W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2018

RE: [EXTERNAL] [White paper] A11Y Wars: The Accessibility Interpretation Problem

From: Tim Harshbarger <tim.harshbarger.cqwg@statefarm.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 12:49:05 +0000
To: Wilco <wilcofiers@gmail.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
CC: Glenda Sims <glsims99@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <879cb8993e934bc99719be3051ac39d9@statefarm.com>
Would it be possible for you also to share this document in some other format or location—like a web site?  I am interested in reading the document, but our company does not allow us to access Google Docs.

Thanks!
Tim


From: Wilco [mailto:wilcofiers@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 3:51 PM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Cc: Glenda Sims <glsims99@gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [White paper] A11Y Wars: The Accessibility Interpretation Problem


Hi everyone,

Below the summary of the white paper we have created. We hope you find it interesting and helpful in your work:



Without a shared testing perspective, achieving accurate test results for compliance with WCAG 2.0 can be challenging and expensive. A common cause for inconsistent accessibility results between experts is accessibility testers doing their work with different goals in mind. Natural tension exists between the goals of users, designers, developers, testers, trainers, project managers, and executives. An unstated goal for testing can be a major source of inconsistent results between tests.


It is time to stop the accessibility interpretation wars. There is no "one best way" of interpreting accessibility standards. There are different interpretations, each valid and useful in their own right. The Accessibility Peace Model identifies the following key perspectives used for accessibility testing.


·       Minimum - based on the normative text of the technical requirement. This perspective often seeks low cost and quick solution to meet legal requirements.

·       Optimized - based on the spirit and the intent of the normative technical requirement, rather than just minimum compliance. This is a pragmatic approach to sustainable universal design that balances equal access, civil rights, and actual outcomes for users with disabilities with what is technically possible with other requirements, (business) goals for the product, and what is reasonable to achieve today. This perspective is the most effective use of resources in the long run.

·       Ideal - based on a human factors approach that extends beyond legal compliance and pragmatic best practices. Focuses on quality of user experience for people with disabilities and innovative breakthroughs that eliminate barriers once considered impossible to solve. During initial phases, this perspective may be expensive.

By clearly defining the perspective your organization is using for accessibility testing, your organization can save time and lower costs.

Read the White Paper "A11Y Wars: The Accessibility Interpretation Problem (http://bit.ly/a11ypeace)<http://bit.ly/a11ypeace>"

Let's make a11y peace!


WIlco Fiers & Glenda Sims
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2018 12:49:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:37:17 UTC