Re: Fwd: Accessibility, discrimination, and WCAG 2.0

I agree with Kynn that the issues raised are serious, and should be
considered.

I think another is raised here that has already been pointed out by
Claus (and in different contexts a few other people). It is about when WCAG
should be applied, and how. Anyway, discussion below:

On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  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"?

CMN I don't think WCAG defines "legal". I think it defines things which need
to be done in order to remove barriers to access. In general, content which
is entirely text present a barrier to access for a number of people. In order
to remove all barriers, in many cases, the provision of graphics is an
important part. Unfortunately, just as we can't tell people what to put in
alt text (although we can describe how to work it out) we can't tell people
what graphics to use (although there is a vast amount of literature on
graphic communication, from school-level texts to academic research
publications).

KB
  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.

CMN We are saying that they are equally important, in terms of removing a
barrier. Unless you means a particular status, your question doesn't say
anything about how important we think alt text is.

KB
  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?

CMN
Indeed it might be possible that it is a "good to do" and not a "must do". I
think the answer to that question is the first major resolution we need in
this area. (The second is information about how to do it.) I also feel that
more or less everyone agrees that the availability of illustrative graphics -
those which clarify textual content, is a "good thing".

KB
  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"?

CMN
I don't understand how WCAG sanctions a defense of any kind. I think it is a
misuse of the guidelines to claim that conforming to them at some level is a
better measure of accessibility than whether content meets the needs of
users. (Actually, as I see it the guidelines are broken exactly the amount
that conforming to them fails to meet the needs of real users).

There are a lot of requirements in the guidelines that require judgement for
their successful application. Whether something is a list or paragraph
content is a decision we make all the time. Consider:

Whether something is
   + a list, or
   + paragraph content
is a decision we make all the time. WCAG describes the things that need to be
done so that people can use a website regardless of disability, and the
techniques give some further guidance on how. I think they are pretty good,
busy do not provide a guarantee of accessibility.

(I realise I haven't answered the question, but I think it is a complex one
that deserves some discussion anyway.)

KB
  5.  What effect do our guidelines have on the ability of people
       with disabilities to author web sites effectively?
  
CMN

I don't see how WCAG has any affect on the ability of people to author web
sites. Although hopefully ATAG will have the effect of guiding developers to
produce better tools that make it easier for people (including people with
disabilities) to produce accessible Web Content.

It seems to me you are really asking whether people with disabilities will
find it difficult to produce WCAG-conformant content. And the answer is that
they will face the kinds of barriers they face in their everyday life.

<philosophical-bit>

There are not many great graphic designers who are blind. (There are not many
great graphic designers, because to be great at something implies being
better than most of the rest, as a rule.) There are not many Deaf people who
are brilliant composers or musicians. These things are more difficult. But I
am not a brilliant composer either (or even a tolerably bad one - I am simply
terrible). Principles of good design do not make me a better or worse
designer. They do provide me with some guidance as to whether my design is
better or worse.

Producing an accessible web site (one that does not contain barriers to being
used) is a task that requires skill. Some of that skill is easy to come by,
and some of it is not. In some circumstances it will be difficult for a
person with disabilities to develop those skills (just as it is difficult for
a person who is blind to ride a bicycle around town). This is not affected by
our guidelines, it is affected by the tools and techniques available to
people. It is important, as I understand it, for the guidelines to reflect
the barriers that exist, and for the techniques developed to show how they
can be removed. Beyond that, the WCAG and the AU groups need to work on
ensuring that the techniques can be used successfully by real people.

Charles McCN

Received on Monday, 23 October 2000 04:53:30 UTC