Re: Response from Accessibility Lawyer on Plain Language in Silver

Thank you for sharing this, David.

I'm really curious about this suggestion: "We would suggest using a mixed
Plain Language and Technical language rather than settling on a
one-size-fits all model for creating WCAG Silver."

I'm curious why that is. Couldn't plain language benefit everyone?

Thank you,
Dale

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018, 3:43 PM David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com wrote:

> Hi All
>
> I asked Joshua Stein with whom many of you may be familiar, who's been an
> accessibility lawyer on many ADA cases, the following question.
>
> *"*Do you think that the  wording in WCAG 2.x is frustrating to legal
> proceedings, and that it would be better if we moved to a model that is
> plain language ? "
>
> Joshua's unedited response which he has given me permission to share with
> our groups.
>
> ================
> 1)     From a legal perspective, the courts are currently focused on the
> end result of website accessibility (i.e., is a website in substantial
> conformance with the applicable WCAG  success criteria and does it offer
> individuals with disabilities the same experience as individuals without
> disabilities?).  Using active vs passive voice within the Guidelines should
> have a limited direct effect on the legal application of the WCAG as,
> to-date, the courts are not hearing specific challenges to the WCAG
> language.  This is likely due to the fact WCAG has not been formally
> adopted by a government regulator (e.g., DOJ) and, therefore, the
> Guidelines are not subject to the same legal scrutiny given to Standards
> promulgated by the federal government that places of public accommodation
> are required to follow.  Should the legal landscape change, a WCAG Silver
> “Guidance” document could be created to help clarify any specific legal
> challenges to the original text/prior versions.
>
> 2)     I spoke with our in-house website accessibility team and, from a
> programmer/tester perspective, the use of plain language within the WCAG
> would likely improve its overall understandability to a broader audience
> (developers and designers).  The current WCAG 2.1 language contains a lot
> of ambiguity which can make it difficult to determine if an issue
> can/should be categorized under a specific guideline and/or success/failure
> technique.  However, we also acknowledge some of the technical language
> currently used is necessary to identify success criteria issues and to
> describe the steps required to fix the issue.   We would suggest using a
> mixed Plain Language and Technical language rather than settling on a
> one-size-fits all model for creating WCAG Silver.  Plain language examples
> of possible remediation options would likely prove beneficial as well.
>
> ===============
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Mobile:  613.806.9005
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>