Re: WCAG 2.0 and JAWS

I think a large percentage of the General population does not even think 
people with disabilities, especially visual disabilities can use a 
computer much less the internet.

and if the answer to most of these folks involves more than "there is 
software that allows the computers to talk" their eyes glaze over.

Bob


On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, Bryan Garaventa wrote:

> Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 01:27:51 -0700
> From: Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@whatsock.com>
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 and JAWS
> Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 08:28:27 +0000
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> 
> To be brutally honest, I don't believe that it's possible for the majority
> of the general public to understand what web accessibility actually means.
> Unfortunately I found this out the hard way via
> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/bgaraventa/accdc-the-accelerated-dynamic-content-api
> Which was very educational from a statistical perspective.
>
> I'm not saying that the general population doesn't care about accessibility.
> What I am saying is that those in the general public that actually do
> understand web accessibility, consist of a negligible percentage of the over
> all population.
>
> For example, if you were to perform a poll across various countries and ask
> the question 'What is accessibility, and how do you recognize it?', the
> majority of people will talk about physical access such as wheel chair
> ramps, cross-walk signals, and so on, because these are concepts that are
> easily understood.
>
> Now, if you ask instead 'what is web accessibility, and how do you recognize
> it?', you will get entirely different answers, and I guarantee that less
> than 1% of the general population will know about and understand what web
> accessibility means, and why it's important. Which is ironic, since it
> literally impacts billions of people daily.
>
> Besides which, those that absolutely must understand the concepts of web
> accessibility are developers.
>
> The general public may be able to recognize accessibility issues if they are
> aware of the principles and behaviors, but only the developers have the
> ability to introduce accessibility within web technologies from the very
> start so that such issues are not a problem to begin with.
>
> As a case in point, when I was building the Kickstarter project referenced
> above, I discovered critical accessibility issues in their authoring
> process, such as keyboard traps, inaccessible elements improperly hidden
> content panels, and a totally inaccessible video player. So I wrote the dev
> team with precise coding guidance for fixing the issues, mainly because I
> wanted to finish what I was doing and just wanted to minimize the headaches.
> The developers didn't understand the concepts and how they directly applied
> to Assistive Technology users however, so nothing was ever done.
>
> It was to address this type of incongruity that I wrote the LinkedIn article
> regarding the three fundamental principles of web accessibility at
> http://lnkd.in/jYnkZq
>
> The only way to implement true web accessibility in the future is to involve
> engineers at the corporate, organizational, and academic levels. Otherwise,
> more and more policies will be created, and relatively few will have the
> knowledge or desire to understand them.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karen Lewellen" 
> <klewellen@shellworld.net>
> To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
> Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 10:36 PM
> Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 and JAWS
>
>
> Patrick, and all.
> Finally a moment for this.
> In context below...
>
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>
>
>
>> 
>> Who are you blaming here. "The W3C"? It is all of our shared
>> responsibility
>> to educate the general public.
>
> Granted blame is a far stronger word than fits my posting.  I asked a
> still unanswered question.  Still, just who do you believe is the "general
> public" on the Internet?
>
>
> Do you feel that small businesses in your area
>> know nothing about accessibility? Well, go on and educate them. Start
>> local
>> groups with your peers.
>
> Patrick, there is no *local* or *area* where the Internet is concerned.  I
> am  surprised at your comment given the context.
> Likewise as I just shared in a prior post, there are no peers either.  All
> of us can find
> that we require access suddenly, and each individual is going to, as they
> should, define what that access means for them.
> If anything perhaps generalizing only seasons the confusion.
>
>
>> 
>> "Those in political arena are being told" by whom? Are you suggesting "The
>> W3C" is going out to politicians telling them about WCAG? Well, that's not
>> the case.
>
> That is far from what I said as well.
> Still lets be honest.
> I feel very sure that those on this list and the w3c do not generate these
> standards for fun.  I am almost certain that people do not travel to these
> meetings and take part on this committees for the genius or Budweiser
> either for that matter.
> You work as hard as you do in order to create uniform  standards that you
> want to see  implemented...and so they are.
> The work of the w3c gets written into legal jurisprudence, becomes
> the heart of, if not the foundation of   federal Provencal and state
> guidelines.
> People direct others to your door as a way of explaining what is often
> beyond them to explain.  People use your work to often cover for the work
> they cannot do themselves.
> They do it because of your reputation...and your reach.
> I still smile when I come across someone calling the w3 c the Internet
> police,  for many, no matter how unrealistic, you are seen that way.
> Court decisions henge on how someone has or has not used your standards,
> and rather a few in the rank and file have heard of you as well.
> It is unrealistic for those here to think your effort sits in some
> academic tower.  It impacts lives, millions of them.
> As a result my question was how you insure some basic understanding of
> that work via public relations outside of those you feel are in the choir.
> Site creators are very often folks who are running their business and
> taking a web design  package off a shelf, but wanting to reach people
> around the globe.   They learn, after they fail to
> allow access that they are  in need of more information, but haven't a
> clue what a java target is etc.
> They start asking the same sort of questions that began this thread,
> because they well do what many often do  on this list, find an individual
> ask what they use and fail to make the distinctions needful for real
> access across the board.
>
> My point Patrick is that this work does not exist in a vacuum, so i
> wondered how the w3c already lets the air in so to speak...if they do that
> is.
>
>
>> 
>> So, there's "a tool" that fails? Are you suggesting "The W3C" should go
>> out
>> after the tool maker? Again, it is our shared responsibility to call out
>> tool
>> manufacturers and charlatans in our industry that promise solutions that
>> don't deliver.
>> 
>
> Honestly?  again I ask who "our shared" refers to.  Also, if the w3c
> creates the standards, they have an important mandate to insure those
> standards are understood as widely as they wish them to be implemented.
> The reality is the the Internet is far from the size of our neighborhood
> anymore.  A lack of standards application can  prevent a person from
> accessing a site that lives on another Continent depending on on the
> business involved.  Via broad public relations, you can at least limit the
> ability of someone to do the sort of damage the tool I referenced does.
> If memory serves that program got a write up in the New York Times of all
> places.  There may already be a strong objective general media effort
> done by the w3c, if there is none, clearly there should be.  Not just
> because your work deserves correct implementation, but because the end
> user is only expert on one thing, how they individually  desire access to
> be defined, for them.
> Frankly that is why the focus on end user agents, instead of foundations
> that when tested with very general things insure universal door, has
> me worried.  There are many many tools and as man way to use them as
> humans behind the need to use them.  And of course, each time a user agent
> changes, the end user must struggle to start all over again in many cases.
>
>
>
>
>> 
>> Because you seem to think there's a uniform group at work here ("The
>> W3C"?).
>> There isn't.
>
> Indeed? then why are those interested in access directed to a variation
> of
> www.w3c.org
> in order to find documentation and information regarding the wcag 2.0
> then?
> Yes there are people behind that label, but your standards and work are
> represented as a part of that whole.
>
>
> We're all people who are interested in accessibility. Do you
>> feel there's little effort? Start an effort! Don't just sit back and ask
>> why
>> nobody's doing anything about it ;)
>
> Patrick, that was not what I asked.
> I asked if there is a uniform public relations effort to accompany the
> uniform standards creation effort.
> What illustrated the need for this of course was the likely well intended,
> but profoundly misinformed question about the wcag and jaws...a state of
> misinformation that is far more  common than unusual.
> That such questions can still be asked suggests that the w3c may not be,
> or and I stress this, not to my knowledge matching standards with
> external media relations.
> As for starting my own movement, I am not sure why you feel I have not in
> a way?
> I think I have said on the few times I have posted here that I am a media
> professional, not a...hmmm w3c content creating professional smiles.
> My job is to notice where an audience is not getting the message.
> Your very writing a if there is a general public different from the other
> who
> benefits from access illustrates my point.  There is no us verses them
> here, no  community save the human one who shares in the Internet as a
> whole.
> Realize it or not, but rather a few see the w3c as the source for building
> rules on that super highway.  Such is why your word on access is taken so
> seriously.
> Many many many have no idea how to articulate what they should experience,
> and many many many more cannot understand what access means because they
> do not get much of a chance because many are focused on that us
> verses them...instead of, here is the common experience.
> Personally I end up asking for access as it applies to me, that by the
> way is all any individual can do.
> But that does not mean I am sitting back so to speak.
> One of the things I do as a  journalist via a common ground media umbrella
> associated with a nonprofit organization I have produced content for going
> on 20 years now is   encourage guide and even take care of the sort of
> media I feel should be happening.
> I do it as a consultant,  and I do it via the organization.
> Anyone wants to ask about  this, write me off list.  I  do not think I can
> hang a shingle out here.
> We are also always looking for international board-members, nice thing
> about being tax exempt is you can say thanks around tax day with
> deductions.
>
> But...my original question was if the w3c has a pr arm equal to the
> standards creating one to help curb the sort of assumptions that started
> this thread in the first place?
>
> Thanks,
> Karen Lewellen
> www.karenlewellen.com/services.htm
> www.karenlewellen.com/samples.htm
>
>
>
> >
>> P
>> -- 
>> Patrick H. Lauke
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
>> [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
>> 
>> www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
>> http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>
>