- From: Sharron Rush <srush@knowbility.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:39:37 -0500
- To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- Cc: "w3c/wcag21" <reply+0012be7392ff41d0d8c2cffe6169827081e25fdf1ef1e8f492cf00000001160092d992a16>, RQTF <public-rqtf@w3.org>, "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, "w3c/wcag21" <wcag21@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <CA++nJxqwWh40uUX_Pouw5NCgLtd-e6v9MXtc8mtDOLL3DPFdZQ@mail.gmail.com>
+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*
Received on Friday, 20 October 2017 19:40:01 UTC