E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 16 (In chronological order)

From: Brandon Keith Biggs
Date: Wed, May 11 2016 10:45AM
Subject: Proper Markup on Web Pages
No previous message | Next message →

Hello,
Over the last 2 years I have seen an increasing tendency for websites to
just not use HTML in their websites.
For example, sites such as:
http://www.roommates.com/
and
https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/hhh

have headings on their homepages, but no headings anywhere else. Also, most
websites have blank sharing buttons:
https://www.indiegogo.com/#/picks_for_you
or for their follow buttons, they just say "indigogo".

This tendency is being exacerbated by CMSes such as WordPress which have
plugins that people use without understanding that they are not accessible.
This should be a better thing, but when those plugin developers have no
interest in making their plugin accessible, everyone is out of luck.

Have other people noticed this tendency to not put headings, not label
links and put extensive non labled clickable elements on their pages?

What can be done to move more people to these standards?

My first thought is to require at least one heading on an html page unless
an explicit tag is given.
Another thing is to not show links that do not have text inside like: <a
href="http://brandonkeithbiggs.com/" id="l1"> </a>

Something I hear quite often from web developers is that native wigits are
too difficult to customize, so it is just easier to make their own. I don't
understand this, but this opinion is very detrimental to accessibility.
Thank you,

Brandon Keith Biggs <http://brandonkeithbiggs.com/>;

From: Teresa Haven
Date: Wed, May 11 2016 11:38AM
Subject: Re: Proper Markup on Web Pages
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi, Brandon. From my observations, a lot of developers don't actually write code any more -- or at least, they don't write HTML. They use something like .NET, or a toolkit like Bootstrap or Angular or any of a hundred others that generate the code for them, and they don't know what is getting generated, but they do it because they think they are saving time and/or that "accessibility is hard". I've done extensive work with our in-house developers over the past year+ to get them to think hard about (and actually observe) how much time they are "saving", and many of them are now modifying their practices, but it has required a lot of personal relationship-building plus having an in-house edict that says they have to improve the accessibility of what they are building. I believe many developers a) don't have the knowledge that they are doing anything wrong, and b) don't have the direct support to show them why learning to do things differently would be an advantage to them. I think one of the big questions for groups like us is, "How can we get people to understand both why this is important, and how they can do it without them thinking it is overwhelmingly difficult?"

Teresa

Teresa Haven, Ph.D.
Accessibility Analyst, Northern Arizona University

From: Mike Barlow
Date: Wed, May 11 2016 12:59PM
Subject: Re: Proper Markup on Web Pages
← Previous message | Next message →

I agree 100% Teresa. I've seen the same thing and have had similar
discussions in several of the local user groups I attend. Too many
developers only know how to "code" using some of the new tools and IDE's
out there that don't have accessibility in mind. And as far as Wordpress
goes there are a number of Accessible templates out there that can be used.
I believe even the base Wordpress template direct from Wordpress is flagged
as an Accessible template, though since I don't use Wordpress I haven't
checked into that personally.

But in most cases the edict needs to come down from "on high" to inform
developers they need to develop accessible sites/applications. Unless a
company requires that from developers most (especially the ones who aren't
familiar with developing accessible sites) won't take that into
consideration. They also need to ensure that the apps get properly tested
for accessibility. Too often I've heard people say, well isn't it only that
we have to have the "alt" attribute on images?


*Mike Barlow*
Web Application Developer
Web Accessibility/Section 508 SME

Lancaster, Pa 17601
Office: 732.835-7557
Cell: 732.682.8226
e-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Teresa Haven < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Hi, Brandon. From my observations, a lot of developers don't actually
> write code any more -- or at least, they don't write HTML. They use
> something like .NET, or a toolkit like Bootstrap or Angular or any of a
> hundred others that generate the code for them, and they don't know what is
> getting generated, but they do it because they think they are saving time
> and/or that "accessibility is hard". I've done extensive work with our
> in-house developers over the past year+ to get them to think hard about
> (and actually observe) how much time they are "saving", and many of them
> are now modifying their practices, but it has required a lot of personal
> relationship-building plus having an in-house edict that says they have to
> improve the accessibility of what they are building. I believe many
> developers a) don't have the knowledge that they are doing anything wrong,
> and b) don't have the direct support to show them why learning to do things
> differently would be an advantage to them. I think one of the big questions
> for groups like us is, "How can we get people to understand both why this
> is important, and how they can do it without them thinking it is
> overwhelmingly difficult?"
>
> Teresa
>
> Teresa Haven, Ph.D.
> Accessibility Analyst, Northern Arizona University
>
>
>
>

From: Brandon Keith Biggs
Date: Wed, May 11 2016 1:21PM
Subject: Re: Proper Markup on Web Pages
← Previous message | Next message →

Hello,
Is there any kind of org that goes after larger providers such as angular,
.net or whatnot to make sure all their wigits are accessible? That would go
miles in helping stuff be accessible.


Brandon Keith Biggs <http://brandonkeithbiggs.com/>;

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Mike Barlow < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> I agree 100% Teresa. I've seen the same thing and have had similar
> discussions in several of the local user groups I attend. Too many
> developers only know how to "code" using some of the new tools and IDE's
> out there that don't have accessibility in mind. And as far as Wordpress
> goes there are a number of Accessible templates out there that can be used.
> I believe even the base Wordpress template direct from Wordpress is flagged
> as an Accessible template, though since I don't use Wordpress I haven't
> checked into that personally.
>
> But in most cases the edict needs to come down from "on high" to inform
> developers they need to develop accessible sites/applications. Unless a
> company requires that from developers most (especially the ones who aren't
> familiar with developing accessible sites) won't take that into
> consideration. They also need to ensure that the apps get properly tested
> for accessibility. Too often I've heard people say, well isn't it only that
> we have to have the "alt" attribute on images?
>
>
> *Mike Barlow*
> Web Application Developer
> Web Accessibility/Section 508 SME
>
> Lancaster, Pa 17601
> Office: 732.835-7557
> Cell: 732.682.8226
> e-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Teresa Haven < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Brandon. From my observations, a lot of developers don't actually
> > write code any more -- or at least, they don't write HTML. They use
> > something like .NET, or a toolkit like Bootstrap or Angular or any of a
> > hundred others that generate the code for them, and they don't know what
> is
> > getting generated, but they do it because they think they are saving time
> > and/or that "accessibility is hard". I've done extensive work with our
> > in-house developers over the past year+ to get them to think hard about
> > (and actually observe) how much time they are "saving", and many of them
> > are now modifying their practices, but it has required a lot of personal
> > relationship-building plus having an in-house edict that says they have
> to
> > improve the accessibility of what they are building. I believe many
> > developers a) don't have the knowledge that they are doing anything
> wrong,
> > and b) don't have the direct support to show them why learning to do
> things
> > differently would be an advantage to them. I think one of the big
> questions
> > for groups like us is, "How can we get people to understand both why this
> > is important, and how they can do it without them thinking it is
> > overwhelmingly difficult?"
> >
> > Teresa
> >
> > Teresa Haven, Ph.D.
> > Accessibility Analyst, Northern Arizona University
> >
> >
> >
> >

From: Brooks Newton
Date: Thu, May 12 2016 10:38AM
Subject: Re: Proper Markup on Web Pages
← Previous message | Next message →

Hey Brandon,

Very good point!

In terms of "going after" a software manufacturer, be it an open source or private entity, I wouldn't count on any effective remedy under U.S. law to right this wrong at the present. Software manufacturers have largely been given a "pass" on Web accessibility regulation by the powers that be. I'm planning on making a post to this discussion list in the coming days that underscores the need to make software manufacturers accountable as part of the recently announced Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Title II Supplemental Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SANPRM), which proposes to regulate the accessibility of Web sites, and possibly Web apps, for U.S. state and local governments. We need to rally support for this issue and make our expert opinions clear to the U.S. Department of Justice as they seek input on how to regulate Web accessibility in this country.

In terms of voluntary support for making development frameworks accessible, there have been a number of efforts. I'll defer to others on this list to speak to those efforts.

More to come later on the recent ADA Title II SANPRM...

Brooks Newton

From: Brandon Keith Biggs
Date: Thu, May 12 2016 11:17AM
Subject: Re: Proper Markup on Web Pages
← Previous message | Next message →

Hello Brooks,
As we have been saying, the problem is not websites and apps, but the
underlying frameworks that they use. For example, anything using open GL is
not accessible to blind users unless a whole accessibility framework is
created.
So any ADA amendments should target frameworks primarily.

Also, what percentages of the frameworks are open source? It may be
beneficial for a non profit or something to be created that just goes
around and adds markup to frameworks...
Thanks,


Brandon Keith Biggs <http://brandonkeithbiggs.com/>;

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Brooks Newton < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> Hey Brandon,
>
> Very good point!
>
> In terms of "going after" a software manufacturer, be it an open source or
> private entity, I wouldn't count on any effective remedy under U.S. law to
> right this wrong at the present. Software manufacturers have largely been
> given a "pass" on Web accessibility regulation by the powers that be. I'm
> planning on making a post to this discussion list in the coming days that
> underscores the need to make software manufacturers accountable as part of
> the recently announced Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Title II
> Supplemental Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SANPRM), which
> proposes to regulate the accessibility of Web sites, and possibly Web apps,
> for U.S. state and local governments. We need to rally support for this
> issue and make our expert opinions clear to the U.S. Department of Justice
> as they seek input on how to regulate Web accessibility in this country.
>
> In terms of voluntary support for making development frameworks
> accessible, there have been a number of efforts. I'll defer to others on
> this list to speak to those efforts.
>
> More to come later on the recent ADA Title II SANPRM...
>
> Brooks Newton
>
>
>
>

From: Brooks Newton
Date: Thu, May 12 2016 12:46PM
Subject: Re: Proper Markup on Web Pages
← Previous message | Next message →

Hey Brandon,

I want to be clear in communicating my opinion that I do believe there is a tremendous amount of work that absolutely must be done by site and mobile app owners to support the accessibility of their content. No doubt about that, site / app owners, developers and other digital content production staff have their work cut out for them in the years ahead to uphold their ethical and legal obligations in making the Web and mobile app offerings more accessible. And in keeping with this opinion, my position is that content owners must also have a clear path to accessibility available to them, in terms of having a more complete list sufficient techniques at hand (for example, preapproved code snippets for implementing accessible Web page elements) related to making available advanced digital content for use by people with all abilities. We need to develop and publicize "approved" code constructs for design patterns we already see embedded in JavaScript libraries, development frameworks, Web site authoring tools, content management systems, etc. We should also be on a constant vigil, searching for new content constructs, page controls and information delivery systems that appear in the wild, which fall outside of the design patterns we already got in our vetted inventory of advance page components.

Oh yeah, and by the way, let's make the software manufacturers aware of and obligated to honor the vetted and approved content implementation techniques so that they can build their software, including operating systems, browsers / user agents, and assistive technology to support content owners who responsibly follow coding examples provided in the sufficient techniques. I know, I know - nobody wants to get bogged down in technology-centric standards. That's why, in my opinion, we need keep and cherish the generalized normative standards that work so well for WCAG 2.0, but also significantly expand upon the informative sufficient techniques with real world examples of how fancy Web page gizmos should be coded to spec. That way the software manufacturer programs can parse the site /app code properly, following their own regulated set of specifications, thus enabling access to end users with disabilities.

Anybody agree or disagree?

If there is anyone on this list that who is responsible in whole or in part for actively excluding software manufacturers from obligations under the proposed ADA update (recent ADA SANPRM), I would genuinely value an explanation for why you believe exclusion of these integral parties makes sense. If I don't hear back on this issue as a response on this thread, I'll ask the question again later in a separate post.

Thanks,

Brooks Newton

From: Brandon Keith Biggs
Date: Thu, May 12 2016 10:29PM
Subject: Re: Proper Markup on Web Pages
← Previous message | Next message →

Hello,
I think anything related to backends needs to be tested for accessibility
of its front-end output. Weather that be a motherboard manufacturer (Bios
are still not accessible) or Django, all the output needs to push for
accessibility in everything.
If we wish front-end developers to create accessible content, they need to
be strongly nudged by the libraries they are using to do so. Most people
use libraries or engines now to make anything and this is leading to a
generation of front-end developers who can't comprehend W3C, let alone put
it into use. I know I still have a hard time comprehending some stuff on
W3C, but I can sure make a website.
Thanks,


Brandon Keith Biggs <http://brandonkeithbiggs.com/>;

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Brooks Newton < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

>
> Hey Brandon,
>
> I want to be clear in communicating my opinion that I do believe there is
> a tremendous amount of work that absolutely must be done by site and mobile
> app owners to support the accessibility of their content. No doubt about
> that, site / app owners, developers and other digital content production
> staff have their work cut out for them in the years ahead to uphold their
> ethical and legal obligations in making the Web and mobile app offerings
> more accessible. And in keeping with this opinion, my position is that
> content owners must also have a clear path to accessibility available to
> them, in terms of having a more complete list sufficient techniques at hand
> (for example, preapproved code snippets for implementing accessible Web
> page elements) related to making available advanced digital content for use
> by people with all abilities. We need to develop and publicize "approved"
> code constructs for design patterns we already see embedded in JavaScript
> libraries, development frameworks, Web site authoring tools, content
> management systems, etc. We should also be on a constant vigil, searching
> for new content constructs, page controls and information delivery systems
> that appear in the wild, which fall outside of the design patterns we
> already got in our vetted inventory of advance page components.
>
> Oh yeah, and by the way, let's make the software manufacturers aware of
> and obligated to honor the vetted and approved content implementation
> techniques so that they can build their software, including operating
> systems, browsers / user agents, and assistive technology to support
> content owners who responsibly follow coding examples provided in the
> sufficient techniques. I know, I know - nobody wants to get bogged down in
> technology-centric standards. That's why, in my opinion, we need keep and
> cherish the generalized normative standards that work so well for WCAG 2.0,
> but also significantly expand upon the informative sufficient techniques
> with real world examples of how fancy Web page gizmos should be coded to
> spec. That way the software manufacturer programs can parse the site /app
> code properly, following their own regulated set of specifications, thus
> enabling access to end users with disabilities.
>
> Anybody agree or disagree?
>
> If there is anyone on this list that who is responsible in whole or in
> part for actively excluding software manufacturers from obligations under
> the proposed ADA update (recent ADA SANPRM), I would genuinely value an
> explanation for why you believe exclusion of these integral parties makes
> sense. If I don't hear back on this issue as a response on this thread,
> I'll ask the question again later in a separate post.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brooks Newton
>
>
>
>
>

From: Mike Barlow
Date: Fri, May 13 2016 9:40AM
Subject: Re: Proper Markup on Web Pages
← Previous message | Next message →

Brandon, this goes on to a discussion I was having with a college student
in CompSci last nite that too many developers these days don't even know
how to properly write code by hand at all these days (let alone understand
W3C). Which as an aside of my conversation with him last nite he invited me
to give a lecture on accessibility at their University's Computer Club in
the fall.

*Mike Barlow*
Web Application Developer
Web Accessibility/Section 508 SME

Lancaster, Pa 17601
Office: 732.835-7557
Cell: 732.682.8226
e-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Brandon Keith Biggs <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Hello,
> I think anything related to backends needs to be tested for accessibility
> of its front-end output. Weather that be a motherboard manufacturer (Bios
> are still not accessible) or Django, all the output needs to push for
> accessibility in everything.
> If we wish front-end developers to create accessible content, they need to
> be strongly nudged by the libraries they are using to do so. Most people
> use libraries or engines now to make anything and this is leading to a
> generation of front-end developers who can't comprehend W3C, let alone put
> it into use. I know I still have a hard time comprehending some stuff on
> W3C, but I can sure make a website.
> Thanks,
>
>
> Brandon Keith Biggs <http://brandonkeithbiggs.com/>;
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Brooks Newton < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hey Brandon,
> >
> > I want to be clear in communicating my opinion that I do believe there is
> > a tremendous amount of work that absolutely must be done by site and
> mobile
> > app owners to support the accessibility of their content. No doubt about
> > that, site / app owners, developers and other digital content production
> > staff have their work cut out for them in the years ahead to uphold their
> > ethical and legal obligations in making the Web and mobile app offerings
> > more accessible. And in keeping with this opinion, my position is that
> > content owners must also have a clear path to accessibility available to
> > them, in terms of having a more complete list sufficient techniques at
> hand
> > (for example, preapproved code snippets for implementing accessible Web
> > page elements) related to making available advanced digital content for
> use
> > by people with all abilities. We need to develop and publicize
> "approved"
> > code constructs for design patterns we already see embedded in JavaScript
> > libraries, development frameworks, Web site authoring tools, content
> > management systems, etc. We should also be on a constant vigil,
> searching
> > for new content constructs, page controls and information delivery
> systems
> > that appear in the wild, which fall outside of the design patterns we
> > already got in our vetted inventory of advance page components.
> >
> > Oh yeah, and by the way, let's make the software manufacturers aware of
> > and obligated to honor the vetted and approved content implementation
> > techniques so that they can build their software, including operating
> > systems, browsers / user agents, and assistive technology to support
> > content owners who responsibly follow coding examples provided in the
> > sufficient techniques. I know, I know - nobody wants to get bogged down
> in
> > technology-centric standards. That's why, in my opinion, we need keep
> and
> > cherish the generalized normative standards that work so well for WCAG
> 2.0,
> > but also significantly expand upon the informative sufficient techniques
> > with real world examples of how fancy Web page gizmos should be coded to
> > spec. That way the software manufacturer programs can parse the site
> /app
> > code properly, following their own regulated set of specifications, thus
> > enabling access to end users with disabilities.
> >
> > Anybody agree or disagree?
> >
> > If there is anyone on this list that who is responsible in whole or in
> > part for actively excluding software manufacturers from obligations under
> > the proposed ADA update (recent ADA SANPRM), I would genuinely value an
> > explanation for why you believe exclusion of these integral parties makes
> > sense. If I don't hear back on this issue as a response on this thread,
> > I'll ask the question again later in a separate post.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Brooks Newton
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

From: Aaron Cannon
Date: Fri, May 13 2016 10:44AM
Subject: Re: Proper Markup on Web Pages
← Previous message | Next message →

I suspect that any attempt to regulate open source projects will not
end well for anyone, not to mention being legally very difficult.

In general, open source frameworks offer what the users demand. As
more businesses are forced or enticed to make their sites accessible,
the more their developers will start expecting that their frameworks
ease the burden of doing so.

Speaking as a developer, I hate to see any regulation imposed upon the
internet, software development, and similar things. I believe that
the reason we have seen so much innovation is at least in part because
most activities have gone unregulated, and the areas that have been,
such as copyright, have been very cleverly worked around via the
various open source and creative commons licenses. But, on the other
hand, speaking as a blind person, I really hate it when I can't use
the sites I want to. So, I'm a bit conflicted. :)

Aaron

On 5/12/16, Brandon Keith Biggs < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hello Brooks,
> As we have been saying, the problem is not websites and apps, but the
> underlying frameworks that they use. For example, anything using open GL is
> not accessible to blind users unless a whole accessibility framework is
> created.
> So any ADA amendments should target frameworks primarily.
>
> Also, what percentages of the frameworks are open source? It may be
> beneficial for a non profit or something to be created that just goes
> around and adds markup to frameworks...
> Thanks,
>
>
> Brandon Keith Biggs <http://brandonkeithbiggs.com/>;
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Brooks Newton < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
>> Hey Brandon,
>>
>> Very good point!
>>
>> In terms of "going after" a software manufacturer, be it an open source or
>> private entity, I wouldn't count on any effective remedy under U.S. law
>> to
>> right this wrong at the present. Software manufacturers have largely been
>> given a "pass" on Web accessibility regulation by the powers that be. I'm
>> planning on making a post to this discussion list in the coming days that
>> underscores the need to make software manufacturers accountable as part of
>> the recently announced Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Title II
>> Supplemental Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SANPRM), which
>> proposes to regulate the accessibility of Web sites, and possibly Web
>> apps,
>> for U.S. state and local governments. We need to rally support for this
>> issue and make our expert opinions clear to the U.S. Department of
>> Justice
>> as they seek input on how to regulate Web accessibility in this country.
>>
>> In terms of voluntary support for making development frameworks
>> accessible, there have been a number of efforts. I'll defer to others on
>> this list to speak to those efforts.
>>
>> More to come later on the recent ADA Title II SANPRM...
>>
>> Brooks Newton
>>
>>
>>
>>

From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Fri, May 13 2016 10:57AM
Subject: Re: Proper Markup on Web Pages
← Previous message | Next message →

> If there is anyone on this list that who is responsible in whole or in part for actively excluding software manufacturers from obligations under the proposed ADA update (recent ADA SANPRM), I would genuinely value an explanation for why you believe exclusion of these integral parties makes sense.

Brooks, while I was NOT involved in the process or decisions that went around the language in the SANPRM I can guess that trying to regulate makers of frameworks including open source frameworks is a jurisdictional issue that the DOJ may not have the ability to regulate. That is, goods and services are typically regulated around things such as interstate commerce (e.g. CVAA), places of public accommodation (e.g. ADA Title III), etc. Frameworks by themselves would likely not be covered until they are sold or used by organizations. A report and order from the FCC did hint that perhaps peer-to-peer communication services could be covered under the CVAA and the maker of the peer-to-peer software could be considered a service provider even though they did not host the service -- but I'd imagine this might face quite a challenge in our judicial system.

Ultimately I believe accessibility in frameworks, user agents, authoring tools, and software is very important and a critical piece of the puzzle -- but finding the right way to address the issue has and will continue to be a challenge.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
703.637.8957 (Office)
Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | Linkedin | Blog
Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars!

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Fri, May 13 2016 11:25AM
Subject: Re: Proper Markup on Web Pages
← Previous message | Next message →

On 11/05/2016 20:21, Brandon Keith Biggs wrote:
> Hello,
> Is there any kind of org that goes after larger providers such as angular,
> .net or whatnot to make sure all their wigits are accessible? That would go
> miles in helping stuff be accessible.

Particularly in the case of open source projects, which are often set up
and run by volunteers, for free, in their own time, and which don't
necessarily WANT to discriminate against users with disabilities, but
simply lack the knowledge/awareness to do the right thing...I'd really
want to refocus the conversation from "going after" to "working
with/contributing to"...

P
--
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

From: Brandon Keith Biggs
Date: Fri, May 13 2016 11:47AM
Subject: Re: Proper Markup on Web Pages
← Previous message | Next message →

Hello,
There should not be any regulation put on opensource frameworks, there
should be a group of people who add accessibility to the open source
frameworks.
Thanks,


Brandon Keith Biggs <http://brandonkeithbiggs.com/>;

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Aaron Cannon <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> I suspect that any attempt to regulate open source projects will not
> end well for anyone, not to mention being legally very difficult.
>
> In general, open source frameworks offer what the users demand. As
> more businesses are forced or enticed to make their sites accessible,
> the more their developers will start expecting that their frameworks
> ease the burden of doing so.
>
> Speaking as a developer, I hate to see any regulation imposed upon the
> internet, software development, and similar things. I believe that
> the reason we have seen so much innovation is at least in part because
> most activities have gone unregulated, and the areas that have been,
> such as copyright, have been very cleverly worked around via the
> various open source and creative commons licenses. But, on the other
> hand, speaking as a blind person, I really hate it when I can't use
> the sites I want to. So, I'm a bit conflicted. :)
>
> Aaron
>
> On 5/12/16, Brandon Keith Biggs < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Hello Brooks,
> > As we have been saying, the problem is not websites and apps, but the
> > underlying frameworks that they use. For example, anything using open GL
> is
> > not accessible to blind users unless a whole accessibility framework is
> > created.
> > So any ADA amendments should target frameworks primarily.
> >
> > Also, what percentages of the frameworks are open source? It may be
> > beneficial for a non profit or something to be created that just goes
> > around and adds markup to frameworks...
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > Brandon Keith Biggs <http://brandonkeithbiggs.com/>;
> >
> > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Brooks Newton < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hey Brandon,
> >>
> >> Very good point!
> >>
> >> In terms of "going after" a software manufacturer, be it an open source
> or
> >> private entity, I wouldn't count on any effective remedy under U.S. law
> >> to
> >> right this wrong at the present. Software manufacturers have largely
> been
> >> given a "pass" on Web accessibility regulation by the powers that be.
> I'm
> >> planning on making a post to this discussion list in the coming days
> that
> >> underscores the need to make software manufacturers accountable as part
> of
> >> the recently announced Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Title II
> >> Supplemental Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SANPRM), which
> >> proposes to regulate the accessibility of Web sites, and possibly Web
> >> apps,
> >> for U.S. state and local governments. We need to rally support for this
> >> issue and make our expert opinions clear to the U.S. Department of
> >> Justice
> >> as they seek input on how to regulate Web accessibility in this country.
> >>
> >> In terms of voluntary support for making development frameworks
> >> accessible, there have been a number of efforts. I'll defer to others
> on
> >> this list to speak to those efforts.
> >>
> >> More to come later on the recent ADA Title II SANPRM...
> >>
> >> Brooks Newton
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>

From: Brooks Newton
Date: Fri, May 13 2016 8:02PM
Subject: Re: Proper Markup on Web Pages
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for your thoughts on why software regulation, in terms of why its absent from the most recent ADA SANPRM. Your suggestions are helpful to me and likely to others trying to sort out this mess.

I'm very happy that you agree, as I think most experts in this field would, that "frameworks, user agents, authoring tools, and software is very important" to figuring out the digital accessibility puzzle.

When thinking about how to best plan for the accessibility of Web sites, I believe it is important to understand the roles that operating systems, user agents / browsers and assistive technology play in the overall Web user experience. I'm certainly not even close to being as much as an expert in this area as others on this list are. So, let me just ask this question: Have you, or anyone else on this thread ever heard of person who absorbs page content directly from the source code without parsing it through a user agent / browser? I sure haven't.

Is it even possible to have a "user experience" without the help of a browser to parse Web page source code? It seems like an artificial exercise in futility to separate out Web content, as those who drafted the ADA Title II SANPRM have done, as the lone piece of the digital accessibility puzzle that must be regulated. After all, Web content alone does not make a user experience.

For users with certain types of disabilities, utilization of assistive technology is just as necessary in building an accessible user experience as is the use of Web browsers. In order for each and every one of us to Perceive, to Operate, and to Understand Web content, we must first pass the content through an operating system, a browser, and in many cases, assistive technology to make sense of the raw source code over which content owners have control (let's not even discuss third party content at this point). Additionally, what does it mean for Web page code to be "Robust," when none of the necessary software is required to be standards compliant? How is my specification-compliant page code robust (in other words, largely "future proof"), when in no way, shape, or form are browser manufacturers obligated to process my code in a consistent manner that pays heed to the same standard content owners are obligated to follow? Should we just count on software manufacturers to "do the right thing," when that same approach has yielding exceedingly disappointing results when it comes to measuring compliance by site content owners? Have we the experts, and the regulators who follow our advice, provided content owners with a clear path forward to make their Web pages and mobile apps accessible? What is keeping a software manufacturer from changing their browser functionality, for example, so that what works in my page code today, doesn't work for my page code tomorrow?

Again, I'd like to put forth the notion that there is no such thing as a "Web user experience" without intermediating software. If there is some sort of technical reason why the U.S. Department of Justice has specifically decided to regulate Web content, and not the software that facilitates the content to be Perceivable, Operable, Understandable and Robust (the core tenets of WCAG 2.0), I'd sure like to know that. If that is the case, I'd also like to know what the appropriate agency is that has jurisdiction over Web software, so that we could make sure that appropriate regulation is evolving at the same time as the ADA updates so that all of the appropriate parties are doing their requisite parts to make accessibility the norm, not the exception.

Is this really just a monumental oversight? Have we really gone this far down the regulatory road without holding fully accountable all of the integral parts of the accessibility puzzle?

Brooks Newton

From: Brandon Keith Biggs
Date: Fri, May 13 2016 8:58PM
Subject: Re: Proper Markup on Web Pages
← Previous message | Next message →

Hello,
I think a web browser counts as a normal native app. What regulations are
there for native apps?
But there are really only 4 or 5 different web browsers out there and the
only ones that are not accessible are Edge and Chrome. Chrome is working
pretty hard to make itself accessible though.
What could Firefox do to make itself more accessible?
Thanks,


Brandon Keith Biggs <http://brandonkeithbiggs.com/>;

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Brooks Newton < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> Hi Jonathan,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts on why software regulation, in terms of why its
> absent from the most recent ADA SANPRM. Your suggestions are helpful to me
> and likely to others trying to sort out this mess.
>
> I'm very happy that you agree, as I think most experts in this field
> would, that "frameworks, user agents, authoring tools, and software is very
> important" to figuring out the digital accessibility puzzle.
>
> When thinking about how to best plan for the accessibility of Web sites,
> I believe it is important to understand the roles that operating systems,
> user agents / browsers and assistive technology play in the overall Web
> user experience. I'm certainly not even close to being as much as an expert
> in this area as others on this list are. So, let me just ask this
> question: Have you, or anyone else on this thread ever heard of person who
> absorbs page content directly from the source code without parsing it
> through a user agent / browser? I sure haven't.
>
> Is it even possible to have a "user experience" without the help of a
> browser to parse Web page source code? It seems like an artificial exercise
> in futility to separate out Web content, as those who drafted the ADA Title
> II SANPRM have done, as the lone piece of the digital accessibility puzzle
> that must be regulated. After all, Web content alone does not make a user
> experience.
>
> For users with certain types of disabilities, utilization of assistive
> technology is just as necessary in building an accessible user experience
> as is the use of Web browsers. In order for each and every one of us to
> Perceive, to Operate, and to Understand Web content, we must first pass the
> content through an operating system, a browser, and in many cases,
> assistive technology to make sense of the raw source code over which
> content owners have control (let's not even discuss third party content at
> this point). Additionally, what does it mean for Web page code to be
> "Robust," when none of the necessary software is required to be standards
> compliant? How is my specification-compliant page code robust (in other
> words, largely "future proof"), when in no way, shape, or form are browser
> manufacturers obligated to process my code in a consistent manner that pays
> heed to the same standard content owners are obligated to follow? Should
> we just count on software manufacturers to "do the right thing," when that
> same approach has yielding exceedingly disappointing results when it comes
> to measuring compliance by site content owners? Have we the experts, and
> the regulators who follow our advice, provided content owners with a clear
> path forward to make their Web pages and mobile apps accessible? What is
> keeping a software manufacturer from changing their browser functionality,
> for example, so that what works in my page code today, doesn't work for my
> page code tomorrow?
>
> Again, I'd like to put forth the notion that there is no such thing as a
> "Web user experience" without intermediating software. If there is some
> sort of technical reason why the U.S. Department of Justice has
> specifically decided to regulate Web content, and not the software that
> facilitates the content to be Perceivable, Operable, Understandable and
> Robust (the core tenets of WCAG 2.0), I'd sure like to know that. If that
> is the case, I'd also like to know what the appropriate agency is that has
> jurisdiction over Web software, so that we could make sure that appropriate
> regulation is evolving at the same time as the ADA updates so that all of
> the appropriate parties are doing their requisite parts to make
> accessibility the norm, not the exception.
>
> Is this really just a monumental oversight? Have we really gone this far
> down the regulatory road without holding fully accountable all of the
> integral parts of the accessibility puzzle?
>
> Brooks Newton
>
>

From: Sean Murphy
Date: Mon, May 16 2016 3:18AM
Subject: Re: Proper Markup on Web Pages
← Previous message | No next message

Web design is like building a house. If the foundation is flawed, then the building will eventually fail. The libraries, frameworks and any other tool used to develop and display the rich content available on the net now should be accessible. As we all know.

If more and more development tools become in-accessible, Then you are already losing the race. Regardless what standards are present. People have to be willing to adopt and apply the standards to their projects. This has been the biggest challenge and as much as their have been great innovations occurring on the net. Equally there have been a lot of in-accessible innovations blocking the whole community.

How do you change this attitude of some developers so they include it in their core functionality of their tools which other's use?

1. University courses must include accessibility compliance, design, etc as part of the software degrees.
2. Owners of sites should include accessibility as a part of their RFP's. Then it is the responsibility of the development team to use the right tool.
3. Certification if they exist for web development should include accessibility.
4. A registry listing accessible tools and libraries.
5. For open source and this might work for commercial vendors as well. A competition that has a nice little price tag for projects that include accessibility.
6. The least one that people might like, but I think it is necessary. Law.
7. A Social Investment Fund that is design for those people are passionate about disability and accessibility to invest into those organisations that build accessible tools and libraries plus more.
8. Mention already here, someone includes the accessibility into the tool. The problem with this one you need someone with the know how and this is a very small group of people compared to the average developer.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Sean









> On 14 May 2016, at 12:58 PM, Brandon Keith Biggs < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I think a web browser counts as a normal native app. What regulations are
> there for native apps?
> But there are really only 4 or 5 different web browsers out there and the
> only ones that are not accessible are Edge and Chrome. Chrome is working
> pretty hard to make itself accessible though.
> What could Firefox do to make itself more accessible?
> Thanks,
>
>
> Brandon Keith Biggs <http://brandonkeithbiggs.com/>;
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Brooks Newton < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jonathan,
>>
>> Thanks for your thoughts on why software regulation, in terms of why its
>> absent from the most recent ADA SANPRM. Your suggestions are helpful to me
>> and likely to others trying to sort out this mess.
>>
>> I'm very happy that you agree, as I think most experts in this field
>> would, that "frameworks, user agents, authoring tools, and software is very
>> important" to figuring out the digital accessibility puzzle.
>>
>> When thinking about how to best plan for the accessibility of Web sites,
>> I believe it is important to understand the roles that operating systems,
>> user agents / browsers and assistive technology play in the overall Web
>> user experience. I'm certainly not even close to being as much as an expert
>> in this area as others on this list are. So, let me just ask this
>> question: Have you, or anyone else on this thread ever heard of person who
>> absorbs page content directly from the source code without parsing it
>> through a user agent / browser? I sure haven't.
>>
>> Is it even possible to have a "user experience" without the help of a
>> browser to parse Web page source code? It seems like an artificial exercise
>> in futility to separate out Web content, as those who drafted the ADA Title
>> II SANPRM have done, as the lone piece of the digital accessibility puzzle
>> that must be regulated. After all, Web content alone does not make a user
>> experience.
>>
>> For users with certain types of disabilities, utilization of assistive
>> technology is just as necessary in building an accessible user experience
>> as is the use of Web browsers. In order for each and every one of us to
>> Perceive, to Operate, and to Understand Web content, we must first pass the
>> content through an operating system, a browser, and in many cases,
>> assistive technology to make sense of the raw source code over which
>> content owners have control (let's not even discuss third party content at
>> this point). Additionally, what does it mean for Web page code to be
>> "Robust," when none of the necessary software is required to be standards
>> compliant? How is my specification-compliant page code robust (in other
>> words, largely "future proof"), when in no way, shape, or form are browser
>> manufacturers obligated to process my code in a consistent manner that pays
>> heed to the same standard content owners are obligated to follow? Should
>> we just count on software manufacturers to "do the right thing," when that
>> same approach has yielding exceedingly disappointing results when it comes
>> to measuring compliance by site content owners? Have we the experts, and
>> the regulators who follow our advice, provided content owners with a clear
>> path forward to make their Web pages and mobile apps accessible? What is
>> keeping a software manufacturer from changing their browser functionality,
>> for example, so that what works in my page code today, doesn't work for my
>> page code tomorrow?
>>
>> Again, I'd like to put forth the notion that there is no such thing as a
>> "Web user experience" without intermediating software. If there is some
>> sort of technical reason why the U.S. Department of Justice has
>> specifically decided to regulate Web content, and not the software that
>> facilitates the content to be Perceivable, Operable, Understandable and
>> Robust (the core tenets of WCAG 2.0), I'd sure like to know that. If that
>> is the case, I'd also like to know what the appropriate agency is that has
>> jurisdiction over Web software, so that we could make sure that appropriate
>> regulation is evolving at the same time as the ADA updates so that all of
>> the appropriate parties are doing their requisite parts to make
>> accessibility the norm, not the exception.
>>
>> Is this really just a monumental oversight? Have we really gone this far
>> down the regulatory road without holding fully accountable all of the
>> integral parts of the accessibility puzzle?
>>
>> Brooks Newton
>>
>>