Re[2]: Some thoughts on Accessibility of Machine Learning and Generative AI

Thanks for that Jason, looking forward to discussing!

--
Joshue O’Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie



------ Original Message ------
From "Scott Hollier" <scott.hollier@accessibility.org.au>
To "Jason J.G. White" <jason@jasonjgw.com>; "RQTF" <public-rqtf@w3.org>
Date 19/02/2025, 01:09:08
Subject RE: Some thoughts on Accessibility of Machine Learning and 
Generative AI

>To Jason
>
>
>
>This is great, and I think is quite well aligned with some of Josh’s 
>observations too. Look forward to chatting at the meeting.
>
>
>
>Scott.
>
>
>
>
>
>Dr Scott Hollier
>Chief Executive Officer
>
>Centre for Accessibility Australia logo
><https://www.accessibility.org.au/>
>
>Centre For Accessibility Australia Ltd.
>Phone: +61 (0)430 351 909
>Email: scott.hollier@accessibility.org.au
>Address: Suite 5, Belmont Hub, 213 Wright Street, Cloverdale WA 6105
>
>accessibility.org.au <https://www.accessibility.org.au/>
>
>Subscribe to our newsletter <http://eepurl.com/drA-ib>
>
>
>
>X icon
><https://twitter.com/centrefora11y>
>Instagram icon
><https://www.instagram.com/centreforaccessibility/>
>Facebook icon
><https://www.facebook.com/centrefora11y/>
>LinkedIn icon
><https://www.linkedin.com/company/centreforaccessibility/>
>
>
>
>CFA Australia respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Owners of 
>Country across Australia and pay our respects to Elders past and 
>present.
>
>
>
>From: Jason J.G. White <jason@jasonjgw.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, 19 February 2025 2:50 AM
>To: RQTF <public-rqtf@w3.org>
>Subject: Some thoughts on Accessibility of Machine Learning and 
>Generative AI
>
>
>
>In preparation for the discussion at the meeting tomorrow, I reviewed 
>the current draft’s table of contents to refresh my memory of what is 
>addressed in the text that we now have.
>
>
>
>It seems to me that we could consider an expanded structure that 
>addresses the role of machine learning and generative AI throughout the 
>“pipeline” encompassing the creation and use of Web content, including
>
>Its role in content development, including code generation, Web site 
>and document development, and multimedia accessibility from the 
>author’s perspective. In short, machine learning seems likely to have a 
>growing role in the authoring environment, including software 
>development, where its presence is already noteworthy.
>Its role in Web applications. In this case, the machine learning is 
>part of the application; it is deployed server-side or client-side, and 
>it provides or at least influences the user interface that is 
>ultimately experienced. Some generative AI applications would fit into 
>this category, for example those which offer natural language 
>interaction, and which can produce text or graphical output. Here, the 
>machine learning is integral to the deployed Web application, and not 
>merely a means of constructing it.
>Its role in enhancing the accessibility of user interfaces and in 
>assistive technologies at the point at which Web sites and applications 
>are being interacted with by the user. This is already occurring. 
>Examples include automated caption and image description generation. 
>Improved speech recognition and handwriting recognition are also 
>illustrative.
>Although I don’t think these categories are as cleanly demarcated as 
>one would like, they’re nevertheless a useful point of departure for 
>organizing the document. The distinction between the role of machine 
>learning/generative AI in the authoring environment and in the user’s 
>environment seems to me to be a useful approach to dividing up the 
>cases so they can be described, and the accessibility-related issues 
>documented.
>
>
>
>Some machine learning technologies can be applied in the authoring 
>environment or in the user’s environment. For example, automated 
>caption generation and image description could be deployed in either 
>environment. However, the issues are different in each case. In the 
>authoring context, there is more opportunity for collaborative review 
>and correction of the generated material assuming that there are 
>multiple authors with complementary abilities involved, whereas in the 
>user’s environment, support for identifying and correcting errors may 
>be unavailable (e.g., no human available to verify and correct image 
>descriptions, or no opportunity to correct automated captions in real 
>time).
>
>
>
>In general, I think this document would benefit from an analysis that 
>classifies the scenarios which are relevantly different in their 
>implications for accessibility, and then discusses each of the cases.
>
>
>
>Comments are welcome, of course, at the meeting  or via the mailing 
>list.
>