Re: AI and the future of Web accessibility Guidelines

AI will absolutely be able to do a better job of doing text alternatives than 50%,   then  60%,  then 70%, then 80%, then 90 %, then 95% etc of authors.  
It is not a question of if - just when.   

Saying that something can’t be done in the future because it failed in the past or can't be done now is like saying that "man will never be able to fly" in the 1800’s when they couldn’t….yet. 

And yes - someday, AI will allow us to have accessibility without authors having to do much, if anything, compared to today.  
And it will be much more accessible than anything we have today - and accessible to more types, degrees, and combinations of disability - and on all products rather than the small percentage that are accessible today. 

The question isnt IF.   It is when.  

 On the flip side, it is ALSO true that there is a danger that people will stop doing what works today because we won’t have to do it tomorrow.  
And the big (and justified) fear of people with disabilities - is that when we even start to get close - people will stop doing what works because something easier will work in the future. 


We need to think about accessibility like we do water and security.  That is - it is something we always need.  Even as we work on something better - we can’t stop what we are doing now til we have the “better”.
For example (using water and security) —  even if we know something is coming that will make water flow right past our door in the future — maybe even in a year or two — we can’t stop hauling water in the meantime.  We need to keep hauling water to our homes until the day that water flows to our homes, and flows enough that we can depend on it.   Ditto for security.  We need to stay secure until the new security - whatever it is - arrives before we abandon our current security.   Accessibility, similarly, isn't something that can be skipped for awhile because it will come later.


As far as WCAG - we need to continue to write guidelines and techniques that work today.    But we should write them based on what should be true or needs to be true (e.g. water is available to us at our door every day)  and not as we have to do it today (water must be carried from the hill down to us every day)  so that when the water does flow past our door - we are still not requiring that it be carried down from the hill every day.

For example - we don’t say "all images must have alt text” - we say that “ all images have programmatically determinable non-visual equivalents.”   That sounds more complicated but, that is in fact what we need.  Once we have programmatically determinable (software determinable) non-visual equivalents  (or maybe just equivalents) then that equivalent information can be presented in speech, in braille, in sign, in simplified language, in supported language (with definitions and explanations) or anything else each different person needs (with our without sight) to understand the picture.    TODAY we do it by requiring that all authors provide alternate text in software readable form (programmatically determinable form).   In the future software may be able to do that as well or better than most humans.  Then we can rely on software — but we do not need to change the basic rule since it will be the same.   In addition, when this comes, the type and amount and detail of the alternative can vary depending not just on the person - but on each situation where images are used.  And users can query the software for more and more information about an image when that is necessary - but not need to deal with all that information when it is not. 


Gregg

PS  - have you actually looked at the alt text that many humans have written for images — and the percentage of images that have alt text at all? 

By the way - it is already possible for software to give very detailed descriptions of images - and allow users to query them — using AI.    I just looked but can’t find the reference but someone else may have it and post it to the group.     This technology needs to make its way into the software and AT that people with disabilities depend on - but it is coming fast.  And I will bet it will come faster than WCAG 3 does. 

In fact, I will bet anyone $10,000 or $100,000 that wants to take the bet, that automatic image description that is as good as most humans will be in various software used by millions of people with disabilities before WCAG 3 is out.   

We really have to stop fighting the wars of the past — and look to the future in writing WCAG.    That doesnt mean writing something that won’t work until the future.  It means writing something that will be still be effective and actually promote a future that can be much more accessible than what we can do today. 


Best

G

PPS  if you think it am an apologist for all AI - I still stand by my comment from 2019.  

Thought for the day -  on AI   
    Artificial Intelligence is like fire; a good servant but a harsh master.  The problem is that we are running pell mell forward with the use of AI when we have no (equivalent to) fire codes, no fire departments, no firemen, no fire extinguishers, and no smoke alarms.    We are just asking to burn something down.   And when it happens, we will not be prepared to fight it, nor to contain it.  Think California wildfires without firemen, or equipment, or tactics.   Now think of our completely inter-networked nation.  And we are not just deploying AI in our homes, but in our utilities, our financial system, and our military.   And on all fronts, we are moving as fast as we can, with our top 3 priorities all being to employ and deploy it faster and wider than someone/everyone else.    
What could go wrong?    
PS  I love AI.  I use AI.  I also love fireplaces. And I designed a fireplace into our house.  It is built to code.  It costs more to build it to code - and it limited where I could put the fireplace.  But I don't worry about it burning down my house.   I do worry about AI burning down our society - and maybe more. 
Gregg Vanderheiden  Oct 2019
———————————
Professor, University of Maryland, College Park
Director , Trace R&D Center, UMD


But that doesn't mean I don’t believe it will be our best tool for making things accessible 

Gregg


> On Apr 10, 2024, at 6:20 PM, Todd Libby <toddlibby@protonmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I agree fully with Patrick:
> 
>> Once you bring in the "AI will do it" line of thinking, we may as well
>> just remove any author requirement, and WCAG becomes just a list of
>> requirements for AI user agents to massage any old web content into
>> something accessible.
> 
> Being a strong supporter against AI, because it will never work for accessibility, we have been down this road before. I mean, Google attempted their best shot and look where it got them. In hot water (so to speak).
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/01/google-sorry-racist-auto-tag-photo-app
> 
> and if we are ever going to learn something as a people (which we have not), instances like this will always be why I vehemently oppose AI in tech and accessibility.
> 
> The article may be old, but the fact remains that AI is not the answer now (or ever in my opinion).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Best,
> 
> Todd Libby
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, April 4th, 2024 at 8:08 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> As a counterpoint, Gregg ... when does it end? You've stated similar
>> when it comes to things like authors needing to provide correct explicit
>> markup for headings, since (to paraphrase) "AI will be able to do it".
>> 
>> Captions, audio descriptions ... "AI will be able to do it".
>> 
>> Colour contrast issues? "AI can detect it and change it on the fly".
>> 
>> Once you bring in the "AI will do it" line of thinking, we may as well
>> just remove any author requirement, and WCAG becomes just a list of
>> requirements for AI user agents to massage any old web content into
>> something accessible.
>> 
>> P
>> --
>> Patrick H. Lauke
>> 
>> * https://www.splintered.co.uk/
>> * https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>> * https://flickr.com/photos/redux/
>> * https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke
>