Re: [Conformance] Third Party Draft Updated

Hi Peter and all,

Sites should not be barred from publishing non-conforming third-party
content. But they should not be considered conforming if their
third-party content is not conforming.

You asked "What should we do when accessibility and copyright
collide?" When accessibility and copyright collide, innovative
technology solutions can help. For example, a YouTube embed option
allows for providing accurate captioning and audio descriptions of
third-party video.
https://www.3playmedia.com/services/features/plugins/captions-plugin/
If third-party videos lack needed captions and audio descriptions are
allowed to be considered conforming, I fear people will forgo the
embed option and publish inaccessible content on their sites.

Condoning inaccessible content based on volume is a slippery slope. At
what level does it stop? If an author has 100,000 or 10,000 or 1,000
or 100 or 10 photos that they want to share, is it okay then to not
include the text alternative? Then if it's okay for 10 why not one?
Once it is condoned, it is condoned. That's a huge step backward for
people with disabilities.

Photo sharing sites should, in fact, require that meaningful alt text
accompany images that are uploaded. The Authoring Tool Accessibility
Guidelines 2.0 require that such sites prompt users for that content.
If they prompted for and stored that content from the user, they'd be
able to insert meaningful alt text where it is required.
https://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#sc_b112

When user generated content is a barrier to accessibility, it is a
barrier period. Putting that fact in an accessibility statement won't
make it conforming. It could inform people with disabilities to avoid
that content IF the admission of the non-conformance is made prior
to/along with them ever encountering the inaccessible content. But it
won't make it conforming.

By current definition, if content is non-conforming we are saying we
have a problem with it. I fear changing the definition of conformance
to condone inaccessible content will hurt people with disabilities.

Kind Regards,
Laura

On 6/21/21, Korn, Peter <pkorn@lab126.com> wrote:
> Hi Laura,
>
> I think it comes down to a question of balance and responsibility, and what
> is achievable by the website owner. To quote your language below: "...
> REQUIRED [the website owner] to SEEK A COMMITMENT from the vendor to provide
> content that conforms, or can be made to conform…" [Emphasis added with
> ALL-CAPS]. Seeking for, striving for, pushing for, an accessible option
> from a third party is different from a position that the website should be
> barred from publishing any nonconforming third-party content.
>
> What should we do when accessibility and copyright collide? What should we
> do when the sheer volume of user generated content is the barrier to
> accessibility, such as uploaded videos to social media utterly swamping the
> world's capability to add audio descriptions to that content? [according to
> statistica.com, 500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute -
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/259477/hours-of-video-uploaded-to-youtube-every-minute/
> as of May 2019 - an upload ratio of 30,000:1].
>
> I really hope we can find a more nuanced approach in WCAG 3 than our
> messaging in WCAG 2 today, which as I read it boils down to there being no
> point in trying to ameliorate the problem because it is ultimately
> impossible to succeed; and the standard won't recognize or credit a site for
> doing what it can because if it can't completely fix the problem then it
> cannot conform at any level.
>
>
> Finally, you wrote below: "If we remove responsibility for choosing
> accessible products and services, I fear the result will be increased
> inaccessibility". What we are doing right now isn't working. The rate of
> improvement cited by the WebAIM programmatically testable accessibility
> survey of the top one million website homepages
> [https://webaim.org/projects/million/] shows only the most glacial
> improvement year-over-year (and that is assuming the fractions of a percent
> of improvement are statistically significant).
>
> I'm not trying to remove all responsibility from the website owner for the
> accessibility of third-party content; rather I'm trying to find an
> achievable solution that recognizes, encourages, and rewards sites for doing
> everything they can, and further recognizes that there are some things that
> they may not be able to do – or at least, may not be able to do with today's
> technology (and I will be at the head of the line pushing for everyone to do
> more as technology's advances enable them).
>
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 7:13 AM
> To: Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com>
> Cc: Korn, Peter <pkorn@lab126.com>; Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com>;
> public-silver@w3.org; janina@sajka.net
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [Conformance] Third Party Draft Updated
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> Hi Sarah and all,
>
> I too am concerned about an approach to conformance for third-party content
> that allows WCAG conformance for inaccessible/not fully accessible content
> and services.
>
> Partial conformance is a statement of partial-conformance as it should be.
>
> If we remove responsibility for choosing accessible products and services,
> I fear the result will be increased inaccessibility. When an author makes a
> decision to use a third party implementation, they should choose products
> that are accessible and not shirk that responsibility. There are users who
> will not be able to access some of the content if it is not accessible.
>
> Check the Peapod Settlement Agreement regarding 3rd-party content. It
> required Peapod to seek a commitment from the vendor to provide content
> which either conforms, or can be made to conform, to WCAG.
> https://www.ada.gov/peapod_sa.htm
>
> Kind regards,
> Laura
>
> On 6/21/21, Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks, Peter. I continue to have significant concerns about the
>> proposal and its impact on users, and I look forward to hearing other
>> perspectives.
>>
>> Best,
>> Sarah
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 21, 2021, at 5:46 AM, Korn, Peter <pkorn@lab126.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sarah,
>>>
>>> My concern is that an absolute requirement for accessible
>>> alternatives isn't achievable.
>>>
>>> To take one example: what is the alternative to a copyright movie
>>> that lacks audio descriptions, where the copyright holder does not
>>> give permission for those to be added (and note, this is not a
>>> hypothetical)?
>>> Another real-life example: real estate listings with 3D building
>>> walk-throughs (such as those from Matterport), where we haven't
>>> figured out what constitutes an accessible alternative (a room by
>>> room description doesn't give the equivalent information when the
>>> prospective buyer may be looking for specific things in the model
>>> that they describe or fails to add).
>>>
>>> We do not yet have a proposal for whether or at what level this
>>> content should conform. But I think we have already crossed the
>>> threshold of accepting a certain amounts of less consequential
>>> content being inaccessible while still reaching the bronze
>>> conformance level (the oft cited ALT text in a footer). And the right
>>> answer for third-party content may well differ by the nature of the
>>> content. For example, our to be written guideline on multimedia
>>> content might explicitly score copyrighted media lacking audio
>>> descriptions differently than non-copyright media lacking audio
>>> descriptions, and differently again from user generated/provided
>>> media lacking audio descriptions (and my further still make a
>>> difference for media created after WVAG 3 is published, versus media
>>> from decades in the past). Meanwhile, that guideline might look at
>>> user generated media that was provided without captions from the user
>>> with further gradations: recognizing and scoring machine generated
>>> captions for user generated content differently than machine generated
>>> captions for content developed and owned by the site.
>>>
>>> What we are trying to do at this stage is bring more nuance and
>>> thought around accessibility achievability for third-party content
>>> versus what we have today in WCAG 2.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> From: Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:sarah.horton@gmail.com>>
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2021 2:39 AM
>>> To: Korn, Peter <pkorn@lab126.com <mailto:pkorn@lab126.com>>
>>> Cc: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com <mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>>;
>>> public-silver@w3.org <mailto:public-silver@w3.org>; janina@sajka.net
>>> <mailto:janina@sajka.net>
>>> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [Conformance] Third Party Draft Updated
>>>
>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
>>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender
>>> and know the content is safe.
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter, thank you for clarifying your thoughts.
>>>
>>> I am concerned about an approach to conformance for third-party
>>> content that allows WCAG conformance for inaccessible/not fully
>>> accessible content and services. This is counter to the user-first aims
>>> of WCAG 3.
>>>
>>> Including requirements for alternatives to removing barriers, such as
>>> a phone number for ordering merchandise in the case of the scouts
>>> website, is an attempt to align conformance and meeting user needs.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 19, 2021, at 9:01 PM, Korn, Peter <pkorn@lab126.com
>>> <mailto:pkorn@lab126.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sarah,
>>>
>>> I am concerned about your item 3 below. Both for reasons of scale,
>>> as well as the nature of the some inaccessible services, and in some
>>> cases controlling law, providing an accessible alternative may not be
>>> possible.
>>>
>>>
>>> For item number two, I would go a little bit further: "strongly
>>> encouraged…"
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 19, 2021, at 6:24 AM, Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:sarah.horton@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
>>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender
>>> and know the content is safe.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Peter.
>>>
>>> Do you think it makes sense to add something along those lines to the
>>> proposal? For example:
>>>
>>> …this proposal attempts to develop the Conformance portion of more
>>> nuanced guidance for the web content publisher, who is asked to:
>>> Clearly indicate to users where the 3rd party content is.
>>> Encourage the providers of that third party content to make it fully
>>> accessible.
>>> Provide the inaccessible/not fully accessible content or service
>>> through alternative methods.
>>>
>>> On Jun 18, 2021, at 6:06 PM, Korn, Peter <pkorn@lab126.com
>>> <mailto:pkorn@lab126.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sarah, all,
>>>
>>> I think it makes sense for a site to offer alternatives where they
>>> exist.
>>> Depending upon the nature of the inaccessible/not fully accessible
>>> third-party service, there may not be an alternative.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> From: Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:sarah.horton@gmail.com>>
>>> Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 9:30 AM
>>> To: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com <mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>>
>>> Cc: public-silver@w3.org <mailto:public-silver@w3.org>;
>>> janina@sajka.net <mailto:janina@sajka.net>
>>> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [Conformance] Third Party Draft Updated
>>>
>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
>>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender
>>> and know the content is safe.
>>>
>>> Hi, Janina.
>>>
>>> What about requiring authors (web content publishers) to provide
>>> alternatives for inaccessible third party content? For example, in
>>> Use Case B, where the page has a statement about third-party payment
>>> processing above the embedded inaccessible author arranged service
>>> content (PaymentFriend), the statement could include details about
>>> other methods to purchase merchandise, which the authors (local
>>> scouting group) would be responsible for providing.
>>>
>>> Thanks for all the great work on this!
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 18, 2021, at 3:55 PM, Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com
>>> <mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Colleagues:
>>>
>>> I believe I've captured the edits we agreed during our teleconference
>>> of
>>> 17 June, namely:
>>>
>>> Added to the (introductory) Problem Statement to indicate our goals
>>> in this document up top; Added Wilco's language (and made a more
>>> definitive assertion) in the Editor's Note at the top of the Steps to
>>> Conform section; Added a phrase to the examples in the last step of
>>> User Generated to point to outcomes (rather than further enumerating
>>> types of content prompting).
>>> Please provide additional edits and suggestions. I will monitor here
>>> over the next few days as we prepare for our presentation Tuesday.
>>>
>>> For convenience our draft is at:
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_P
>>> arty_Content
>>> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_
>>> Party_Content>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Janina
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------
>>>
>>> Janina Sajka
>>> Accessibility Standards Consultant
>>> sajkaj@amazon.com <mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>
>>
>
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2021 07:49:19 UTC