Re: Voluntary (and non-) Standards (was: Support for Verifiable Claims)

Hi Mike,

I'll push back on your claims just slightly. From
https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php
Who WCAG is for

WCAG is primarily intended for:

   - Web content developers (page authors, site designers, etc.)
   - Web authoring tool developers
   - Web accessibility evaluation tool developers
   - Others who want or need a *standard *for web accessibility

Related resources are intended to meet the needs of many different people,
including policy makers, managers, researchers, and others.

*WCAG is a technical standard*, not an introduction to accessibility.

(*emphasis* mine)

WCAG 1.0 was indeed a "Guideline", and while WCAG 2.0 maintains the
"Guideline" nomenclature, it is very much a Technical Standard, with
measurable and actionable success criteria. Semantic hair-splitting
perhaps, but let's also be honest and truthful about what WCAG really is: a
W3C Recommendation.

> And its success as a quasi-de jure standard comes after many years of
relationship building, education, and successful use in the real world.

Correct, but more importantly, it is a direct example of a W3C Standard
leading rather than following. I'll also suggest that it is for that reason
that WCAG is one of the more important W3C Standards published. Are you
suggesting that the Verifiable Claims stakeholders will be unable to build
relationships and provide education around a standardized verifiable claims
mechanism? What is that assertion based upon?

... and ya had to go bring up @longdesc huh?

Here's the deal (and real truth) there: @longdesc is **WIDELY** supported
by almost every screen reader in the marketplace with the exception of
VoiceOver, and the attribute is both correctly reported in the
Accessibility Tree by every browser, and the attribute successfully
provides "...a machine-discoverable description of an image to be linked to
the image" [1]. So "how" you measure adoption and implementation is
subjective, and I will suggest that the W3C is bigger than 3 or 4 browser
engines (please and thanks). Further, the good folks over at dPub have a
documented and pressing need for a function like this, and history shows us
that the NVDA screen reader implemented support for @longdesc once the
attribute had been standardized into the larger HTML5 effort. So just
because you can't see it on a web page doesn't mean it has no value or that
it isn't being used or supported today.

But I'll move off @longdesc now, but if you bring it up again, you'll hear
from me again. :-)

**********

However your comment also raises an important question: is the W3C *only*
about the browsers, or do other stakeholders have a say in the technology
and technological solutions developed at the W3C? Increasingly, it feels
like the browser vendors want to be the only guys swinging a big stick, and
every other stakeholder is beholding to the browsers to get anything
accomplished.

I will politely suggest that this thinking, even when a lot of evidence
suggests this is partially (mostly) true, is also somewhat short-sighted.
ARIA (another accessibility Standard at the W3C) doesn't really do anything
in the browsers per-se (by design), and yet that technology (and the
standardization and implementation that grew up around it) was also a
define-first, implement-second exercise that started in the early 00's, and
took time to get full implementation in the various browsers and other User
Agents. Yet without that W3C Standard, today's web applications would
remain completely inaccessible to millions of disabled users.

So yes, sometimes "build it and they will come" does work, even at the W3C.

JF​

1: https://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/#intro
2: http://webfoundation.org/about/vision/history-of-the-web/

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Michael Champion <
Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:

> > "long experience has shown in W3C that "if we standardize it, they will
> come as needed" is a generally false assertion."
>
>
>
> Hmm, I was hoping someone would provide a couple of counter-examples.  The
> one usually cited is SVG, which gradually gained credibility and universal
> implementation long after the original Recommendation was published.   But
> that happened 15 years ago, and I can’t think of a more recent example.
>
> John Foliot makes a good point about WCAG, but that is a **guideline**
> not a spec to be implemented.  And its success as a quasi-de jure standard
> comes after many years of relationship building, education, and successful
> use in the real world.
>
>
>
> One interesting data-based analysis is in https://blogs.windows.com/
> msedgedev/2016/02/03/2016-platform-priorities - “more than a third of web
> standards aren’t implemented by any of the most popular browsers.”   It
> would be interesting to research which supposed core web platform standards
> those are and how they got to be standardized without implementation
> support.  But this reality is what is driving the browser implementer
> community to insist on incubation before standardization.
>
>
>
> More anecdotal evidence of notable failures of Rec-track work to be
> implemented, with painful consequences for W3C:
>
>
>
> - XHTML2 is the poster child for an “aspirational” effort that had no
> support from implementers, and W3C’s persistence in trying to standardize
> an XML-based alternative to HTML drove HTML standards work out of W3C, to
> WHATWG.  W3C admitted error and tried to re-unite the communities a few
> years later, but the wound never healed and most technical work on HTML and
> DOM now happens in WHATWG (with W3C playing a useful role of publishing
> versions with broad and clear patent commitments).
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHATWG#History
>
> https://www.wired.com/2009/07/the_w3c_buries_xhtml_2dot0_
> html_5_is_the_future_of_the_web/
>
>
>
> - A more recent example is the HTML longdesc attribute, which became a W3C
> Recommendation over the objections of implementers, and even 2 years later
> AFAIK has little actual (correct) use on popular websites. For example,
> it’s not mentioned by caniuse.com, the de facto reference for which web
> “standards” actually work.  And it’s still not specified in the WHATWG
> version of HTML. Although it is not widely implemented or used, it still
> causes controversy and distraction.
>
> http://caniuse.com/#search=longdesc
>
> https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/507
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 1:18 PM
> *To: *Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
> *Cc: *"Varn, Richard J" <rvarn@ets.org>, Gray Taylor <gtaylor@conexxus.org>,
> David Singer <singer@apple.com>, David Ezell <David_E3@verifone.com>,
> Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, Manu Sporny <
> msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Nate Otto <nate@badgealliance.org>, "Stone,
> Matthew K" <matt.stone@pearson.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>,
> Mark Nottingham <mnotting@akamai.com>, "w3c-ac-forum@w3.org" <
> w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, "public-webpayments-comments@w3.org" <
> public-webpayments-comments@w3.org>, Drummond Reed <
> drummond@respectnetwork.com>, Nathan George <nathan.george@evernym.com>,
> Kerri Lemoie <kerri@openworksgrp.com>, David Chadwick <
> d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>, Eric Korb <Eric.Korb@accreditrust.com>,
> Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@blockstream.com>, Phil Archer <
> phila@w3.org>, Linda Toth <ltoth@conexxus.org>, Jay Johnson <jay@qples.com>,
> Bob Burke <bburke@kou.pn>
>
> *Subject: *Re: Voluntary (and non-) Standards (was: Support for
> Verifiable Claims)
>
>
>
> What I am still waiting for is a citation (or anything more than anecdotal
> evidence) for the following statement which seems to be the crux of all
> arguments I have heard against this work to date:
>
> "long experience has shown in W3C that "if we standardize it, they will
> come as needed" is a generally false assertion."
>
>
>
> On 8 December 2016 at 23:01, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Varn, Richard J <rvarn@ets.org> wrote:
> > I cannot say I much appreciate your discourteous tone.
>
> Please don't misinterpret directness as discourteousness. I will
> interpret tone-policing of content criticisms as insecurity.
>
> > Attached is the information on state of digital driver's licenses I got
> from the Internet in 3 minutes and 25 seconds.
>
> Thanks I will take a look.
>
> >  So there should be some greater use of citations by us
>
> By everyone.
>
>
> > and some basic research by you
>
> No.
>
> This is part of the problem that Chris, Mike, David have pointed out.
> Any expectation from advocates that critics are supposed to do their
> own research is an unreasonable attitude of time-entitlement.
>
> This is such a fundamentally flawed attitude that it further undercuts
> any faith in verifiable claims efforts.
>
> Imagine if a recipient of a claim was told to "do some basic research"
> in order to verify it. It would be totally unacceptable as a protocol.
>
> Tantek
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tantek Çelik [mailto:tantek@cs.stanford.edu]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 3:28 PM
> > To: Gray Taylor <gtaylor@conexxus.org>
> > Cc: singer@apple.com; David Ezell <David_E3@verifone.com>; Michael
> Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>; Manu Sporny <
> msporny@digitalbazaar.com>; Nate Otto <nate@badgealliance.org>; Stone,
> Matthew K <matt.stone@pearson.com>; Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>;
> Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>; Mark Nottingham <
> mnotting@akamai.com>; w3c-ac-forum@w3.org; public-webpayments-comments@
> w3.org; Varn, Richard J <rvarn@ets.org>; Drummond Reed <
> drummond@respectnetwork.com>; Nathan George <nathan.george@evernym.com>;
> Kerri Lemoie <kerri@openworksgrp.com>; David Chadwick <
> d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>; Eric Korb <Eric.Korb@accreditrust.com>;
> Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@blockstream.com>; Phil Archer <
> phila@w3.org>; Linda Toth <ltoth@conexxus.org>; Jay Johnson <jay@qples.com>;
> Bob Burke <bburke@kou.pn>
> > Subject: Re: Voluntary (and non-) Standards (was: Support for Verifiable
> Claims)
> >
> > tl;dr: Who verifies the claims of the Verified Claims advocates?
> >
> > (motivation) If Verified Claims advocates can't be bothered to provide
> simple URL citations to verify their claims, why would anyone bother with
> anything more complex?
> >
> > (dogfooding) If you're not living breathing the behaviors you're
> advocating, why should anyone take advocations of (formalized versions
> > of) those behaviors seriously?
> >
> >
> > Longer:
> >
> >
> > Not picking on you in particular Gray, because this is an endemic
> problem that I have seen in pretty much all Verified Claims (CG/WG)
> discussions.
> >
> > Lots of claims made in the prose of such messages/emails, usually zero
> citations to verify those claims. Manu is the notable exception, he usually
> provides quite a few citations for his points in his emails.
> >
> > So just as an example:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Gray Taylor <gtaylor@conexxus.org>
> wrote:
> >> Interesting thread on legal standing.  Right now, 9 states are
> wrestling with putting verifiable drivers licenses on mobile devices (the
> paper artifacts we use today are eminently fraud prone - just ask any
> college student).
> >
> > Which 9 states? Citations to .gov sites that can be used to verify this
> "9 states" claim? Or a citation to a summary thereof itself with citations
> for the specific states?
> >
> >
> >>  In today's case, US State Department, DMV, Social Security
> Administration, County records, etc. all act as trusted service providers
> of the "paper and static ID" world; with great peril to the citizen as
> these artifacts can be stolen easily.  Their role won't change anytime soon.
> >
> > Presumably you're referring to passports, drivers licenses, social
> security cards, etc. and expecting (likely) that these examples are
> physically self-evident.
> >
> >
> >> Conexxus' feeling is that we don't proscribe legal purview of
> verifiable claims, but create an eco-system by which the "watchers" in
> today's existential data world can choose reliable new technologies to
> continue their mandated mission; and on a basis of NOT conveying
> unnecessary and static PII, which is the Achilles heel of our online
> existence.  So the intent is to provide control over our own identities as
> a first order.
> >
> > Could you provide a public Conexxus URL that describes this "eco-system"
> goal in more detail?
> >
> >
> >> If W3C creates a trusted environment framework, then the agencies will
> adopt them as a matter of public demand (IMHO this will be an escalating
> societal trend).
> >
> > This is a very shaky hypothesis, on multiple counts.
> >
> > First, agencies presumably adopt things without W3C involvement (e.g.
> > whatever they have adopted today).
> >
> > Second, what successful examples can you cite of W3C created standards
> involving trust (or anything else) that "agencies" subsequently adopted?
> Whether from public demand or other motivation. I have seen no evidence to
> support this "if ... then" hypothesis.
> >
> >
> >>  Each (global) jurisdiction will make its decision based on available
> technology and political aims v. the will of their people.
> >>
> >> Our retail industry does not want to know anything about you beyond
> "are you old enough to buy beer?" and can I capture the signature (read
> legal verification) of the TSP saying you are?  Certainly no business will
> stake their liquor license on a semi-trusted service provider, so the
> framework needs to authenticate the TSP as well.
> >
> > Presumably this is orthogonal or unrelated, as such businesses today
> seem to (anecdotally) only accept government issued IDs for "are you old
> enough". I would assume they will continue to do so, regardless of what
> tech happens to be in such IDs, and I'd doubt they'd accept non-govt issued
> IDs.
> >
> >
> >> So long opinion, short, if we build it, they will come as needed ...
> >
> > build yes, just standardize no. And this discussion is about creating a
> working group to create a standard.
> >
> > Specifically, long experience has shown in W3C that "if we standardize
> it, they will come as needed" is a generally false assertion.
> >
> > More TR RECs (https://www.w3.org/TR/) than not have failed to gain any
> serious broad traction (web browsers and servers implement a small subset
> of W3C RECs, not to mention IETF RFCs). The number of obsolete, abandoned,
> etc. W3C RECs and IETF RFCs greatly outnumbers those in modern use. I don't
> have exact numbers, merely from personal analysis.
> >
> >
> > <aside>
> >
> > The AB *is* working on a process for explicitly obsoleting abandoned
> RECs to start cleaning this up, in the hopes that eventually the RECs
> remaining are the ones that have actually be widely implemented, deployed,
> and are in use.
> >
> > We've started with a few examples to help us drive the necessary process
> changes:
> > * https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2016_Priorities#Specifications_to_obsolete
> >
> > </aside>
> >
> >
> >> who watches the watchers is the age-old question.
> >
> > who asks the claimers for citations for their claims?
> >
> > I'm going to keep asking for citations for claims until I see a cultural
> shift towards people who want Verified Claims as a technology providing
> URLs to substantiate their claims.
> >
> > I think everyone should adopt more of a [citation needed] practice,
> especially in this community.
> >
> > Tantek
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: singer@apple.com [mailto:singer@apple.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 4:34 PM
> >> To: David Ezell <David_E3@VERIFONE.com>
> >> Cc: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>; Gray Taylor
> >> <gtaylor@conexxus.org>; Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>; Nate
> >> Otto <nate@badgealliance.org>; Stone, Matthew K
> >> <matt.stone@pearson.com>; Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>; Tantek
> >> Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>; Mark Nottingham <mnotting@akamai.com>;
> >> w3c-ac-forum@w3.org; public-webpayments-comments@w3.org; Richard Varn
> >> <rvarn@ets.org>; Drummond Reed <drummond@respectnetwork.com>; Nathan
> >> George <nathan.george@evernym.com>; Kerri Lemoie
> >> <kerri@openworksgrp.com>; David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>;
> >> Eric Korb <Eric.Korb@accreditrust.com>; Christopher Allen
> >> <ChristopherA@blockstream.com>; Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>; Linda Toth
> >> <ltoth@conexxus.org>; Jay Johnson <jay@qples.com>; Bob Burke
> >> <bburke@kou.pn>
> >> Subject: Re: Voluntary (and non-) Standards (was: Support for
> >> Verifiable Claims)
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Dec 6, 2016, at 14:15 , David Ezell <David_E3@VERIFONE.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> To the first point, I’m not sure what you mean by non-voluntary
> standards organizations:  ... I’m not sure this non-voluntary distinction
> is worth fretting about.
> >>
> >> Some standards organizations (notably ITU) are the result of treaties,
> and some (including ITU) produce standards that can later have the force of
> law behind them.   “X’s sold or made available in country Y must comply
> with standard Z.”
> >>
> >> As you say, it’s not strongly relevant, except that in this field, some
> of the use cases for verifiable claims also intersect with legal
> requirements (e.g. being required to check the age of someone before
> selling them certain products). We easily back into the ‘quis custodiet
> custodies?’ problem if we’re not careful (who watches the watchers?) and
> wonder “who is recognized legally as being able to prove the age of a
> customer?”.
> >>
> >>
> >> David Singer
> >> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> >>
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
> >
> >
> > Thank you for your compliance.
> >
> > ________________________________
>
>
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion