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

Wayne,

Thanks so much for sharing your first impressions.  We deeply appreciate
your feedback.  I'll admit I was the one who came up with the phrase A11Y
Wars because, where I sit, the intense disagreements over interpretations
has gotten so heated at times, it really felt like a war of words.  I was
also thinking back to the days of "browser wars" and playing off that.

Okay, okay...I admit...I also liked A11Y Wars because I thought it was a
provocative phrase.

And I completely agree with you on the danger of saying something is ideal,
when it really should be a minimum requirement (your case of horizontal
scrolling is a perfect example, and thankfully it will be a requirement in
WCAG 2.1)!

Wishing us all an inbox overflowing with a11y peace!
Love,
Goodwitch

*glenda sims* <glenda.sims@deque.com>, cpacc
<http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification>   | team a11y lead
| 512.963.3773

        deque systems <http://www.deque.com>  accessibility for good

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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*
>>
>