Re: My Thoughts on User content, 3rd party content and conformance

>  However, for a social media site which controls the authoring interface
and displays the posts to the public, I’m not sure why we would
differentiate that?

Because you can lead a horse to water...?

In a case like that, I would suggest that the best we could demand is that
the user-interface *allows for* the creation of accessible content. But if
an end user adamantly chooses to upload an image file that contains text at
1.8:1 color contrast and "fudges" the alt text to read "picture", you can't
hold the site owner accountable for that, especially at the scale of a lot
of Social Media sites today.

Now, I do realize that with advances in AI (etc.) that the site *could*
provide error checking conditions such that a meaningless alt text like
that could generate an error or warning (and kudos to any site that would),
but, at least in the USA, you'd likely start getting into tricky First
Amendment issues around the rights of free speech if you attempted to go
much further.

FWIW

JF

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 6:15 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi Gregg,
>
>
>
> I was reading your original email as present tense, i.e. wcag2. My
> misunderstanding, if it’s all in WCAG 3 context that makes sense.
>
>
>
> On the points:
>
>
>
> GV: 2)  *Third party provided parts* of a page created by any contractors
> the author hired to *are* part of the page   and are covered by WCAG.
>
>
>
> I’m not sure anyone is arguing against this, anytime the ‘website owner’
> is making a procurement choice (e.g. supplier, library of code, API) that
> should be part of the site claiming conformance.
>
> I agree with Sheri that it may or may not be a paid thing, but it is where
> the site owner has made a direct a choice about what to include. (Rather
> than opening the site to end-users to post things.)
>
>
>
> The nature of these things is that they are perceived as part of the site
> and not authored individually. (So that would include a free or paid
> display of maps from a service, but not include individual users creating
> maps to display on the site.)
>
>
>
> I guess there might be difficult situations where there are no accessible
> choices, such as (my experience with) GIS software, but that’s a wider
> problem with that type of software.
>
>
>
>
> AC: However, once saved and part of the page (for that user and other
> users), why isn’t that covered?
>
> GV: Because, for one - that would mean that all email providers would have
> to read your email and make it accessible before delivering it to
> your recipient.
>
>
>
> Ok, I can see problems with personal communications, particularly where
> the content could be authored by any number of applications and the service
> must accept and display them.
>
>
>
> However, for a social media site which controls the authoring interface
> and displays the posts to the public, I’m not sure why we would
> differentiate that?
>
>
>
> That’s something we know how to do and is practical today, at least for
> most content types.
>
>
>
> Obviously, someone determined to post inaccessible content will find a
> way, but when you control the authoring interface there should be a
> responsibility to encourage accessible content.
>
>
>
> In that scenario I think we’d want to have an assertion that they have
> reviewed the authoring interface and ensured that users are encouraged to
> create accessible content.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
*John Foliot* |
Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"