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

[- GitHub email addresses]

Please note that this response by Sharron was attributed to John on 
GitHub:

https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/243#issuecomment-338303637

On 20 Oct 2017, at 21:39, Sharron Rush wrote:

> +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*