RE: Concerns with Accessibe joining W3C

Sheri,

I share your concern.  I feel Accessibe often looks to make money more than to improve the accessibility of online resources.  The question is would we further the interests of the disable by excluding Accessibe, or might we improve on the situation by bringing our concern to Accessibe as part of the polite, collegial, collaborative atmosphere of the W3C?

Cheers,
Peter Shikli
Access2online Inc.

----------------------------------------
From: Sheri Byrne Haber <sbyrnehaber@vmware.com>
Sent: 5/27/21 9:55 AM
To: "w3c-WAI-ig@w3.org" <w3c-WAI-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Concerns with Accessibe joining W3C

Accessibe announced yesterday that they are planning on joining (or have joined, I'm not sure which) W3C.

Please refer to  https://accessibe.com/company/roadmap for details

For those of you not familiar with AccessiBe, they are probably the largest and certainly the loudest of the "accessibility overlay" companies.  They make claims about one line of code and a small monthly payment eliminating accessibility lawsuit risk. In reality, 10 % of lawsuits now being filed (including the lawsuit against ADP filed by Lighthouse) are against plaintiffs using these overlays because they can't and don't make a site WCAG compliant. There is a website called OverlayFactSheet.com started by Karl Groves, where over 400 accessibility professionals (including me) have signed a public commitment not to support solutions that take away user's assistive technology and substitute another tool in its place.

Clearly, I have significant reservations about W3C accepting any overlay/tool/widget company as a member.  I've looked on the W3C website and do not see any membership code of ethics.  We did spend quite a bit of time developing one for IAAP.

Am I alone in this, or is this a general concern?

Thanks,

Sheri

Sheri Byrne-Haber (She/Her/Hers)
Staff II, Accessibility Architect