Re: [White paper] A11Y Wars: The Accessibility Interpretation Problem

I would like to challenge the authors (and all of us so called "subject 
matter experts" for that matter) to do a significant edit to the white 
paper (and our own writing and speech) and try to be more specific by 
replacing most every instance of the term "accessibility testing" and 
replace it with a term that is more specific or more defined that does NOT 
itself use either "testing" or the term "accessibility".  I believe (I 
think with the authors) that the term  "accessibility testing" is broad 
and is interpreted in different ways *because* we and they are almost 
always talking about different things when we and they use the same term. 
The paper goes into detail on this, but I found it confusing itself using 
the same term when in fact it meant something different in places.  For 
example, at times the term "accessibility testing" could often be replaced 
with a more precise term or phrase such as:
         "validating conformance to WCAG 2.0", 
        or "assessing web site compatibility with users who have 
disabilities and use assistive technology", 
        or "researching best practices", etc.
My point is that we almost all agree that these three (3) examples are 
interpreted as 3 different activities; but if/when the term  "
accessibility testing" is used instead, each of us *will* have a different 
interpretation of what the activity is.  I agree with the authors that 
there are different goals, but not necessarily at the organization level, 
but at the activity level. And yes most activities are done by different 
groups or disciplines (e.g. researchers, designers, developers, testers, 
compliance, legal, procurement, etc.) in an organization. For example, I 
view a group of designers as in an organization, not an organization of 
designers in and of themselves.  So I agree it is up to us SME's to use 
better terms when describing activities and goals to improve 
communications and understanding. 

I also want to advocate for the correct use of WCAG along with UAAG and 
user education and settings.  I know it makes it more complicated to bring 
in the other components and stakeholders described in the "essential 
components" of web accessibility, but it is fundamental that we SME get it 
right and advocate for a more comprehensive and joint understanding. 

Please read: https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/components/

oh, and for the record, I still do not like the use of "a11y", "ally", or 
any other variable of the word "accessibility", and I prefer "digital 
accessibility" over similar terms.
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
Check out the new system for requesting an IBM product Accessibility 
Conformance Report VPAT® at  able.ibm.com/request
Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
IBM Research Accessibility



From:   Wilco <wilcofiers@gmail.com>
To:     w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Cc:     Glenda Sims <glsims99@gmail.com>
Date:   05/14/2018 04:06 PM
Subject:        [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)"

Let's make a11y peace!


WIlco Fiers & Glenda Sims