Re: [w3c/wcag21] Statement of partial conformance - Language (#243)

> However, despite the fact that we always advocate for web accessibility
as a joint effort, the localisation industry still believes that they
should not be necessarily accountable for rendering the web content they
manipulate and create accessible (or even for identifying potential
accessibility issues and reporting them). If a W3C accessibility
recommendation would consider the case of multilingual/localised websites,
it is likely that industry stakeholders would feel the pressure to get
informed and receive training.

​Recognizing the problem statement as a real problem, I still wonder aloud
if the technical specification that is (or will be) WCAG 2.1 is the right
place to address this problem. As David has already pointed out,
conformance claims are on a per-page basis, and not further evaluated as to
source of content (original versus localized).

It seems instead that this problem is more of a policy / procurement issue,
with lack of clarity over who is responsible for what in any contracted
localization service delivery. This is not unlike other 3rd-party vendors,
such as media providers (videographers): there, the question becomes "Who
is responsible for the (closed/open) captions?" Response: "What does the
contract say?"

In simple English, if an entity believes ​that the company doing
localization for them should also be responsible for ensuring conformance
to any standard (WCAG or otherwise), then that presumably would be in the
contract between the service provider and the service contractor.
Conversely, if it isn't part of a contracted service agreement, then it is
(IMHO) unreasonable to presume that services not specified are
none-the-less required. In the end, this isn't a technical problem, it's a
social problem.


I can appreciate the
 localisation industry
​'s current stance then, as "accessibility" is both content and delivery,
yet these localization efforts often do not have control over all of the
pieces required to ensure that the content *AND* functionality remains
accessible. Additionally, if their contracts do not stipulate this
deliverable, they are perfectly within their rights to take the stance they
currently hold.

I might suggest however that a better approach is not to look for a
(metaphoric) stick, but rather to show up with a big bag of
(metaphoric)
carrots.

​L
ocalisation industry​
​ companies could (and should) market their ability to assist / verify /
contribute​ towards universal accessibility W.R.T. site localization
efforts, which strikes me as a significant value-add, and could be a huge
differentiator when companies are looking to outsource their localization
efforts.

>
I could send you reports of our research work on the topic of accessibility
in the multilingual web, if you are interested.


I
​ am sure that a significant number of us would be very interested in
seeing that​ research, including a few other W3C groups currently working
under the WAI domain (Research Questions Task Force, Silver Task Force,
Education and Outreach Working Group). If it is possible to share that
material, then it would be greatly appreciated.

JF



On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:20 AM, srodriguezvazquez <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

> Thanks for your remark, @joshueoconnor <https://github.com/joshueoconnor>
> I understand why you may believe that benefits would be minimal. Still,
> please bear in mind that there are many levels of localisation, and page
> functionality/content may differ greatly from one language version to
> another in certain cases.
>
> I do not know if you have already made up your mind regarding this issue,
> but I'd like to argue that if the particular case of multilingual or
> localised websites could be at least mentioned in the new WCAG 2.1, I
> believe there would be an immediate impact at least in terms of awareness
> among multilingual communication engineers within the language industry. In
> turn, this would contribute, in the long term, to an increase in the number
> of accessible websites worldwide.
>
> The language industry, which encompasses website localisation and
> multilingual web management services, has registered the highest growth
> rate of all industries in Europe two years ago. Worldwide, its size was
> already estimated at USD 31.5 billion back in 2011. Localisation
> professionals manipulate web content everyday (most global companies, for
> instance, localise product and services-related web pages). However,
> despite the fact that we always advocate for web accessibility as a joint
> effort, the localisation industry still believes that they should not be
> necessarily accountable for rendering the web content they manipulate and
> create accessible (or even for identifying potential accessibility issues
> and reporting them). If a W3C accessibility recommendation would consider
> the case of multilingual/localised websites, it is likely that industry
> stakeholders would feel the pressure to get informed and receive training.
>
> I could send you reports of our research work on the topic of
> accessibility in the multilingual web, if you are interested.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/243#issuecomment-337960768>, or mute
> the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABK-c4UVZu3TbY-w4zGbGnKpOu2grtkZks5st3bZgaJpZM4Mv7e6>
> .
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion