Fwd: Accessibility, discrimination, and WCAG 2.0

Although I don't think we're ready yet to have discussions on the
interest group about the specific items on the draft (and I said as
much in email to Charles and the IG group), I think that he raises
some serious issues which need to be considered.

I see those as:

1.  Is it necessary to present graphics with text in order to be
     "legal"?
2.  If we give "use alt text" and "use graphics" the same status,
     then we are demanding graphics on all pages or we are saying
     that alt text may not be that important.
3.  While acknowledging that it increases usability for everyone,
     might it be possible that graphics represents a "good to do"
     concept and not a "must do"?  What about writing for increased
     comprehension?
4.  Who decides whether the material is written at an "appropriate"
     level?  Without any way to gauge this, it's left to the author's
     discretion.  Will that be sufficient when a person with
     cognitive disabilities writes to the webmaster and says "this is
     too complex for me"?  Is the webmaster required to rewrite the
     entire site because of one cognitively disabled person, or is 
     it a WCAG-sanctioned defense to say "I don't expect people of
     your cognitive level to use this site"?
5.  What effect do our guidelines have on the ability of people
     with disabilities to author web sites effectively?

I'd like to see these discussed (and not brushed off as they are
all pretty important) and possibly added to the issues list.

--Kynn

>Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:48:51 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>
>To: "WAI Interest Group \(E-mail\)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 19:53:43 -0700
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
>Importance: Normal
>Subject: Accessibility, discrimination, and WCAG 2.0
>Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> archive/latest/6814
>X-Loop: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>Sender: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org
>List-Id: <w3c-wai-ig.w3.org>
>List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>Over the past few weeks this list has seen much discussion about the meaning
>of accessibility and the role that graphics and multimedia play in helping
>people with cognitive disabilities. One of the points made in this
>discussion is that text-only sites are unfair to people with cognitive
>disabilities. I don't think that this is necessarily the case, and I'd like
>to explain why. I realize that I will be vilified by some for expressing a
>view that may seem at first rather politically incorrect.
>
>Over the past fifty years great strides have been made in making our
>societies fairer and more just. The civil rights movement, the feminist
>movement, the gay rights movement, and the efforts to increase access for
>people with disabilities have brought us much closer to a truly egalitarian
>society. In the process, the word "discrimination" has become associated
>with narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and injustice. The result is a sort of
>knee-jerk reaction on the part of many whenever an action appears
>discriminatory.
>
>I propose, however, that discrimination is not only positive, but also vital
>to our survival as a species. We discriminate thousands of times a day, most
>often without any conscious thought. When I choose what I want to eat, where
>I want to go, what I want to say or do, I am discriminating. When we grade
>our students, critique our art, reward the winners of contests, or present
>awards and prizes for outstanding performance, we are engaging in
>discrimination. Yet who would argue that these acts of discrimination are
>wrong?
>
>In fact, our laws are discriminatory. That's their entire point. They
>discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Should we do away
>with laws because they discriminate?
>
>Discrimination is only a problem when it is *unfair* discrimination, that is
>when the basis for the discrimination is irrelevant to the situation at
>hand. For example, if I charge a higher price to some clients because of
>their sexual preferences (or their sex or their color, etc.), I am
>discriminating unfairly. Sexual preference, sex, color, etc. is irrelevant
>to the service I provide. Put another way, there is nothing unfair about
>imprisoning a rapist, but there is something very unfair when an
>African-American rapist gets life while a European-American rapist
>committing the same crime gets five years. In both instances we are
>discriminating, but in one we are discriminating very unfairly.
>
>Viewed in Web terms, if I design a real estate site in a manner that makes
>it inaccessible to the blind, I've discriminated unfairly. Vision or lack of
>same is not relevant to the sale of real estate. On the other hand, if I'm
>building a site to train city bus drivers, is it unfair to deny access to
>the blind? It might be if there were information available not directly
>related to driving a bus, but in the absence of such information, I contend
>that it is not unfairly discriminatory. Blind people do not drive buses.
>
>When we are dealing with issues such as vision, hearing, or physical
>disabilities, it is not that difficult to decide when discrimination is
>unfair. But when we get into the realm of cognitive disabilities, things get
>tricky rather quickly.
>
>To me, the key to deciding whether a site is discriminating unfairly or
>fairly is audience. To whom is the site addressed? If a site is intended to
>bring doctors up to date on the latest techniques for microsurgery, I don't
>think it's reasonable to expect them to rewrite the text to make it
>understandable by lay persons, let alone by a user with Down's Syndrome. But
>that's an extreme example. Let's try one a little more complicated:
>
>Should the IRS site be designed to accommodate those who cannot read?
>
>I say: maybe. Or rather: partially.
>
>I am a reasonably bright guy with a good grasp of English. Frankly, the
>standard 1040 form is pretty close to Greek to me already. Yes, I'm all for
>explaining the form simply (or better yet, simplifying the form itself), but
>I must ask, if a person can't read or write, how is he to complete the form?
>And if a person has a serious learning disorder, should he even attempt such
>a task? Perhaps a better solution is to provide free filing assistance to
>people with cognitive disabilities (or better yet, to everyone).
>
>If there is a reasonable chance of making a part of the IRS site
>understandable to a person with a learning disability, then by all means
>make it understandable. But where do we draw the line? Some seem to think
>that all such lines are evil, but I disagree. There is a point where such
>efforts become an exercise in futility.
>
>Another consideration is cost. In a perfect world, cost would be no object.
>But then in a perfect world, there would be no disabilities. The reality is
>that most web sites are cash strapped to begin with. Providing multiple
>translations, commissioning graphics or multimedia, etc. is expensive. Most
>of my clients can barely afford a site, let alone expensive graphics and
>multimedia.
>
>I'm not concerned about scaring away giant corporations with the WCAG
>because a) frankly, they can afford it and b) no-one is going to scare them
>away anyway. But I am concerned about pricing small businesses, non-profit
>organizations, and individuals out of the Web. If you think that telling
>people NOT to use graphics is off-putting, try telling them that they MUST
>use graphics.
>
>So what does this have to do with the WCAG? Well, take a look at the current
>working draft of version 2.0:
>
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20000928
>
>Pay particular attention to Guideline 3: Design for ease of comprehension.
>There are many items here that give me pause, but to keep this posting to an
>only slightly outrageous length, consider 3.7: Supplement text with graphic
>or auditory presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the
>content.
>
>Let's say that I wrote a novel and I decide to put the full text on-line for
>people to download. Is my site inaccessible because I didn't supplement the
>novel with pictures? But as published on paper it had no pictures. The
>reason? The intended audience was readers. The on-line version is identical,
>but suddenly it's inaccessible? Would my site be denied a AAA rating based
>on this?
>
>And if the WCAG should at some point become enforced by law (certainly
>within the realm of possibility), would my site be illegal? And if so, would
>my paperback novel be illegal also? Should all novels be forced into comic
>book format from here out?
>
>As you can see, this is not a simple issue and the answers are not, IMO,
>obvious.
>
>I think that Wayne Myers was right on the money when he wrote about
>accessibility vs. understandability. It is one thing to ensure that
>documents are available to everyone regardless of disability. It is quite
>another to try to make them understandable. The current draft of WCAG 2.0
>blurs the line between these two concepts even further than WCAG 1.0 did. As
>I see it, Guideline 3 is more "nice to do" than "need to do." Whether it's
>suggestions apply depends on both the purpose of a site and it's intended
>audience. A government site intended for the general public might need to
>follow all of these guidelines (and the funds to make that possible should
>be made available). But another site, such as my hypothetical on-line novel,
>might not need to follow any of the suggestions in Guideline 3 to
>satisfactorily serve it's intended audience.
>
>Finally, consider this:
>
>What if a person with a cognitive disability wants to put up a web site?
>Should he or she be required to comply with the WCAG? (Not an easy
>proposition since the guidelines are text-only and the language is certainly
>not "the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content.")
>If a blind man builds a web site, does he have to include graphics? If a
>deaf woman builds a site, must it include audio?
>
>I don't know that I have the answers to these questions or even that there
>are simple answers. As the current draft of WCAG 2.0 stands, I like section
>3. I think the suggestions are good suggestions. But I also think that they
>require good powers of, yes, discrimination. I worry about how they may be i
>nterpreted in a world where most people seem to prefer black and white. I
>also wonder how we are going to measure understandability. It is one thing
>to say that site A doesn't work on screen reader B or that site C provides
>visual information not accessible to blind users. How do we decide when a
>site is understandable enough? WCAG 2.0 says "appropriate for a site's
>content," but who decides this?
>
>I wonder if anyone else on this list has had any thoughts on this matter...
>
>Sincerely,
>Charles F. Munat
>Seattle, Washington

-- 
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                    http://kynn.com/
Director of Accessibility, Edapta               http://www.edapta.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://www.idyllmtn.com/
AWARE Center Director                      http://www.awarecenter.org/
What's on my bookshelf?                         http://kynn.com/books/

Received on Saturday, 21 October 2000 23:27:17 UTC