Re: Silver from a Canadian pov

I think these are good points for the request to produce a group inventory of pros and cons for each proposal. Like, “supports the ‘equal benefits’ points in current legislation”.

I believe that the interest and intent is to reward outcomes, but recognize inputs. The creation process may be recognized if it results in measurable improvement in outcomes. So, not “because we do x, y, z”, but rather because thing {a} met the guideline for defined functional need, and the outcome of the act of {x} exceeded the guideline by meeting the {additional functional need}.

I think the “accessibility supported” concern in Silver is less about author control for use with current technology and more to do with author prediction of emerging technology. But in my opinion, the author is beholden to the user through the same protocols that the assistive technology is. So if a given AT fails to recognize the title attribute and value on an <abbr> element, it is not a fail from the author because the mechanism was available.

Charles Hall // Senior UX Architect

(he//him)
charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com<mailto:charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com?subject=Note%20From%20Signature>
w 248.203.8723
m 248.225.8179
360 W Maple Ave, Birmingham MI 48009
mrm-mccann.com<https://www.mrm-mccann.com/>

[MRM//McCann]
Relationship Is Our Middle Name

Network of the Year, Cannes Lions 2019
Ad Age Agency A-List 2016, 2017, 2019
Ad Age Creativity Innovators 2016, 2017
Ad Age B-to-B Agency of the Year 2018
North American Agency of the Year, Cannes 2016
Leader in Gartner Magic Quadrant 2017, 2018, 2019
Most Creatively Effective Agency Network in the World, Effie 2018, 2019



From: Mark Weiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
Reply-To: Mark Weiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
Date: Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 8:05 AM
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Silver from a Canadian pov
Resent-From: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 8:05 AM

Hi all,

As a Canadian, I look at Silver from the perspective of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees people with mental and physical disabilities equal benefit and protection under the law.  For this pov, I think web content accessibility guidelines need to be modeled to meet human rights criteria. If it doesn’t, I can’t see a legislative assembly adopting it only for it to buckle in the courts.  My sense is a human rights approach would recognize a digital infrastructure that makes it reasonably possible for a one-size-fits-one paradigm of producing web content.

The Silver points systems for conformance is confusing, although I realize it's in draft still.  Is it assessing the content-creation processes rather than the content itself?  What if an innovative group comes up with a reliable and effective content-creation processes that aren’t contemplated by Silver, will they be able to get to gold?

I appreciate encouraging organizations to adopt processes that minimize barriers but are some of the points about characteristics of organizational processes rather than content?  Is the Silver conformance model better understood as a standard for organizational activities (“our organization is at a Gold level because we do x, y, z”) rather than the web content itself?  Compare with the new ISO standard for human-centred design in organizations<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iso.org_standard_63462.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=Ftw_YSVcGmqQBvrGwAZugGylNRkk-uER0-5bY94tjsc&r=FbsK8fvOGBHiAasJukQr6i2dv-WpJzmR-w48cl75l3c&m=PbIctJwkkXtyaJi5hU4UV0c5ToHEnDb-W3bAW-PXxBI&s=HAJ4_tj5eGd0wrOtk5w08zfmPkFU9aM5SGGrynR6V8Y&e=>.
Also, removing “accessibility supported” from the authors responsibility raises a few questions.   If a public website makes a service available to some portion of the population but people with disabilities can’t use it because third-party browsers or AT aren’t adequate, then how is there equal benefit or protection under the law?  Am I missing something there?

Sincerely,

Mark

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive this message for the intended recipient), you may not use, copy, disseminate or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message.  If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message.  Thank you very much.