Re: Concerns with Accessibe joining W3C

I think the original issue was worth addressing. I do agree that we should
always err in the direction of inclusion, but accessibility has progressed
to the point where we do have bad actors.

An open forum is probably not the place to take individual cases up in
depth, but it might be only place one has to ask the initial question.

I think we should be inclusive in the extreme with admitting member
organizations, but we should be just as inclusive in listening to serious
concerns that are shared by the list members.
Best, Wayne

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:02 AM Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>
wrote:

> 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
> 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> <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I actually have concerns about this discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <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>
>
>
>