone: +1 410.541.6829
Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks
www.tenon.io
From: Bryan Garaventa
Date: Sun, Sep 07 2014 12:04PM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | Next message →
I agree that more constructive and innovative solutions would be good to see.
I don't think my post was really off topic though for the WAI list, because it was addressing a valid point regarding web accessibility, which is that only a total lack of information is 100% accessible to all people equally, and the only way to represent this is with a blank page.
It was also supposed to be a thought experiment, designed to make people think instead of just reacting, which happens all too often. So all in all, since people are still talking about it, I guess this worked :)
The article seems to have missed the point of the accessibility algorithm as well, which wasn't a joke either, but actually based on real testing data using these technologies, so the calculation does work, even though they are just estimates and it may not be useful for anything specific. It does prove that the highest bar that any web technology can hope to achieve is the greatest percentage of accessibility for the greatest percentage of people possible using the most common ATs, which can never reach 100% for all people in the world equally no matter what is done to achieve this. We can only do our best...
From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Sun, Sep 07 2014 1:56PM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | Next message →
I agree with you, Karl. I know, this is not a good way to make new friends. ;)
While this is not the only reason and probably not the most important one either, our unreasonable expectations for perfection most likely explain why accessibility is viewed by a lot of people has being so hard.
If you follow the thread that was generated from my tweet (mostly from members of our echo chamber, unsurprisingly), you will see that a lot of really good, valid and legitimate feedback was shared. hat being said, what struck me yesterday as I was going through that feedback was that it seems like it is very easy for us to put the blame on the armies of developers, designers and otherwise clueless stakeholders out there who dont get it right off the bat.
What we more rarely hear about (and was vastly overlooked in that Twitter discussion) is recognizing our own inability to make accessibility engaging, interesting or even exciting to people outside our field. Developers and designers are used to tackling hard problems, they do it all the time. If theyre not willing to tackle this one, maybe its because were partly responsible with all our religious WCAG compliance nonsense. And maybe managers dont bite into it much because accessibility usually tastes like fear, uncertainty and doubt (make sure not to be sued).
By demanding nothing less than perfection, by setting these impossible to reach golden standards, and by quickly gunning down anyone who makes even the smallest of mistakes while trying to do the right thing, we are creating a situation where it just becomes impossible to please us. Of course, there are a lot of bad developers and designers out there, and then there are also the lazy ones (just like in any field), but I wouldnt be surprised if most people who give up on accessibiility do so because we directly or indirectly drive them to do it.
I witness examples of our intolerance in email threads, blog post comments and on social media all the time, and so do you. If we lowered our expectations, were a little more tolerant and allowed people to make mistakes as long as theyre really trying to do the right thing, maybe wed have more success and maybe our discipline would be more welcomed in the mainstream.
Unfortunately, it seems that for every accessiblity specialist out there who embraces a pragmatic, empathetic and welcoming approach to accessibility, there are about 10 who swear only but WCAG 2.0 hard-lines.
/Denis
On Sep 6, 2014, at 10:13 PM, Karl Groves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> "do web accessibility professionals have a sense of humour?"
>
> It appears not.
>
> Sad, really.
>
> Denis Boudreau recently asked "A question for yall this morning: why
> do you think people feel that web accessibility is so hard?"
> (https://twitter.com/dboudreau/status/508275085942464512)
>
> Here's why I think it is so hard: because accessibility people expect
> perfection and they're so willing to name and shame people who aren't
> perfect. Accessibility people are constantly fighting among each
> other and looking for stuff to complain about.
>
> Bryan tried posting something humorous. Yeah, it was off-topic for the
> mailing list, but who cares? I'd rather see humor on WAI-IG than
> another idiotic debate about whether everything needs to work on Lynx
> or not.
>
> People need to stop looking around every corner for the next thing
> that offends them and start looking for real, tangible, impactful ways
> to advance accessibility into the mainstream.
>
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Jennison Mark Asuncion
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Once again, WebAIM has done great work and has published salary and
>> other useful insights into working in digital accessibility. Results
>> of their summer survey are here
>> http://webaim.org/projects/practitionersurvey/
>>
>> I also came across this piece and thought I'd share it. The '100%
>> accessible website' joke--do web accessibility professionals have a
>> sense of humour?
>> http://www.accessiq.org/news/w3c-column/2014/09/the-100-accessible-website-joke-do-web-accessibility-professionals-have-a
>>
>> Jennison
>> >> >> >
>
>
> --
>
> Karl Groves
> www.karlgroves.com
> @karlgroves
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
> Phone: +1 410.541.6829
>
> Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks
>
> www.tenon.io
> > >
From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Mon, Sep 08 2014 7:31AM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | Next message →
While I definitely agree that it is good to praise people for the progress they do make while encouraging them to improve the accessibility in the future, I think I can also understand the perspective of people who don't want to accept anything less than complete accessibility.
If you believe that people with disabilities have a right to access, then it is easy to understand why you might feel that accessibility should be an expectation and any UI that isn't accessible should be considered poor quality.
From that perspective, small improvements to accessibility really aren't praiseworthy. It would be kind of like praising a project team for getting the look and feel of the buttons right even though they screwed up everything else on the UI. Also, I suspect that letting the other accessibility issues go when you know that the project team spent their focus working on other items that had less impact on individual users feels like a pretty rotten compromise.
However, I have a feeling that the best approach to increase accessibility of user interfaces across the board includes using both carrots and sticks. As much as I wish people could be engaged in such a manner that they all would choose to make things accessible, I think the pragmatic view is that such isn't the case. I feel that accessibility is closely tied to societal views on disability and there will always be people that hold a view of disability that will make accessibility seem to be trivial.
Of course, the pragmatic view also dictates that you use what you have to get done what you need to get done. So, if all you have is carrots, then you have to use them the best way you can. However, if you only have carrots or only have sticks, you probably won't ever be able to get as far as if you had everything you needed.
And brian, I did like what you put together. It definitely was both humourous and thought-provoking.
Thanks!
Tim
From: Thompson, Rachel
Date: Mon, Sep 08 2014 7:40AM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | Next message →
I¹m new to this field, new to this struggle, and I still have so much to
learn (many thanks to all of YOU for being my teachers, whether you know
it or not).
I am having accessibility conversations with developers and designers from
our campus and vendors from off-campus who supply many of the systems we
use. I have seen debates on the a11y lists that make my head spin. Our
developers and designers don¹t need to get bogged down in those details,
as far as I can tell, unless they want to. They need from us clear-cut
information about what is needed and recommendations on how to make that
happen. What I have been asked for are (1) a definitive list of what is
expected from a site/page (I share WCAG 2.0 AA in less technical language
with links to the real deal), (2) examples from their sites/tools that are
a problem for users. Done and done. It is always a conversation, always a
dialogue. It has never been (and I hope will not become) a list of demands
from me to our web design and development professionals, who roll their
eyes at my unreasonableness and that silly accessibility stuff. We need to
be a part of their team, at least while a site gets fixed or planned or
through whichever stage it is in.
I got the Ta-da joke after a few moments and it made me chuckle. I¹m glad
this discussion is happening and I hope we can laugh at ourselves more
frequently. It would be a good way to engage other groups we work with and
show that some of us recognize that 100% accessible is an unattainable
goal and unfunded mandate. I¹m gonna quote Denis here and continue to
embrace "a pragmatic, empathetic and welcoming approach to accessibility².
Happy Monday, y¹all.
Rachel
Dr. Rachel S. Thompson
Director, Emerging Technology and Accessibility
Center for Instructional Technology
University of Alabama
http://accessibility.ua.edu
On 09/07/14, 2:56 PM, "Denis Boudreau" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
I agree with you, Karl. I know, this is not a good way to make new
friends. ;)
While this is not the only reason and probably not the most important one
either, our unreasonable expectations for perfection most likely explain
why accessibility is viewed by a lot of people has being so hard.
If you follow the thread that was generated from my tweet (mostly from
members of our echo chamber, unsurprisingly), you will see that a lot of
really good, valid and legitimate feedback was shared. hat being said,
what struck me yesterday as I was going through that feedback was that it
seems like it is very easy for us to put the blame on the armies of
developers, designers and otherwise clueless stakeholders out there who
don¹t get it right off the bat.
What we more rarely hear about (and was vastly overlooked in that Twitter
discussion) is recognizing our own inability to make accessibility
engaging, interesting or even exciting to people outside our field.
Developers and designers are used to tackling hard problems, they do it
all the time. If they¹re not willing to tackle this one, maybe it¹s
because we¹re partly responsible with all our religious WCAG compliance
nonsense. And maybe managers don¹t bite into it much because accessibility
usually tastes like fear, uncertainty and doubt (make sure not to be sued).
By demanding nothing less than perfection, by setting these impossible to
reach golden standards, and by quickly gunning down anyone who makes even
the smallest of mistakes while trying to do the right thing, we are
creating a situation where it just becomes impossible to please us. Of
course, there are a lot of bad developers and designers out there, and
then there are also the lazy ones (just like in any field), but I wouldn¹t
be surprised if most people who give up on accessibiility do so because we
directly or indirectly drive them to do it.
I witness examples of our intolerance in email threads, blog post comments
and on social media all the time, and so do you. If we lowered our
expectations, were a little more tolerant and allowed people to make
mistakes as long as they¹re really trying to do the right thing, maybe
we¹d have more success and maybe our discipline would be more welcomed in
the mainstream.
Unfortunately, it seems that for every accessiblity specialist out there
who embraces a pragmatic, empathetic and welcoming approach to
accessibility, there are about 10 who swear only but WCAG 2.0 hard-lines.
/Denis
On Sep 6, 2014, at 10:13 PM, Karl Groves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> "do web accessibility professionals have a sense of humour?"
>
> It appears not.
>
> Sad, really.
>
> Denis Boudreau recently asked "A question for y¹all this morning: why
> do you think people feel that web accessibility is so hard?"
> (https://twitter.com/dboudreau/status/508275085942464512)
>
> Here's why I think it is so hard: because accessibility people expect
> perfection and they're so willing to name and shame people who aren't
> perfect. Accessibility people are constantly fighting among each
> other and looking for stuff to complain about.
>
> Bryan tried posting something humorous. Yeah, it was off-topic for the
> mailing list, but who cares? I'd rather see humor on WAI-IG than
> another idiotic debate about whether everything needs to work on Lynx
> or not.
>
> People need to stop looking around every corner for the next thing
> that offends them and start looking for real, tangible, impactful ways
> to advance accessibility into the mainstream.
>
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Jennison Mark Asuncion
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Once again, WebAIM has done great work and has published salary and
>> other useful insights into working in digital accessibility. Results
>> of their summer survey are here
>> http://webaim.org/projects/practitionersurvey/
>>
>> I also came across this piece and thought I'd share it. The '100%
>> accessible website' joke--do web accessibility professionals have a
>> sense of humour?
>>
>>http://www.accessiq.org/news/w3c-column/2014/09/the-100-accessible-websit
>>e-joke-do-web-accessibility-professionals-have-a
>>
>> Jennison
>> >> >> >
>
>
> --
>
> Karl Groves
> www.karlgroves.com
> @karlgroves
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
> Phone: +1 410.541.6829
>
> Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks
>
> www.tenon.io
> > >
From: Thompson, Rachel
Date: Mon, Sep 08 2014 7:44AM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | Next message →
And to clarify, my institution is at the beginning of its accessibility
initiative. We starting reviewing important UA sites and talking with
their web teams just a few weeks ago. If you have suggestions on how to
move it along, how to best talk to the skilled professionals who create
sites that may have accessibility issues, etc, please share.
Rachel
Dr. Rachel S. Thompson
Director, Emerging Technology and Accessibility
Center for Instructional Technology
University of Alabama
http://accessibility.ua.edu
On 09/08/14, 8:40 AM, "Thompson, Rachel" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
I©öm new to this field, new to this struggle, and I still have so much to
learn (many thanks to all of YOU for being my teachers, whether you know
it or not).
I am having accessibility conversations with developers and designers from
our campus and vendors from off-campus who supply many of the systems we
use. I have seen debates on the a11y lists that make my head spin. Our
developers and designers don©öt need to get bogged down in those details,
as far as I can tell, unless they want to. They need from us clear-cut
information about what is needed and recommendations on how to make that
happen. What I have been asked for are (1) a definitive list of what is
expected from a site/page (I share WCAG 2.0 AA in less technical language
with links to the real deal), (2) examples from their sites/tools that are
a problem for users. Done and done. It is always a conversation, always a
dialogue. It has never been (and I hope will not become) a list of demands
from me to our web design and development professionals, who roll their
eyes at my unreasonableness and that silly accessibility stuff. We need to
be a part of their team, at least while a site gets fixed or planned or
through whichever stage it is in.
I got the Ta-da joke after a few moments and it made me chuckle. I©öm glad
this discussion is happening and I hope we can laugh at ourselves more
frequently. It would be a good way to engage other groups we work with and
show that some of us recognize that 100% accessible is an unattainable
goal and unfunded mandate. I©öm gonna quote Denis here and continue to
embrace "a pragmatic, empathetic and welcoming approach to accessibility©÷.
Happy Monday, y©öall.
Rachel
Dr. Rachel S. Thompson
Director, Emerging Technology and Accessibility
Center for Instructional Technology
University of Alabama
http://accessibility.ua.edu
On 09/07/14, 2:56 PM, "Denis Boudreau" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
I agree with you, Karl. I know, this is not a good way to make new
friends. ;)
While this is not the only reason and probably not the most important one
either, our unreasonable expectations for perfection most likely explain
why accessibility is viewed by a lot of people has being so hard.
If you follow the thread that was generated from my tweet (mostly from
members of our echo chamber, unsurprisingly), you will see that a lot of
really good, valid and legitimate feedback was shared. hat being said,
what struck me yesterday as I was going through that feedback was that it
seems like it is very easy for us to put the blame on the armies of
developers, designers and otherwise clueless stakeholders out there who
don©öt get it right off the bat.
What we more rarely hear about (and was vastly overlooked in that Twitter
discussion) is recognizing our own inability to make accessibility
engaging, interesting or even exciting to people outside our field.
Developers and designers are used to tackling hard problems, they do it
all the time. If they©öre not willing to tackle this one, maybe it©ös
because we©öre partly responsible with all our religious WCAG compliance
nonsense. And maybe managers don©öt bite into it much because accessibility
usually tastes like fear, uncertainty and doubt (make sure not to be sued).
By demanding nothing less than perfection, by setting these impossible to
reach golden standards, and by quickly gunning down anyone who makes even
the smallest of mistakes while trying to do the right thing, we are
creating a situation where it just becomes impossible to please us. Of
course, there are a lot of bad developers and designers out there, and
then there are also the lazy ones (just like in any field), but I wouldn©öt
be surprised if most people who give up on accessibiility do so because we
directly or indirectly drive them to do it.
I witness examples of our intolerance in email threads, blog post comments
and on social media all the time, and so do you. If we lowered our
expectations, were a little more tolerant and allowed people to make
mistakes as long as they©öre really trying to do the right thing, maybe
we©öd have more success and maybe our discipline would be more welcomed in
the mainstream.
Unfortunately, it seems that for every accessiblity specialist out there
who embraces a pragmatic, empathetic and welcoming approach to
accessibility, there are about 10 who swear only but WCAG 2.0 hard-lines.
/Denis
On Sep 6, 2014, at 10:13 PM, Karl Groves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> "do web accessibility professionals have a sense of humour?"
>
> It appears not.
>
> Sad, really.
>
> Denis Boudreau recently asked "A question for y©öall this morning: why
> do you think people feel that web accessibility is so hard?"
> (https://twitter.com/dboudreau/status/508275085942464512)
>
> Here's why I think it is so hard: because accessibility people expect
> perfection and they're so willing to name and shame people who aren't
> perfect. Accessibility people are constantly fighting among each
> other and looking for stuff to complain about.
>
> Bryan tried posting something humorous. Yeah, it was off-topic for the
> mailing list, but who cares? I'd rather see humor on WAI-IG than
> another idiotic debate about whether everything needs to work on Lynx
> or not.
>
> People need to stop looking around every corner for the next thing
> that offends them and start looking for real, tangible, impactful ways
> to advance accessibility into the mainstream.
>
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Jennison Mark Asuncion
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Once again, WebAIM has done great work and has published salary and
>> other useful insights into working in digital accessibility. Results
>> of their summer survey are here
>> http://webaim.org/projects/practitionersurvey/
>>
>> I also came across this piece and thought I'd share it. The '100%
>> accessible website' joke--do web accessibility professionals have a
>> sense of humour?
>>
>>http://www.accessiq.org/news/w3c-column/2014/09/the-100-accessible-websit
>>e-joke-do-web-accessibility-professionals-have-a
>>
>> Jennison
>> >> >> >
>
>
> --
>
> Karl Groves
> www.karlgroves.com
> @karlgroves
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
> Phone: +1 410.541.6829
>
> Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks
>
> www.tenon.io
> > >
From: deborah.kaplan
Date: Mon, Sep 08 2014 8:28AM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | Next message →
Rachel, when I was at Tufts University, we were so sure that we were going
to put together a website that boiled down WCAG to a set of clear, modern,
applicable standards and examples which pprovided both your 1 and your 2.
I'm proud of the end result we produced:
http://sites.tufts.edu/uxstandards/
But by no means is it a definitive list with all of the examples people
needed. In the process of creating the website, all of us -- from web
accessibility experts to web design experts and content people --
discovered that creating such a practical definitive list and adequate
examples is impossible.
The fact is accessibility is complex, web development is always moving, and
there is always pressure on the web developers in many organizations to
both use the newest and shiniest technology, and also the frameworks
provided by the organization. You will notice that the site I linked above
is not, in itself, the world's most accessible website. This comes down
to those institutional pressures; the web framework we had to use, and the
time limits we had for building the site. These were the kinds of
negotiations we discovered our institutional developers really wanted us to
solve for them: "if I am using this look and feel provided by my manager,
and I am using this web framework provided by my department, tell me how to
make everything perfectly accessible without me understanding
accessibility, having accessibility testers, or spending substantially more
time."
It's impossible. A large organization such as a university simply has to
have an accessibility expert on the payroll to help the developers, and
all it will take to convince them is ... more embarrassing stories on the
front page of the Chronicle of Higher Education, more lawsuits from the
NFB, more awareness that accessibility gaps cause reputational and legal
risk.
Based on your sig, your university has figured this out and hired you.
Kudos! Now to get the rest of them. :)
I will also point out that if an institution standardizes on, say, Drupal
or Django or Ruby on Rails or some other platform, language, or framework,
none of the developers expects that they can go to a single website,, read
a checklist, and be able to be a good developer without actually
understanding at least the essentials of that platform, language, or
framework. And yet for some reason with accessibility developers think they
don't need to actually learn the skill set.
Deborah Kaplan
On Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Thompson, Rachel wrote:
> I¹m new to this field, new to this struggle, and I still have so much to
> learn (many thanks to all of YOU for being my teachers, whether you know
> it or not).
>
> I am having accessibility conversations with developers and designers from
> our campus and vendors from off-campus who supply many of the systems we
> use. I have seen debates on the a11y lists that make my head spin. Our
> developers and designers don¹t need to get bogged down in those details,
> as far as I can tell, unless they want to. They need from us clear-cut
> information about what is needed and recommendations on how to make that
> happen. What I have been asked for are (1) a definitive list of what is
> expected from a site/page (I share WCAG 2.0 AA in less technical language
> with links to the real deal), (2) examples from their sites/tools that are
> a problem for users. Done and done. It is always a conversation, always a
> dialogue. It has never been (and I hope will not become) a list of demands
> from me to our web design and development professionals, who roll their
> eyes at my unreasonableness and that silly accessibility stuff. We need to
> be a part of their team, at least while a site gets fixed or planned or
> through whichever stage it is in.
>
> I got the Ta-da joke after a few moments and it made me chuckle. I¹m glad
> this discussion is happening and I hope we can laugh at ourselves more
> frequently. It would be a good way to engage other groups we work with and
> show that some of us recognize that 100% accessible is an unattainable
> goal and unfunded mandate. I¹m gonna quote Denis here and continue to
> embrace "a pragmatic, empathetic and welcoming approach to accessibility².
>
> Happy Monday, y¹all.
>
> Rachel
>
> Dr. Rachel S. Thompson
> Director, Emerging Technology and Accessibility
> Center for Instructional Technology
> University of Alabama
> http://accessibility.ua.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 09/07/14, 2:56 PM, "Denis Boudreau" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> I agree with you, Karl. I know, this is not a good way to make new
> friends. ;)
>
> While this is not the only reason and probably not the most important one
> either, our unreasonable expectations for perfection most likely explain
> why accessibility is viewed by a lot of people has being so hard.
>
> If you follow the thread that was generated from my tweet (mostly from
> members of our echo chamber, unsurprisingly), you will see that a lot of
> really good, valid and legitimate feedback was shared. hat being said,
> what struck me yesterday as I was going through that feedback was that it
> seems like it is very easy for us to put the blame on the armies of
> developers, designers and otherwise clueless stakeholders out there who
> don¹t get it right off the bat.
>
> What we more rarely hear about (and was vastly overlooked in that Twitter
> discussion) is recognizing our own inability to make accessibility
> engaging, interesting or even exciting to people outside our field.
> Developers and designers are used to tackling hard problems, they do it
> all the time. If they¹re not willing to tackle this one, maybe it¹s
> because we¹re partly responsible with all our religious WCAG compliance
> nonsense. And maybe managers don¹t bite into it much because accessibility
> usually tastes like fear, uncertainty and doubt (make sure not to be sued).
>
> By demanding nothing less than perfection, by setting these impossible to
> reach golden standards, and by quickly gunning down anyone who makes even
> the smallest of mistakes while trying to do the right thing, we are
> creating a situation where it just becomes impossible to please us. Of
> course, there are a lot of bad developers and designers out there, and
> then there are also the lazy ones (just like in any field), but I wouldn¹t
> be surprised if most people who give up on accessibiility do so because we
> directly or indirectly drive them to do it.
>
> I witness examples of our intolerance in email threads, blog post comments
> and on social media all the time, and so do you. If we lowered our
> expectations, were a little more tolerant and allowed people to make
> mistakes as long as they¹re really trying to do the right thing, maybe
> we¹d have more success and maybe our discipline would be more welcomed in
> the mainstream.
>
> Unfortunately, it seems that for every accessiblity specialist out there
> who embraces a pragmatic, empathetic and welcoming approach to
> accessibility, there are about 10 who swear only but WCAG 2.0 hard-lines.
>
> /Denis
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2014, at 10:13 PM, Karl Groves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> "do web accessibility professionals have a sense of humour?"
>>
>> It appears not.
>>
>> Sad, really.
>>
>> Denis Boudreau recently asked "A question for y¹all this morning: why
>> do you think people feel that web accessibility is so hard?"
>> (https://twitter.com/dboudreau/status/508275085942464512)
>>
>> Here's why I think it is so hard: because accessibility people expect
>> perfection and they're so willing to name and shame people who aren't
>> perfect. Accessibility people are constantly fighting among each
>> other and looking for stuff to complain about.
>>
>> Bryan tried posting something humorous. Yeah, it was off-topic for the
>> mailing list, but who cares? I'd rather see humor on WAI-IG than
>> another idiotic debate about whether everything needs to work on Lynx
>> or not.
>>
>> People need to stop looking around every corner for the next thing
>> that offends them and start looking for real, tangible, impactful ways
>> to advance accessibility into the mainstream.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Jennison Mark Asuncion
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Once again, WebAIM has done great work and has published salary and
>>> other useful insights into working in digital accessibility. Results
>>> of their summer survey are here
>>> http://webaim.org/projects/practitionersurvey/
>>>
>>> I also came across this piece and thought I'd share it. The '100%
>>> accessible website' joke--do web accessibility professionals have a
>>> sense of humour?
>>>
>>> http://www.accessiq.org/news/w3c-column/2014/09/the-100-accessible-websit
>>> e-joke-do-web-accessibility-professionals-have-a
>>>
>>> Jennison
>>> >>> >>> >>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Karl Groves
>> www.karlgroves.com
>> @karlgroves
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
>> Phone: +1 410.541.6829
>>
>> Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks
>>
>> www.tenon.io
>> >> >> >
> > > >
> > > >
>
--
From: Karl Groves
Date: Mon, Sep 08 2014 8:34AM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | Next message →
Rachel,
i have several blog posts relating to "Selling accessibility" that may
interest you
http://www.karlgroves.com/category/selling-accessibility/
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Thompson, Rachel < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> And to clarify, my institution is at the beginning of its accessibility
> initiative. We starting reviewing important UA sites and talking with
> their web teams just a few weeks ago. If you have suggestions on how to
> move it along, how to best talk to the skilled professionals who create
> sites that may have accessibility issues, etc, please share.
>
> Rachel
>
> Dr. Rachel S. Thompson
> Director, Emerging Technology and Accessibility
> Center for Instructional Technology
> University of Alabama
> http://accessibility.ua.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 09/08/14, 8:40 AM, "Thompson, Rachel" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> I¹m new to this field, new to this struggle, and I still have so much to
> learn (many thanks to all of YOU for being my teachers, whether you know
> it or not).
>
> I am having accessibility conversations with developers and designers from
> our campus and vendors from off-campus who supply many of the systems we
> use. I have seen debates on the a11y lists that make my head spin. Our
> developers and designers don¹t need to get bogged down in those details,
> as far as I can tell, unless they want to. They need from us clear-cut
> information about what is needed and recommendations on how to make that
> happen. What I have been asked for are (1) a definitive list of what is
> expected from a site/page (I share WCAG 2.0 AA in less technical language
> with links to the real deal), (2) examples from their sites/tools that are
> a problem for users. Done and done. It is always a conversation, always a
> dialogue. It has never been (and I hope will not become) a list of demands
> from me to our web design and development professionals, who roll their
> eyes at my unreasonableness and that silly accessibility stuff. We need to
> be a part of their team, at least while a site gets fixed or planned or
> through whichever stage it is in.
>
> I got the Ta-da joke after a few moments and it made me chuckle. I¹m glad
> this discussion is happening and I hope we can laugh at ourselves more
> frequently. It would be a good way to engage other groups we work with and
> show that some of us recognize that 100% accessible is an unattainable
> goal and unfunded mandate. I¹m gonna quote Denis here and continue to
> embrace "a pragmatic, empathetic and welcoming approach to accessibility².
>
> Happy Monday, y¹all.
>
> Rachel
>
> Dr. Rachel S. Thompson
> Director, Emerging Technology and Accessibility
> Center for Instructional Technology
> University of Alabama
> http://accessibility.ua.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 09/07/14, 2:56 PM, "Denis Boudreau" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> I agree with you, Karl. I know, this is not a good way to make new
> friends. ;)
>
> While this is not the only reason and probably not the most important one
> either, our unreasonable expectations for perfection most likely explain
> why accessibility is viewed by a lot of people has being so hard.
>
> If you follow the thread that was generated from my tweet (mostly from
> members of our echo chamber, unsurprisingly), you will see that a lot of
> really good, valid and legitimate feedback was shared. hat being said,
> what struck me yesterday as I was going through that feedback was that it
> seems like it is very easy for us to put the blame on the armies of
> developers, designers and otherwise clueless stakeholders out there who
> don¹t get it right off the bat.
>
> What we more rarely hear about (and was vastly overlooked in that Twitter
> discussion) is recognizing our own inability to make accessibility
> engaging, interesting or even exciting to people outside our field.
> Developers and designers are used to tackling hard problems, they do it
> all the time. If they¹re not willing to tackle this one, maybe it¹s
> because we¹re partly responsible with all our religious WCAG compliance
> nonsense. And maybe managers don¹t bite into it much because accessibility
> usually tastes like fear, uncertainty and doubt (make sure not to be sued).
>
> By demanding nothing less than perfection, by setting these impossible to
> reach golden standards, and by quickly gunning down anyone who makes even
> the smallest of mistakes while trying to do the right thing, we are
> creating a situation where it just becomes impossible to please us. Of
> course, there are a lot of bad developers and designers out there, and
> then there are also the lazy ones (just like in any field), but I wouldn¹t
> be surprised if most people who give up on accessibiility do so because we
> directly or indirectly drive them to do it.
>
> I witness examples of our intolerance in email threads, blog post comments
> and on social media all the time, and so do you. If we lowered our
> expectations, were a little more tolerant and allowed people to make
> mistakes as long as they¹re really trying to do the right thing, maybe
> we¹d have more success and maybe our discipline would be more welcomed in
> the mainstream.
>
> Unfortunately, it seems that for every accessiblity specialist out there
> who embraces a pragmatic, empathetic and welcoming approach to
> accessibility, there are about 10 who swear only but WCAG 2.0 hard-lines.
>
> /Denis
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2014, at 10:13 PM, Karl Groves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> "do web accessibility professionals have a sense of humour?"
>>
>> It appears not.
>>
>> Sad, really.
>>
>> Denis Boudreau recently asked "A question for y¹all this morning: why
>> do you think people feel that web accessibility is so hard?"
>> (https://twitter.com/dboudreau/status/508275085942464512)
>>
>> Here's why I think it is so hard: because accessibility people expect
>> perfection and they're so willing to name and shame people who aren't
>> perfect. Accessibility people are constantly fighting among each
>> other and looking for stuff to complain about.
>>
>> Bryan tried posting something humorous. Yeah, it was off-topic for the
>> mailing list, but who cares? I'd rather see humor on WAI-IG than
>> another idiotic debate about whether everything needs to work on Lynx
>> or not.
>>
>> People need to stop looking around every corner for the next thing
>> that offends them and start looking for real, tangible, impactful ways
>> to advance accessibility into the mainstream.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Jennison Mark Asuncion
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Once again, WebAIM has done great work and has published salary and
>>> other useful insights into working in digital accessibility. Results
>>> of their summer survey are here
>>> http://webaim.org/projects/practitionersurvey/
>>>
>>> I also came across this piece and thought I'd share it. The '100%
>>> accessible website' joke--do web accessibility professionals have a
>>> sense of humour?
>>>
>>>http://www.accessiq.org/news/w3c-column/2014/09/the-100-accessible-websit
>>>e-joke-do-web-accessibility-professionals-have-a
>>>
>>> Jennison
>>> >>> >>> >>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Karl Groves
>> www.karlgroves.com
>> @karlgroves
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
>> Phone: +1 410.541.6829
>>
>> Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks
>>
>> www.tenon.io
>> >> >> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > --
Karl Groves
www.karlgroves.com
@karlgroves
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
Phone: +1 410.541.6829
Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks
www.tenon.io
From: Bryan Garaventa
Date: Mon, Sep 08 2014 8:58AM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | Next message →
>"if I am using this look and feel provided by my manager, and I am using this web framework provided by my department, tell me how to make everything perfectly accessible without me understanding accessibility, having accessibility testers, or spending substantially more time."
Unfortunately this always comes back to the same problem, that developers aren't typically trained in accessible programming techniques at the same time they are learning how to program, thus ensuring that every framework and JS library that is built for enterprise production will have the same problems.
Many universities are starting to do this, but developers in the wild still are usually totally ignorant of these concepts when learning JavaScript for example, which is necessary in order to properly meld HTML, CSS, and scripting behaviors accessibly within reusable components.
From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Mon, Sep 08 2014 9:07AM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | Next message →
Tim,
I think you described the struggle we face between being satisfied with scraps and asking for too much. Its a thin line that can easily be crossed. Of course, we all want the best accessible products possible
I cant imagine any of us being satisfied with anything less. But theres a difference between wanting perfection while doing all we can to support the front line into achieving that goal, and commanding them for perfection at the crack of a whip, while not being opened to acknowledging genuine efforts that may be less than perfect, but still get us one step closer.
Accessibility is a journey. And a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Maybe that step is a button marked up as such instead of using a link. Maybe its using heading markup instead of styled paragraphs. Maybe sometimes its even acknowledging to the use of ARIA if significant semantic changes really cannot be made to the underlying markup.
We dont need to go crazy with praises the second developers and designers get one little thing right.. Maybe we should wait until they have reached their 100th step, who knows? All Im saying is, encouragements and a positive attitude often go a longer way. Sometimes, it feels like I should change my title to Web Accessibility Cheerleader. But if that's what it takes, man, watch me put on those tights!
I also understand that for some people, this is very personal. Trust me, I get that. I have been schooled. Often. While I am not really impacted by it personally, I believe myself to be empathetic enough to intellectualize what it must be like to be excluded. And it bothers me enough that Im still fighting that fight 15 years later. Trust me, it would be much easier to just swallow the blue pill. But the one thing Ive learned after all those years is that you usually attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.
I realize some people respond better to the stick than they do with the carrot. But I like to think not everyone is like that. Its ok to reach for the stars, as long as youre willing to settle for the moon. But being unwilling to accept anything short than perfection can ultimately only be disruptive.
Ok, enough with the cheesy metaphors and movie references. I have a team of well-intentioned developers to go cheer up. :)
/Denis
On Sep 8, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Tim Harshbarger < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> While I definitely agree that it is good to praise people for the progress they do make while encouraging them to improve the accessibility in the future, I think I can also understand the perspective of people who don't want to accept anything less than complete accessibility.
>
> If you believe that people with disabilities have a right to access, then it is easy to understand why you might feel that accessibility should be an expectation and any UI that isn't accessible should be considered poor quality.
>
> From that perspective, small improvements to accessibility really aren't praiseworthy. It would be kind of like praising a project team for getting the look and feel of the buttons right even though they screwed up everything else on the UI. Also, I suspect that letting the other accessibility issues go when you know that the project team spent their focus working on other items that had less impact on individual users feels like a pretty rotten compromise.
>
> However, I have a feeling that the best approach to increase accessibility of user interfaces across the board includes using both carrots and sticks. As much as I wish people could be engaged in such a manner that they all would choose to make things accessible, I think the pragmatic view is that such isn't the case. I feel that accessibility is closely tied to societal views on disability and there will always be people that hold a view of disability that will make accessibility seem to be trivial.
>
> Of course, the pragmatic view also dictates that you use what you have to get done what you need to get done. So, if all you have is carrots, then you have to use them the best way you can. However, if you only have carrots or only have sticks, you probably won't ever be able to get as far as if you had everything you needed.
>
> And brian, I did like what you put together. It definitely was both humourous and thought-provoking.
>
> Thanks!
> Tim
>
From: Jordan Wilson
Date: Mon, Sep 08 2014 12:30PM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | Next message →
Great thoughts everyone,
I really appreciate Bryan's post starting this conversation, and I
strongly agree with Denis that having a pragmatic approach to
accessibility is an area that this community often struggles with. Many of
our own experiences lead us to valueing accessibility to an extent that is
not reasonable for those around us. Rather than expecting that every
designer/developer learn to share our convictions, we as a community would
be better served by working to simplify the barriers to entry and level of
effort needed to help them to be successful.
On 9/8/14 11:07 AM, "Denis Boudreau" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>Tim,
>
>I think you described the struggle we face between being satisfied with
>scraps and asking for too much. It¹s a thin line that can easily be
>crossed. Of course, we all want the best accessible products possible I
>can¹t imagine any of us being satisfied with anything less. But there¹s a
>difference between wanting perfection while doing all we can to support
>the front line into achieving that goal, and commanding them for
>perfection at the crack of a whip, while not being opened to
>acknowledging genuine efforts that may be less than perfect, but still
>get us one step closer.
>
>Accessibility is a journey. And a journey of a thousand miles begins with
>a single step. Maybe that step is a button marked up as such instead of
>using a link. Maybe it¹s using heading markup instead of styled
>paragraphs. Maybe sometimes it¹s even acknowledging to the use of ARIA if
>significant semantic changes really cannot be made to the underlying
>markup.
>
>We don¹t need to go crazy with praises the second developers and
>designers get one little thing right.. Maybe we should wait until they
>have reached their 100th step, who knows? All I¹m saying is,
>encouragements and a positive attitude often go a longer way. Sometimes,
>it feels like I should change my title to Web Accessibility Cheerleader.
>But if that's what it takes, man, watch me put on those tights!
>
>I also understand that for some people, this is very personal. Trust me,
>I get that. I have been schooled. Often. While I am not really impacted
>by it personally, I believe myself to be empathetic enough to
>intellectualize what it must be like to be excluded. And it bothers me
>enough that I¹m still fighting that fight 15 years later. Trust me, it
>would be much easier to just swallow the blue pill. But the one thing
>I¹ve learned after all those years is that you usually attract more flies
>with honey than with vinegar.
>
>I realize some people respond better to the stick than they do with the
>carrot. But I like to think not everyone is like that. It¹s ok to reach
>for the stars, as long as you¹re willing to settle for the moon. But
>being unwilling to accept anything short than perfection can ultimately
>only be disruptive.
>
>Ok, enough with the cheesy metaphors and movie references. I have a team
>of well-intentioned developers to go cheer up. :)
>
>/Denis
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sep 8, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Tim Harshbarger
>< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> While I definitely agree that it is good to praise people for the
>>progress they do make while encouraging them to improve the
>>accessibility in the future, I think I can also understand the
>>perspective of people who don't want to accept anything less than
>>complete accessibility.
>>
>> If you believe that people with disabilities have a right to access,
>>then it is easy to understand why you might feel that accessibility
>>should be an expectation and any UI that isn't accessible should be
>>considered poor quality.
>>
>> From that perspective, small improvements to accessibility really
>>aren't praiseworthy. It would be kind of like praising a project team
>>for getting the look and feel of the buttons right even though they
>>screwed up everything else on the UI. Also, I suspect that letting the
>>other accessibility issues go when you know that the project team spent
>>their focus working on other items that had less impact on individual
>>users feels like a pretty rotten compromise.
>>
>> However, I have a feeling that the best approach to increase
>>accessibility of user interfaces across the board includes using both
>>carrots and sticks. As much as I wish people could be engaged in such a
>>manner that they all would choose to make things accessible, I think the
>>pragmatic view is that such isn't the case. I feel that accessibility
>>is closely tied to societal views on disability and there will always be
>>people that hold a view of disability that will make accessibility seem
>>to be trivial.
>>
>> Of course, the pragmatic view also dictates that you use what you have
>>to get done what you need to get done. So, if all you have is carrots,
>>then you have to use them the best way you can. However, if you only
>>have carrots or only have sticks, you probably won't ever be able to get
>>as far as if you had everything you needed.
>>
>> And brian, I did like what you put together. It definitely was both
>>humourous and thought-provoking.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Tim
>>
From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Mon, Sep 08 2014 1:37PM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | Next message →
Actually, let me bring up something that might be good to discuss for everyone's benefit while we are on this topic.
So, let's say you want to practice incremental accessibility--that is you want to practice accessibility in a way where you get people to improve the accessibility of their site or application over a period of time.
So, you are talking to Dean the developer and you convince him to increase the accessibility of his site. Later, you work with him again and show him how he can improve his site more. You keep repeating this pattern of incremental accessibility. Then one day, Dean asks you "How much accessibility is enough?"
What are good ways to engage with developers and designers to build the accessibility of their digital content incrementally that helps them answer the question "how much is enough?" Is there a point where you tell them they don't have to do anything else? When we are sheperding people on the journey, where are we wanting to take them to?
From: Bryan Garaventa
Date: Mon, Sep 08 2014 2:50PM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | Next message →
Personally, I think it's much more important to teach developers how to understand accessibility and how it works, such as the most
common ATs and the differences between them, how these interact with web content, how markup effects this functionality, how
scripting such as event handling and focus movement should match various element roles, how to check this information in the
Accessibility Tree and what the Accessibility Tree is, and how to use the various specs and guidelines to confirm implementation
design.
For developers receptive to this, I've found this usually results in much more accessible software, because the developer is better
informed and understands the concepts being applied, and how to identify the issues when they aren't working properly.
In contrast, when piecemeal information is fed to developers incrementally, it's like looking at one leaf of a tree at a time, and
trying to get them to imagine what the whole tree looks like using only that information.
[For the record: What follows is a joke. It does not in any way promote the disparaging of any person or group, including those with
disabilities. Nor does it endorse the harming of others, physically or otherwise, including the ignition of any individual for any
reason, willing or otherwise. Nor does it in any way, implied or otherwise, endorse the use of humor for any reason.]
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life", Terry Pratchett
From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Mon, Sep 08 2014 3:28PM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | Next message →
Not sure where to jump in. When Bryan posted this, I disagreed with him
with this test being accessible to all. Here's why : My parents have a poor
internet connection, their computer is decent. Sites like Facebook can take
a minute plus to load. So clicking on this link, and getting a blank page
is nothing new. But won't they see the wheel not spinning? Nope, tried
explaining that to my mom before, got no where. I would give her about 5
minutes before just giving up, with the assumption of her net being dumb.
Would that be considered accessible? I'd say no, because some would know
the page is supposed to be blank, and others wouldn't. Wouldn't this be a
violation of a core WCAG Principle?
Another example is a person who came into my workplace who'd at times get
visibly upset at times when a page take a while to load. I won't say his
disability, but he would then analyze why somebody would put up a blank
page online. After a while he may get the joke.
--
Ryan E. Benson
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Karl Groves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> "do web accessibility professionals have a sense of humour?"
>
> It appears not.
>
> Sad, really.
>
> Denis Boudreau recently asked "A question for y'all this morning: why
> do you think people feel that web accessibility is so hard?"
> (https://twitter.com/dboudreau/status/508275085942464512)
>
> Here's why I think it is so hard: because accessibility people expect
> perfection and they're so willing to name and shame people who aren't
> perfect. Accessibility people are constantly fighting among each
> other and looking for stuff to complain about.
>
> Bryan tried posting something humorous. Yeah, it was off-topic for the
> mailing list, but who cares? I'd rather see humor on WAI-IG than
> another idiotic debate about whether everything needs to work on Lynx
> or not.
>
> People need to stop looking around every corner for the next thing
> that offends them and start looking for real, tangible, impactful ways
> to advance accessibility into the mainstream.
>
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Jennison Mark Asuncion
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Once again, WebAIM has done great work and has published salary and
> > other useful insights into working in digital accessibility. Results
> > of their summer survey are here
> > http://webaim.org/projects/practitionersurvey/
> >
> > I also came across this piece and thought I'd share it. The '100%
> > accessible website' joke--do web accessibility professionals have a
> > sense of humour?
> >
> http://www.accessiq.org/news/w3c-column/2014/09/the-100-accessible-website-joke-do-web-accessibility-professionals-have-a
> >
> > Jennison
> > > > > > >
>
>
> --
>
> Karl Groves
> www.karlgroves.com
> @karlgroves
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
> Phone: +1 410.541.6829
>
> Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks
>
> www.tenon.io
> > > >
From: Bryan Garaventa
Date: Mon, Sep 08 2014 3:54PM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | Next message →
I understand what you mean, but the intent isn't to confuse anybody, but to prove a conceptual point; this being that only a total lack of information is 100% accessible to all people equally, and that all web accessibility must as a result scale downwards from that absolute point. Since the page has no practical purpose at all, and provides nothing to anybody, everybody receives the same amount of information, and it is thus compliant with all standards because no population receives any more information than any other, making it equally accessible to all.
As I've said, it's just a thought experiment to prove the point.
If you personally were going to try and represent this concept to people using a web page, keeping in mind that it is a thought experiment so you can't explain all of this in advance, how would you set up the page to show this?
From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Mon, Sep 08 2014 4:39PM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | Next message →
If it is a thought experiment, shouldn't you purposely leave out details to
see what people's reactions would be?
--
Ryan E. Benson
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Bryan Garaventa <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I understand what you mean, but the intent isn't to confuse anybody, but
> to prove a conceptual point; this being that only a total lack of
> information is 100% accessible to all people equally, and that all web
> accessibility must as a result scale downwards from that absolute point.
> Since the page has no practical purpose at all, and provides nothing to
> anybody, everybody receives the same amount of information, and it is thus
> compliant with all standards because no population receives any more
> information than any other, making it equally accessible to all.
>
> As I've said, it's just a thought experiment to prove the point.
>
> If you personally were going to try and represent this concept to people
> using a web page, keeping in mind that it is a thought experiment so you
> can't explain all of this in advance, how would you set up the page to show
> this?
>
>
>
From: Bryan Garaventa
Date: Mon, Sep 08 2014 5:05PM
Subject: Re: two worthwhile reads
← Previous message | No next message
Actually, that's what I did, and this is the result.
Though to be fair, at the beginning of the original email I sent to the WAI group, I said that this was "sort of a thought experiment", which I hoped would clue people in.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2014JulSep/0041.html