Re: Web accessibility versus general accessibility standards

Hi Edward & all,

I have been also thinking along the same lines as Edward's note for a few
months. While working in the digital accessibility area with many software
agile teams, people ask for clarifications and explanations about some of
the WCAG criteria and cognitive design considerations. I have always heard
this argument that dynamic websites can not be one size fit all. I am
interested in this conversation.

And sorry I could not join the kick-off call due to some timezone confusion
from my side, I will try to join Group A calls now onwards.

Thanks,

Hiral

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:32 AM Russell Campbell <ctrain79@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Good thoughts, Edward—this describes a situation very much similar to the
> games industry and how they have been working over the past few years to
> help make interactivity more accessible through controllers,
> visual configurations, adjustable difficulty levels, etc. I believe much
> could be gleaned from looking to the games industry and for web
> interactivity to follow suit.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Russell Campbell
>
> On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 17:02, Edward Chalk <edwardchalk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Just some thoughts, if I may :-)
>>
>> General accessibility standards imply that the goods/services should be
>> usable by people with disabilities as well as by full-functioning people.
>> For example, we may provide a wheelchair ramp into a building so that the
>> building is accessible both to people who require wheelchairs in order to
>> be mobile, as well as to people who walk. So when we talk about Internet
>> accessibility for people with cognitive disabilities, we could mean the
>> same thing. In other words, we could mean that a person with a cognitive
>> disability should be able to use a website, as well as a person who does
>> not have a cognitive disability.
>>
>> However, it may be worthwhile considering that we are potentially talking
>> about two sorts of websites. Originally, a website was nothing more than an
>> online way of representing text and / or images, and some websites still
>> operate on that basis. For these types of websites, the analogy to the
>> wheelchair ramp is correct. Different to this is the modern trend where a
>> website is an intelligent agent that proactively interacts with the user.
>> Here, the website is expected to engage and interact with the user in the
>> same way as a person (i.e. the web site meets the Turing Test
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test> to some extent). In this
>> paradigm, the website becomes an active agent and not just a passive body
>> of knowledge.
>>
>> For an active-agent type website, the question of accessibility seems to
>> be more: Can the intelligent-agent interact with a user who has a cognitive
>> disability, on their own terms?
>>
>> Subsequently, it may not be altogether clear that applying a universal
>> standard for the accessibility of goods/services to the accessibility of
>> information systems, such as the Internet, may lead to quite the right
>> outcomes and conclusions, since the accessibility of an intelligent-agent
>> that is implemented through an information system, does not mean the same
>> thing as enhanced passive accessibility that is relevant to general goods
>> and services.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Edward
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>