E-mail List Archives
Thread: thoughts from Jim Thatcher re the DoJ ANPRM
Number of posts in this thread: 14 (In chronological order)
From: Jennison Mark Asuncion
Date: Thu, Jan 20 2011 9:21PM
Subject: thoughts from Jim Thatcher re the DoJ ANPRM
No previous message | Next message →
Hello,
Thought some folks might find Jim Thatcher's perspective on the Department
of Justice's proposal to apply the ADA to the web of interest
http://www.jimthatcher.com/anprm.htm
Jennison
--
Jennison Mark Asuncion
Co-Director, Adaptech Research Network <www.adaptech.org>
LinkedIn at <www.linkedin.com/in/jennison>
From: Roman Mueller
Date: Thu, Jan 20 2011 11:00PM
Subject: Re: thoughts from Jim Thatcher re the DoJ ANPRM
← Previous message | Next message →
thats really interesting, thanks for sharing.
best regards,
Roman
Webdesign Krefeld <http://www.flinq.net/>
From: Terrill Thompson
Date: Fri, Jan 21 2011 1:24PM
Subject: Re: thoughts from Jim Thatcher re the DoJ ANPRM
← Previous message | Next message →
Jim Thatcher recommends that the DOJ require only Level A WCAG 2.0 success criteria (plus one Level AA criterion, related to visible focus for keyboard users). His argument is that "level AA is too strong, too complicated, too much." His response lists all the Level A success criteria in order to reinforce that these are enough (there are 26 of them).
However, we should also consider the thirteen Level AA success criteria - these are the ones that would *not* be required if the ADA only require Level AA.
I've created a paraphrased list of them all here: http://bit.ly/h7iKGU
If you have an opinion as to how strong the ADA requirements should be, you only have until Monday (January 24) to let the DOJ know! Here are instructions for submitting a comment:
http://www.ada.gov/anprm2010/anprm2010_comment.htm
Terrill Thompson
Technology Accessibility Specialist, University of Washington
From: Karlen Communications
Date: Fri, Jan 21 2011 1:48PM
Subject: Re: thoughts from Jim Thatcher re the DoJ ANPRM
← Previous message | Next message →
I've uploaded my comments in the original document to the web site and used
the comments area for instructions on how to find highlighted content in the
attached document.
Cheers, Karen
From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Fri, Jan 21 2011 1:54PM
Subject: Re: thoughts from Jim Thatcher re the DoJ ANPRM
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi everyone,
My feeling is that Mr. Thatcher (with all due respect) is ready to settle for much too less. Anyone serious enough about accessibility will agree that AA is the absolute minimum to go for if one wants to make a real difference. The problem is not the number of success criteria. The problem is the lack of interest from developers to work with accessibility in mind. If the government can't make a stand on the appropriate level of conformance to ensure an inclusive society where every citizen has a fair chance to contribute according to his or her own potential, I wonder who will...
/Denis
On 2011-01-21, at 3:20 PM, Terrill Thompson wrote:
> Jim Thatcher recommends that the DOJ require only Level A WCAG 2.0 success criteria (plus one Level AA criterion, related to visible focus for keyboard users). His argument is that "level AA is too strong, too complicated, too much." His response lists all the Level A success criteria in order to reinforce that these are enough (there are 26 of them).
>
> However, we should also consider the thirteen Level AA success criteria - these are the ones that would *not* be required if the ADA only require Level AA.
>
> I've created a paraphrased list of them all here: http://bit.ly/h7iKGU
>
> If you have an opinion as to how strong the ADA requirements should be, you only have until Monday (January 24) to let the DOJ know! Here are instructions for submitting a comment:
> http://www.ada.gov/anprm2010/anprm2010_comment.htm
>
> Terrill Thompson
> Technology Accessibility Specialist, University of Washington
>
>
From: Dave Katten
Date: Fri, Jan 21 2011 2:21PM
Subject: Re: thoughts from Jim Thatcher re the DoJ ANPRM
← Previous message | Next message →
Howdy,
Thanks to Terrill's helpful distillation, I'd have to disagree.
Let's take the first two AA criteria he list: live captions and audio
descriptions. In practice, these are often outside the scope of
development, and are part of the content creation/deployment phase. So
leaving them aside really isn't an abdication of "developers [working]
with accessibility in mind".
My concern isn't the number, but the effort involved to achieve
success. Getting captions for prerecorded content is already a
monumental task for pretty much any entity. There are questions of
vendors vs. in-house, workflow, etc. Applying that to live broadcasts
is an unreasonable burden _at this time_. If we want accessibility law
and regulations to be successful, they must be attainable within
reasonable means (typically, developer training). Live captions and
audio descriptions aren't technical achievements that can be "built
in" by a web developer, nor can they be easily or readily attained at
a reasonable cost. That's just where we are now.
That said, I certainly don't disagree that these should be recommended
practices. But the reality is that the law should constitute a minimum
- the explanation I've seen is the Level A is what you MUST do, and
level AA is what you SHOULD do, and that seems right to me. Yes, we
should do what we can to persuade the adoption of AA in practice (and
I'm sure there will be many follow ups about how useful these
techniques are), but as for what the DOJ should require, "must" seems
like the appropriate level.
Best,
Dave
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Denis Boudreau < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> My feeling is that Mr. Thatcher (with all due respect) is ready to settle for much too less. Anyone serious enough about accessibility will agree that AA is the absolute minimum to go for if one wants to make a real difference. The problem is not the number of success criteria. The problem is the lack of interest from developers to work with accessibility in mind. If the government can't make a stand on the appropriate level of conformance to ensure an inclusive society where every citizen has a fair chance to contribute according to his or her own potential, I wonder who will...
>
> /Denis
>
>
>
> On 2011-01-21, at 3:20 PM, Terrill Thompson wrote:
>
>> Jim Thatcher recommends that the DOJ require only Level A WCAG 2.0 success criteria (plus one Level AA criterion, related to visible focus for keyboard users). His argument is that "level AA is too strong, too complicated, too much." His response lists all the Level A success criteria in order to reinforce that these are enough (there are 26 of them).
>>
>> However, we should also consider the thirteen Level AA success criteria - these are the ones that would *not* be required if the ADA only require Level AA.
>>
>> I've created a paraphrased list of them all here: http://bit.ly/h7iKGU
>>
>> If you have an opinion as to how strong the ADA requirements should be, you only have until Monday (January 24) to let the DOJ know! Here are instructions for submitting a comment:
>> http://www.ada.gov/anprm2010/anprm2010_comment.htm
>>
>> Terrill Thompson
>> Technology Accessibility Specialist, University of Washington
>>
>>
From: Pratik Patel
Date: Fri, Jan 21 2011 2:39PM
Subject: Re: thoughts from Jim Thatcher re the DoJ ANPRM
← Previous message | Next message →
Hello all,
I will post the comments I have drafted on behalf of the American council of the Blind when the final version is ready later this afternoon. I will let the comments speak for themselves; but strongly believe that the approach being taken by the DOJ and various responses is for the web as we know it today. We must not forget that the regulations promulgated by the Department will be in efectfor a very long time. The world will have changed by the time these regulations go into effect. Frankly, according to the DOJ, ADA has always covered web accessibility. This implies that covered entities have been out of compliance all this time. It is about time that the DOJ clarify is stands and make web access as important as its other requirements. If organizations are going to argue that something is or is not feasible, then they should have the opportunity to apply for the undue burden argument. It should be no different than any entity considering not providing physical access.
I also believe many comments have focused so much on literally answering the questions posed by the DOJ that we have not looked carefully at how the DOJ has constructed its questions—what it has left out. It considers web access akin to physical access. That is a fundamental mistake. It should have considered communication access and not web access. The web is no longer a content consumption medium. It is a platform. None of the Department's questions point to this.
More later.
Regards,
Pratik
From: Pratik Patel
Date: Fri, Jan 21 2011 2:45PM
Subject: Re: thoughts from Jim Thatcher re the DoJ ANPRM
← Previous message | Next message →
Jared Smith wrote:
Now I'm not saying they shouldn't be considered for the ADA
requirements. Not meeting these Level AA success criteria can
certainly impact the user experience. But the DOJ has asked for
feedback regarding the impact these requirements might have - and
requiring Level AA by law would have a significantly higher impact
than Level A alone.
PP: yes. But, what about the negative impact of not making content
accessible? What about the years that covered entities have had to become
accessible? Let's remember that the DOJ is clarifying its rules and not
making new rules. As a consultant, I sympathize with entities who are
spending lots of money. But that doesn't mean that the floor shouldn't be
high. As I said in my previous message, entities have the undue burden
defense as they have always had. The ultimate goal should be "effective
communication" as defined by the DOJ in their latest regulations and not a
standard. Standards are the means of achiving this large goal.
Pratik
From: Jared Smith
Date: Fri, Jan 21 2011 2:51PM
Subject: Re: thoughts from Jim Thatcher re the DoJ ANPRM
← Previous message | Next message →
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Terrill Thompson wrote:
> However, we should also consider the thirteen Level AA success criteria - these are the ones that would *not* be required if the ADA only require Level AA.
There are some Level AA success criteria that are trivial - defining
the language and providing visible focus indicators (which Jim
recommended be included, and very rightfully so), for example.
But others can be very difficult and expensive, especially for
existing sites. Supporting text sizes to 200% and color contrast, for
example, will fail to some extent on nearly every large corporate web
site out there. And these are not simple things to fix (despite what
many would have you believe) - they can require entire site redesigns,
rebranding, code and infrastructure overhauls, and very expensive
retrofitting of tens of thousands of pages. Live captions and audio
descriptions are not inexpensive. In working with clients that are
spending millions of dollars on web site accessibility alone, we
should not flippantly suggest that there is no burden involved or that
there's no reason to NOT jump directly to Level AA.
Now I'm not saying they shouldn't be considered for the ADA
requirements. Not meeting these Level AA success criteria can
certainly impact the user experience. But the DOJ has asked for
feedback regarding the impact these requirements might have - and
requiring Level AA by law would have a significantly higher impact
than Level A alone.
Jared
From: Karl Groves
Date: Fri, Jan 21 2011 3:21PM
Subject: Re: thoughts from Jim Thatcher re the DoJ ANPRM
← Previous message | Next message →
I posted this to Twitter as well, but figured I'd share it here:
It seems Mr. Thatcher's opinions have generated a lot of discussion.
Whether or not I agree or disagree is inconsequential. What I hope, however,
is that a lot of the people currently engaging in this and related
conversations take the time to submit their own responses to the DoJ.
Information regarding how to do so is found at:
http://www.ada.gov/anprm2010/web%20anprm_2010.htm
Karl Groves
From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Fri, Jan 21 2011 3:39PM
Subject: Re: thoughts from Jim Thatcher re the DoJ ANPRM
← Previous message | Next message →
Hello all,
On 2011-01-21, at 4:34 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
> But others can be very difficult and expensive, especially for
> existing sites.
That's very easy to solve. Have the requirements apply only to new websites, not existing ones. Every site is meant to either die or go into redesign at one point or another. Sooner or later, we'd catch them all. Conformance level AA is totally achievable. Video, if anything, might be the only place where there's a real challenge and even then, if there's a real problem, solutions will emerge. Either way, accessibility wins.
/Denis
From: Nancy Johnson
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 10:07AM
Subject: Re: thoughts from Jim Thatcher re the DoJ ANPRM
← Previous message | Next message →
"It is unbelievable to me how poorly the web development community
understands accessibility. A few days ago I had a conversation with a
client who is developing web sites for the federal government. I had
just reviewed a new site that the company was building. “It has all
the same problems,” I said; “has no one learned anything?” “Too many
developers” he said."
I work as a Federal Government Contractor building websites... Our
team does not design nor do we add content. Our job is to automate the
site and build the structural html code (I often get basic code from
the design team). This time around, I made sure all the code that I
handed off to the java developers validated in the W3c validater,
often what came back did not, I was able to address some items others
I could not, and I made sure all the labeling passed the
accessibility validaters .
Too many folks involved each with a different job.. There is also a
lack of understanding that different folks experience websites in
different ways...just look at the open source jquerys and
javascripts...its often a challenge to find jquery's or js that are
screen reader/keyboard friendly.
I also have found code that technically is keyboard accessible but
without explanation, I wonder how usable it is to the non-sighted
individual
Nancy Johnson
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Denis Boudreau < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> On 2011-01-21, at 4:34 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
>
>> But others can be very difficult and expensive, especially for
>> existing sites.
>
> That's very easy to solve. Have the requirements apply only to new websites, not existing ones. Every site is meant to either die or go into redesign at one point or another. Sooner or later, we'd catch them all. Conformance level AA is totally achievable. Video, if anything, might be the only place where there's a real challenge and even then, if there's a real problem, solutions will emerge. Either way, accessibility wins.
>
> /Denis
>
>
From: Ghita Jones
Date: Mon, Jan 31 2011 12:09PM
Subject: Re: thoughts from Jim Thatcher re the DoJ ANPRM
← Previous message | Next message →
What about sites that constantly add new materials, some of which require
their own unique design be added to the URL? (target.com getting new items
all the time; Amazon adding books or search features). Would those changes
trigger a "new website" set of requirements? There are a lot of gray areas.
Or what about a company that has 20 different websites? It is realistic for
them to have to redesign all of them? It is fair for disabled people to have
to wait for a redesign?
I think this is a complex issue without a clear/easy answer.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Denis Boudreau < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> On 2011-01-21, at 4:34 PM, Jared Smith wrote:
>
> > But others can be very difficult and expensive, especially for
> > existing sites.
>
> That's very easy to solve. Have the requirements apply only to new
> websites, not existing ones. Every site is meant to either die or go into
> redesign at one point or another. Sooner or later, we'd catch them all.
> Conformance level AA is totally achievable. Video, if anything, might be the
> only place where there's a real challenge and even then, if there's a real
> problem, solutions will emerge. Either way, accessibility wins.
>
> /Denis
>
>
From: Sailesh Panchang
Date: Thu, Feb 03 2011 7:57PM
Subject: Re: thoughts from Jim Thatcher re the DoJ ANPRM
← Previous message | No next message
Interestingly my opinion is not too different. In my independent
responses uploaded (via a Word file) on Sept 19, 2010 to the DOJ on
the Proposed Rules,I noted:
"conformance level for ADA should be limited to 27 success criteria:
25 at Level A SC plus two specific Level AA SC.
While I agree that while all success criteria at Level AA enhance
accessibility, there are two SC that stand out, namely SC 1.4.3 and SC
2.4.7 that contain specifications for minimum contrast and for a
visible focus indicator respectively".
Thanks,
Sailesh Panchang
>Thought some folks might find Jim Thatcher's perspective on the Department
>of Justice's proposal to apply the ADA to the web of interest
> http://www.jimthatcher.com/anprm.htm
>Jennison
--
>Jennison Mark Asuncion
>Co-Director, Adaptech Research Network <www.adaptech.org>