W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > November 2018

Re: Response from Accessibility Lawyer on Plain Language in Silver

From: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 13:10:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJeQ8SCMJdrJK7H6ofMAHrvw905iH-gRu1kBrL-ZQH1zaWpRtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Denis Boudreau <denis.boudreau@deque.com>
Cc: dale.cruse@gmail.com, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-silver@w3.org
One thing we could do right now is to accompany SC Numbers with short names
throughout our literature or always link to the criterion. Our short names
are good mnemonics in general. That is plain language and something we
could do right now.

Long range we should probably drop SC numbers altogether. To users they
look like an inside joke that isn't funny.

Best, Wayne

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 9:56 AM Denis Boudreau <denis.boudreau@deque.com>

> Hi everyone,
> I also wanted to react to the “one-size-fits-all” bit, to remind us all
> that inclusive design principles exist because one size NEVER truly fits
> everyone. I realize language has been a challenge from day one due to the
> nature of the beast, but coming up with a plain language approach to WCAG,
> while apparently not a problem from a legal perspective, has always been
> the number two barrier to WCAG adoption. The number one barrier, of course
> (because you’re now dying to ask) being the technical and conceptual
> complexity of it all.
> I’m not sure it should be this working group’s responsibility to come up
> with this alternate version - I actually doubt that - but an alternate
> version written in layman’s terms would benefit a lot of people, inside and
> outside our community. EOWG is slowly working on something like that with
> my task force dedicated to role-based accessibility, but any effort to
> translate WCAG speak into something the implementors understand is needed
> more than ever with WCAG 2.1.
> /Denis
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:13 Dale Cruse <dale.cruse@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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>
>> --
> /Denis
> --
> Denis Boudreau
> Principal SME & trainer
> Web accessibility, inclusive design and UX
> Deque Systems inc.
> 514-730-9168
> Keep in touch: @dboudreau
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2018 21:11:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:44 UTC