Re: [EXTERNAL] [White paper] A11Y Wars: The Accessibility Interpretation Problem

Hi Tim,

I'd be delighted to send you a copy of the white paper as a word document.
In fact...it should be in your inbox right now.

Let me know if you didn't receive it.

Best,
Glenda

*glenda sims* <glenda.sims@deque.com>, cpacc
<http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification>   | team a11y lead
| 512.963.3773

        deque systems <http://www.deque.com>  accessibility for good

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Tim Harshbarger <
tim.harshbarger.cqwg@statefarm.com> wrote:

> Would it be possible for you also to share this document in some other
> format or location—like a web site?  I am interested in reading the
> document, but our company does not allow us to access Google Docs.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Wilco [mailto:wilcofiers@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 14, 2018 3:51 PM
> *To:* w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> *Cc:* Glenda Sims <glsims99@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [White paper] A11Y Wars: The Accessibility
> Interpretation Problem
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Below the summary of the white paper we have created. We hope you find it
> interesting and helpful in your work:
>
>
>
> Without a shared testing perspective, achieving accurate test results for
> compliance with WCAG 2.0 can be challenging and expensive. A common cause
> for inconsistent accessibility results between experts is accessibility
> testers doing their work with different goals in mind. Natural tension
> exists between the goals of users, designers, developers, testers,
> trainers, project managers, and executives. An unstated goal for testing
> can be a major source of inconsistent results between tests.
>
>
>
> It is time to stop the accessibility interpretation wars. There is no "one
> best way" of interpreting accessibility standards. There are different
> interpretations, each valid and useful in their own right. The
> Accessibility Peace Model identifies the following key perspectives used
> for accessibility testing.
>
>
>
> ·       *Minimum -* based on the normative text of the technical
> requirement. This perspective often seeks low cost and quick solution to
> meet legal requirements.
>
> ·       *Optimized -* based on the spirit and the intent of the normative
> technical requirement, rather than just minimum compliance. This is a
> pragmatic approach to sustainable universal design that balances equal
> access, civil rights, and actual outcomes for users with disabilities with
> what is technically possible with other requirements, (business) goals for
> the product, and what is reasonable to achieve today. This perspective is
> the most effective use of resources in the long run.
>
> ·       *Ideal -* based on a human factors approach that extends beyond
> legal compliance and pragmatic best practices. Focuses on quality of user
> experience for people with disabilities and innovative breakthroughs that
> eliminate barriers once considered impossible to solve. During initial
> phases, this perspective may be expensive.
>
>
> By clearly defining the perspective your organization is using for
> accessibility testing, your organization can save time and lower costs.
>
>
>
> Read the White Paper "A11Y Wars: The Accessibility Interpretation Problem
> (http://bit.ly/a11ypeace) <http://bit.ly/a11ypeace>"
>
>
>
> Let's make a11y peace!
>
>
>
>
>
> WIlco Fiers & Glenda Sims
>