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

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

From: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 13:07:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJeQ8SCzGouc=25mn4hBoZYfHztURs=Zw6fxBti7gQ_9Nhe9eQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: wilcofiers@gmail.com
Cc: W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, Glenda Sims <glsims99@gmail.com>
This is very interesting. I have not analyzed it completely yet, but I
notices a few things.

   - Wars seems a little extreme. We all find ourselves in all of the roles
   you describe at given times. So, I say it is tension that can turn to anger.
   - We do need to be careful about what we call "ideal". My own example of
   avoiding horizontal scrolling was thought to be "ideal", when, in fact, it
   was necessary. I would say "ideal" is a very important consideration, but
   when significant user complaints reoccur the community should start to
   consider moving things from "ideal" to necessary. We need a more dynamic
   way to review and migrate priorities.
   - I like the peace plan (anger management). Role awareness is so
   important.

Finally, I'd just like to applaud your courage for putting this out there.
Just the classification work is valuable. The document is thoughtful,
respectful and really useful.

Thank you both, Best, Wayne

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:07 PM Wilco <wilcofiers@gmail.com> wrote:

> *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 Friday, 18 May 2018 20:08:03 UTC

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