Re: [w3c/wcag21] Statement of partial conformance - Language (#243)

+1 would appreciate the shared research.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:17 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> > However, despite the fact that we always advocate for web accessibility
> as a joint effort, the localisation industry still believes that they
> should not be necessarily accountable for rendering the web content they
> manipulate and create accessible (or even for identifying potential
> accessibility issues and reporting them). If a W3C accessibility
> recommendation would consider the case of multilingual/localised websites,
> it is likely that industry stakeholders would feel the pressure to get
> informed and receive training.
>
> ​Recognizing the problem statement as a real problem, I still wonder aloud
> if the technical specification that is (or will be) WCAG 2.1 is the right
> place to address this problem. As David has already pointed out,
> conformance claims are on a per-page basis, and not further evaluated as to
> source of content (original versus localized).
>
> It seems instead that this problem is more of a policy / procurement
> issue, with lack of clarity over who is responsible for what in any
> contracted localization service delivery. This is not unlike other
> 3rd-party vendors, such as media providers (videographers): there, the
> question becomes "Who is responsible for the (closed/open) captions?"
> Response: "What does the contract say?"
>
> In simple English, if an entity believes ​that the company doing
> localization for them should also be responsible for ensuring conformance
> to any standard (WCAG or otherwise), then that presumably would be in the
> contract between the service provider and the service contractor.
> Conversely, if it isn't part of a contracted service agreement, then it is
> (IMHO) unreasonable to presume that services not specified are
> none-the-less required. In the end, this isn't a technical problem, it's a
> social problem.
>
>
> I can appreciate the
>  localisation industry
> ​'s current stance then, as "accessibility" is both content and delivery,
> yet these localization efforts often do not have control over all of the
> pieces required to ensure that the content *AND* functionality remains
> accessible. Additionally, if their contracts do not stipulate this
> deliverable, they are perfectly within their rights to take the stance they
> currently hold.
>
> I might suggest however that a better approach is not to look for a
> (metaphoric) stick, but rather to show up with a big bag of
> (metaphoric)
> carrots.
>
> ​L
> ocalisation industry​
> ​ companies could (and should) market their ability to assist / verify /
> contribute​ towards universal accessibility W.R.T. site localization
> efforts, which strikes me as a significant value-add, and could be a huge
> differentiator when companies are looking to outsource their localization
> efforts.
>
> >
> I could send you reports of our research work on the topic of
> accessibility in the multilingual web, if you are interested.
>
>
> I
> ​ am sure that a significant number of us would be very interested in
> seeing that​ research, including a few other W3C groups currently working
> under the WAI domain (Research Questions Task Force, Silver Task Force,
> Education and Outreach Working Group). If it is possible to share that
> material, then it would be greatly appreciated.
>
> JF
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:20 AM, srodriguezvazquez <
> notifications@github.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your remark, @joshueoconnor <https://github.com/joshueoconnor>
>> I understand why you may believe that benefits would be minimal. Still,
>> please bear in mind that there are many levels of localisation, and page
>> functionality/content may differ greatly from one language version to
>> another in certain cases.
>>
>> I do not know if you have already made up your mind regarding this issue,
>> but I'd like to argue that if the particular case of multilingual or
>> localised websites could be at least mentioned in the new WCAG 2.1, I
>> believe there would be an immediate impact at least in terms of awareness
>> among multilingual communication engineers within the language industry. In
>> turn, this would contribute, in the long term, to an increase in the number
>> of accessible websites worldwide.
>>
>> The language industry, which encompasses website localisation and
>> multilingual web management services, has registered the highest growth
>> rate of all industries in Europe two years ago. Worldwide, its size was
>> already estimated at USD 31.5 billion back in 2011. Localisation
>> professionals manipulate web content everyday (most global companies, for
>> instance, localise product and services-related web pages). However,
>> despite the fact that we always advocate for web accessibility as a joint
>> effort, the localisation industry still believes that they should not be
>> necessarily accountable for rendering the web content they manipulate and
>> create accessible (or even for identifying potential accessibility issues
>> and reporting them). If a W3C accessibility recommendation would consider
>> the case of multilingual/localised websites, it is likely that industry
>> stakeholders would feel the pressure to get informed and receive training.
>>
>> I could send you reports of our research work on the topic of
>> accessibility in the multilingual web, if you are interested.
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> —
>> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
>> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/243#issuecomment-337960768>, or mute
>> the thread
>> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABK-c4UVZu3TbY-w4zGbGnKpOu2grtkZks5st3bZgaJpZM4Mv7e6>
>> .
>>
>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>



-- 
Sharron Rush | Executive Director | Knowbility.org | @knowbility
*Equal access to technology for people with disabilities*