RE: Concerns with Accessibe joining W3C

I also support John’s view. However, accessiBe’s own website says they just received $28 Million Series A funding. Anyone who thinks they will do anything other than aggressively pursue their own agenda, is deluding themselves. While all of us need to make a profit, that is the only reason for their existence. Their investors expect the company to maximise the return on their investment and won’t want anything to get in the way of that, even if it makes the world better.

Steve Green
Managing Director
Test Partners Ltd


From: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo <emmanuelle@sidar.org>
Sent: 28 May 2021 16:36
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: 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<mailto: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><mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:


I actually have concerns about this discussion.


[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Libre de virus. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>