- From: Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@webconforme.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 12:11:04 -0400
- To: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Catherine, Also, I just realize now that I've somehow mixed, "wary" and "worry"... which gives a somewhat different meaning to the understanding I've had of your post... In all honesty, I had to look "wary" up in the dictionary. Again, blame it on my english. One of my many disabilities I guess. ;p /Denis On 2011-06-07, at 11:59 AM, Denis Boudreau wrote: > Hi again, > > On 2011-06-07, at 10:12 AM, catherine wrote: > >> On Tue, June 7, 2011 8:19 am, Denis Boudreau wrote: >>> I happen to be more optimistic than yourself and the people you're >>> referring to regarding the standards, but then again, if of all people, I >>> wasn't, then I wonder who would be... >> >> Apologies but you lost me here. Could you please clarify which people I am >> apparently not optimistic about ? > > You wrote: > > "While it is *technically* sound, some people and organisations (including myself) are wary of its application objectives and disappointed with the whole process that led to its development and adoption." > > Maybe "optimistic" wasn't the right word to use. I only meant to say that I felt more comfortable about the whole thing than you and the organizations you were referring to seem to be. > > I should have written "application objectives" instead of "standards", that one slipped past me. Let'S blame it on my somewhat limited english... My bad. Sorry. > > Regards, > > /Denis > > > >>> On 2011-06-07, at 1:38 AM, catherine wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> If I may add to Denis' comments with regards to the legal situation in >>>> Québec and perhaps offer a different point of view (*disclaimer*: I was >>>> part of the team that prepared the first version of the Québec Web >>>> accessibility standard). >>>> >>>> From a legal standpoint, before the Québec standard (SGQRI 008) came >>>> along, there already was a legal obligation, and this concerns the >>>> public >>>> and private sector. First, Québec has a human rights charter[1] that >>>> applies to all entities, including the private sector. So, any person >>>> with >>>> a disability could invoke article 10 of the provincial human rights >>>> charter with regards to inaccessibility of public sector or commercial >>>> web >>>> sites whether we have a standard or not. Using the charter is not a >>>> simple >>>> process but people with disabilities have recently started using the >>>> charter more with regards to information technologies used by commercial >>>> entities (most notably concerning point of sales terminals) and I >>>> believe >>>> we can expect more instances where the charter will be used. >>>> >>>> Also, in terms of legislation, Québec has a provincial law on disability >>>> rights[2] that was updated in 2004 and that created an obligation, via >>>> article 26.5, that the Québec government adopt a policy granting access >>>> to >>>> people with disabilities, in the spirit of reasonable accommodation, to >>>> services and public information regardless of their format (so including >>>> those offered online). This policy[3] was adopted in December 2006. Of >>>> note, all other public policies dealing with information resources must >>>> refer to this specific policy for accommodations to people with >>>> disabilities. >>>> >>>> The Québec standard Denis mentioned is a technical tool that specifies >>>> technical obligations for Web content but the legal obligation was >>>> already >>>> there and for quite some time (albeit, it is easy to imagine the >>>> standard >>>> having a political impact but it is still much too early to discuss this >>>> yet). In the absence of the standard, a person with disabilities using >>>> the >>>> legal tools at her disposal could have pointed to internationally >>>> recognized guidelines (WCAG) and the provincial government would have >>>> been >>>> hard-pressed to argue, especially considering how the federal government >>>> had traditionally chosen to deal with web accessibility of government >>>> web >>>> sites. >>>> >>>> Besides precising technical obligations, the process of developing the >>>> provincial standard, i.e. rewriting over the span of more than 4 years >>>> technical guidelines that already existed, could have easily given the >>>> government the false impression that it could stall. That no user with a >>>> disability called them on it and did not pursue a case is just the >>>> government's luck. The standard may also muddy the waters with regards >>>> to >>>> just how far an agency or ministery has to go since it excludes certain >>>> types of information, applies different obligation deadlines for certain >>>> types of content or platforms (example, intranets) and provides a big >>>> out >>>> (alternate version). >>>> >>>> I would be remiss if I did not mention that some in the disability >>>> community in Québec are not necessarily thrilled with this standard. >>>> While >>>> it is *technically* sound, some people and organisations (including >>>> myself) are wary of its application objectives and disappointed with the >>>> whole process that led to its development and adoption. However, we >>>> recognise that the standard can be part of a toolkit of sorts that >>>> enables >>>> the disability community to ensure the government is respecting our >>>> digital rights. >>>> >>>> And, even though ministeries and agencies had a chance to be consulted >>>> and >>>> to negotiate the standard and therefore see it coming (which is more >>>> than >>>> the disability community can say since the standard was not the subject >>>> of >>>> any public consultations and was developed without the disability >>>> community), there are, less than a month after its adoption, already >>>> rumors of resistance within the government due to lack of funds to apply >>>> it. But of course, that was to be expected. >>>> >>>> Please note that all links direct to French resources. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Catherine >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.cdpdj.qc.ca/fr/placedelareligion/2-charte.asp >>>> [2] >>>> <http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/E_20_1/E20_1.html> >>>> [3] >>>> <http://www.ophq.gouv.qc.ca/partenaires/lacces-aux-documents-et-aux-services-offerts-au-public-pour-les-personnes-handicapees.html> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Catherine Roy >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, June 6, 2011 5:01 pm, Denis Boudreau wrote: >>>>> Good afternoon Wayne, all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2011-06-06, at 3:19 PM, Wayne Dick wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This primarily to Denis, but the rest of the group might be >>>>>> interested. >>>>> >>>>> I'll do my best to make it so then! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> As I read the document, I notice that the WAI is not concerned with >>>>>> laws, policies, regulations and guidelines developed by governments. >>>>>> These are necessary implementation templates for executing WCAG 2.0. >>>>>> The documents actually discourages developing local Standards. >>>>> >>>>> This is my understanding also. While I totally understand why the W3C >>>>> needs to do so, I do believe most governments will always have a >>>>> tendency >>>>> to do things their way. In my case here, simply saying "go with the >>>>> W3C" >>>>> was totally out of the question. Government officials I work for never >>>>> even considered it, based on their understanding of the results from >>>>> the >>>>> Canadian government experience (more on that below). >>>>> >>>>> As "damaging" as it may be for accessibility in certain cases, I truly >>>>> believe it doesn't always have to be harmful. Hence my comments last >>>>> friday. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> So, in Canada (Quebec) did you develop a National or Provincial >>>>>> Standards document, of did you formulate law, policy, regulations and >>>>>> guidelines? If you did the latter, then you did exactly the right >>>>>> thing. Canada may be held up as an exemplar of good practice. >>>>> >>>>> Given the politics up here, I highly doubt we can be help up as an >>>>> example >>>>> of any kind. But let's not discuss canadian politics just yet. <smile> >>>>> >>>>> It's kind of in between actually. I co-wrote the standards, but we also >>>>> wrote different documents intended as guidelines to help web >>>>> authors/developers get it right. I had (and still have) no bearings on >>>>> the >>>>> legal aspects of the whole thing, however. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Could you clarify this. >>>>> >>>>> Here's what happened and the context in which it did, in as few words >>>>> as >>>>> possible. >>>>> >>>>> Canada has had it's accessibility standard since 2000: it's called CLF >>>>> (Common Look and Feel), v2.0. It basically says: apply WCAG 1.0 level >>>>> AA >>>>> (with minor modifications). The Treasury Board currently works on an >>>>> upgrade that brings CLF to WCAG 2.0 AA. They rely on techniques and >>>>> failures as guides in order to understand how WCAG needs to be >>>>> implemented. There are no laws, regulations or policies as far as I >>>>> know. >>>>> 10 years after having adopted WCAG however, the canadian government has >>>>> better-than-average accessible websites, but none of them are actually >>>>> compliant with WCAG 2.0 as most people have very different >>>>> understanding >>>>> of WCAG guidelines. This is a problem and this is what led the Quebec >>>>> government to go down a different route. >>>>> >>>>> Quebec adopted their standards on may 10th of this year. It is "only" a >>>>> 50 >>>>> pages or so 3-document standard (topics: html, downloadable documents >>>>> and >>>>> multimedia) that maps on to WCAG 2.0. Seeing how people's understanding >>>>> of >>>>> WCAG 2.0 was unequal from one developer to another, we decided to >>>>> "break >>>>> down" every SC we kept into so many different requirements that, once >>>>> put >>>>> together, say pretty much the same thing WCAG 2.0 AA does. That break >>>>> down >>>>> actually proves helpful (thus my example last friday with SC 1.3.1). >>>>> Right >>>>> now, the standards are a mandatory directive from the Quebec's treasury >>>>> Board, but there's a law coming along (bill 133) that will most likely >>>>> turn those standards into a legal obligation as well. The standards >>>>> affect >>>>> just about every organization from the public sector that's out there. >>>>> We're talking hundreds of organizations (which is a huge deal, >>>>> considering >>>>> we're only 7,7 million people in Quebec). No private sector yet - we'll >>>>> have to wait for that one. >>>>> >>>>> So in a way, what we have in is very much like WCAG 2.0 AA (except for >>>>> video content that only goes as high as A). If you follow those >>>>> guidelines, you will automatically be compliant with WCAG 2.0 AA. But >>>>> you >>>>> don't necessarily have to dig really deep to understand how to do it. >>>>> Which is why I am reluctant to agree on some of the wording in the >>>>> document: somehow, this makes it more easy for people to get it right >>>>> the >>>>> first time - thus, I humbly believe that fragmentation is not always a >>>>> disaster. Only time will tell if it actually works or not. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> /Denis >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 16:11:29 UTC