Re: Concerns with Accessibe joining W3C

+1

As John Folito said that is the antithesis of inclusion. And agree with 
Chaals:

> What matters is whether they participate, whether everyone in the room 
> can behave in a professional and respectful way, and how effective we 
> are collectively in identifying barriers to accessibility, finding 
> strategies to overcome those barriers, and getting them implemented 
> effectively.

Perhaps by participating they will change their mind and find a 
different business that really contributes to better accessibility.

Best,

/Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo/
Patrono Fundador y Directora General
Fundación Sidar - Acceso Universal
email: emmanuelle@sidar.org
http://sidar.org


El 28/05/2021 a las 14:07, Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile escribió:
> I second Patrick's concern. W3C must be an open organisation, being 
> very very careful about who it restricts from participating.
>
> In addition, while you may personally doubt the good faith of a 
> participant it is not acceptable behaviour to simply suggest that 
> people are here for dishonest purposes. Plain verifiably factual 
> statements about an organisation are one thing, extrapolating from 
> them to make claims about motivations or how you think they will 
> behave in the future is quite different.
>
> One reason for insisting on polite respectful discussion in W3C is 
> that it makes it easier to have constructive conversations that allow 
> people who disagree on a technical question to collectively explore 
> sensible ways of reaching agreement, rather than a majority simply 
> bullying a small minority by speaking over them, or enforcing 
> adherence to a set of technical beliefs as a requirement of 
> participation and chasing everyone who disagrees out of the conversation.
>
> I am personally very skeptical that an organisation providing 
> automated overlays will reach a high level of accessibility. Given the 
> vagaries of the law, I think it is more likely that in some 
> circumstances they enable a minimal for of legal compliance - but I 
> don't think that alone is especially wonderful - it generally reflects 
> a poor legal framework rather than a good outcome for either people or 
> the Web as a platform.
>
> That said, I can imagine ways to build overlays that *do* achieve high 
> levels of compliance, and have seen some demonstrations that are 
> pretty good.
>
> Whether Accessibe does a great job or a terrible one is not terribly 
> relevant to whether they are welcome to participate. It will of course 
> be reflected in how likely proposals they make are likely to be 
> accepted as moving us forward, or politely demolished as sub-optimal 
> or ineffectual. But we do a disservice to them, ourselves, and the Web 
> if we don't make those judgements on a case-by-case basis rather than 
> based on what we think of the organisation in general.
>
> What matters is whether they participate, whether everyone in the room 
> can behave in a professional and respectful way, and how effective we 
> are collectively in identifying barriers to accessibility, finding 
> strategies to overcome those barriers, and getting them implemented 
> effectively.
>
> If they bring their experiences and a desire to improve things, and 
> contribute to reaching those goals whether greatly or occasionally, I 
> would be appalled to think we would not welcome them as participants.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> On Fri, 28 May 2021 06:31:02 +1000, Patrick H. Lauke 
> <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I actually have concerns about this discussion.
>
>


-- 
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus