Re: AI and the future of Web accessibility Guidelines

Good posts — both of them 

in exploring AI some aspects and uses are subject to bias  - while others are not
some are subject to hallucinations  - but others not

it will be good to not paint all uses / applications with the same brush.

but for all - we need to separate the potential from the current reality.
Researching an approach or application is different than relying on it. 

The big fear in the disability community is that we stop doing what works now based on the hope or promise that the future might hold   (someday…) 

G

> On Apr 4, 2024, at 5:29 AM, lwatson@tetralogical.com wrote:
> 
> It may be of interest to know that the W3C Team is thinking about the systemic impact of AI on the Web, and that it'll be a topic for discussion at the AC meeting next week. As a result, I filed two issues earlier this week that relate (to a greater or lesser extent) to the point you make Gregg.
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/ai-web-impact/issues/24
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/ai-web-impact/issues/25
> 
>  
> 
> On 04/04/2024 08:02, Gregg Vanderheiden RTF wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I think much of our work is not forward-looking.   
>> 
>> We will soon have AI that can do a better job of text alternatives than humans can for example.     
>> And then it is unclear why we would require authors to do all this work.    
>> This applies to a LOT of things.   
>> 
>> I think maybe we should be considering a new structure to our requirements 
>> 
>> Need:  When people cannot see a picture clearly or at all - it is important that they be able to percieve the information presented in the picture by having it presented in another form such as text, speech or braille.  If it is in e-text it can be easily converted into any sensory form  (visual text, speech, braille or sign).
>> 
>> Outcome:  Where the publicly available AI is not able to generate a [good] text alternative for pictures, then an author-generated text alternative is provided.
>> 
>> 
>> This does contain the word [good] since we don’t want this to apply before it is ready —  and it certainly is not ready today.
>> but I would bet even money (or 3 to 1 money) that before WCAG 3 is out — autogenerated text alternatives will be better than 80%-90% of humans in a controlled test of humans vs AI in describing pictures.   Even the intent of pictures  (though sighted people have only the picture to guess the intent from so it is not clear why blind people can’t guess the intent).   ALSO  - auto-descriptions can provide layered descriptions — and even queryable descriptions. 
>> 
>> Picture of woman playing voilin
>> Woman is seated and wearing formal gown
>> woman has darker skintone, black hair worn long and appears to be around 30-40 years old
>> Query - what kind of formal dress?
>> Query  - what kind of chair
>> Query - tell me more about their hairstyle
>> Query - tell me more about the backgound of he picture
>> 
>> the queryable alternatives are already possible today — and I’m not sure if the AI won’t be better than 80-90 of image describers by next year
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> We really need to think about what we are doing —  what we want to achieve — and the best way to get there.
>> 
>> If browser mfgrs added these capabilities to their browsers - the cost to add the capability may be less than the costs saved by of JUST THEIR OWN web authors  at their companies — much less the costs saved across all companies. 
>> 
>> 
>> We need to talk and think
>> 
>> Gregg
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Léonie Watson (she/her)
> Director
> https://tetralogical.com/