- From: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
- Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 16:25:24 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
- cc: Wai-Ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.2105281604240.741905@server2.shellworld.net>
Hi Shawn,
Let me try and ask this question differently, David's post sort of
fortifies my question as well.
While I respect and appreciate John's reminder that the w3c creates
standards, not laws, in many places one can find statements where a site
claims w3c compliance, or wacg compliance, without testing or even
awareness of what such terms mean.
In many jurisdictions the wacg standards become parts of laws, even
treaties.
Individuals, companies are asked to comply, suggesting that the w3c
carries an element of enforcement.
And perhaps more connective to the discussion, claiming association with
the w3c, carries a level of credibility, even if the person making the
claim does so falsely, or never takes part in working group activities.
what you outline below feels like preaching to the choir, asking the people
inside about their perspective...but the far reaching nature of your work
means that a general public perspective of the wc3 wai, and wacg exists as
well.
if a partner or member, or anyone can claim compliance, or
association for that matter, via logo or
representation, that means they expect doing this provides a benefit for
them..which supports Steve's comment.
accessib can become a member, not do a thing, and tell their investors
they are connected with you, even if their practices violate the standards
drafted by you.
So, has an effort ever been made to research how the general public, or
even the general business public believes you work? what your role
actually is, what it means when they here w3c anywhere?
Does that make more sense?
karen
On Fri, 28 May 2021, Shawn Henry wrote:
> Hello, Karen,
>
> I am not sure of the goal of your questions. Feel free to contact me directly
> if you would like to provide more perspective. I can answer your specific
> questions:
>
> Yes, we regularly discuss the role of W3C with Members. Twice a year we try
> to have one-on-one discussions with each Full Member and others that we can
> fit in.
>
> The W3C Advisory Committee ("AC") includes a representative from every W3C
> Member organization. The AC meets twice a year. And currently there are
> monthly AC meetings. [AC]
>
> W3C has an Advisory Board that meets twice a month. [AB]
>
> There is also an active discussion on GitHub about W3C role -- or vision or
> mission -- I can't remember right now and I don't find it from short search.
>
> We have done some surveys, mostly as part of website redesign processes in
> 2017 and in 2020. [surveys]
>
> I hope that info helps.
>
> Best,
> ~ Shawn
> <http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/>
>
>
> I'm not sure if these provide the best, current information? It's what I am
> up for on a Friday afternoon after a very long week and month.
> [AB] https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB
> [AC] https://www.w3.org/wiki/AdvisoryCommittee
>
> [surveys] For example, a survey related to brand and identity, and
> documenting "user stories" - announced here:
> https://www.w3.org/blog/2020/04/w3c-website-redesign-user-stories-brand-and-identity/
>
> ---
>
> On 28-May-21 1:45 PM, John Foliot wrote:
>> Hi Karen,
>>
>> I certainly have thoughts and opinions <grin>, and I've been knocking
>> about at the W3C for more than a decade, but I'd prefer to defer voicing
>> more of my opinions here - I believe the questions you raise are valid,
>> and perhaps Shawn or W3M (W3C Management) should weigh in here.
>>
>> I am aware of the perception that the W3C is some kind of "police" (IMHO
>> a completely false assumption), but I also note that it is *my
>> perception* that in the WAI domain, we seemingly have a larger-than-usual
>> number of "Invited Experts" and participants who are here for
>> "accessibility" first, standards second. I don't have an answer to that.
>>
>> I'm a huge fan standards driving progress, but to be clear, we create
>> 'standards' not 'LAWS', and just because we get a standard published in no
>> way means that it becomes 'gospel' - in fact there is a (disappointing at
>> times) history at the W3C of really cool specs that could benefit
>> accessibility that go nowhere (example: https://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/
>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/>).
>>
>> JF
>>
>> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 1:01 PM Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net
>> <mailto:klewellen@shellworld.net>> wrote:
>>
>> wow, thanks for this John.
>> I admit though it generates a question.
>> Has anyone ever surveyed what the general public, or even members
>> believe
>> the role of the w3c to be?
>> I ask because there are so many environments where the name gets
>> invoked,
>> so many ways rules are used that I imagine there is confusion about
>> the
>> things you note here.
>> as a reporter, I have come across the w3c described as the Internet
>> police
>> more than once.
>> Thoughts on image and perception?
>> Karen
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 28 May 2021, John Foliot wrote:
>>
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > +1 to Patrick Lauke. Am I the only one struck by the (it's more than
>> > just)
>> > irony of a group that ostensibly promotes inclusion of all kinds,
>> > actively
>> > discussing excluding a company from W3C participation? (And, a quick
>> > check
>> > at https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List#xA
>> > <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List#xA> confirms they are indeed
>> > members already.)
>> >
>> > I get it. This company has a well deserved reputation of activity that
>> > many
>> > of us find... troubling. I too have signed Karl's Overlay Factsheet, and
>> > I've publicly pointed at this company as being untruthful and snake-oil
>> > salesmen (using those exact words). I'm not a fan of their technology
>> > "solution" as it adds as much grief as it claims to remove.
>> >
>> > But it's critical to remember that the W3C is a member-funder,
>> > international standards organization - and a consortium that does more
>> > than
>> > just work on standards for digital accessibility. (The member-funded
>> > part
>> > is critical - it costs $$ to keep the lights on, and that money has to
>> > come
>> > from somewhere.) The W3C has members from around the world, of all forms
>> > of
>> > political stripes and business models, and it's important to note that a
>> > LOT of entities join the W3C with little active participation in
>> > specific
>> > activities. Their reasons for joining the W3C are as varied as the
>> > members
>> > themselves. Additionally, the W3C has absolutely no power to *force*
>> > member
>> > companies to follow or adopt W3C standards (because otherwise, Apple
>> > would
>> > support @longdesc in their tooling stack - for example...) Finally,
>> > there
>> > are valuable Accessibility advocates (warriors) producing great digital
>> > accessibility work today that are NOT members of the W3C for reasons
>> > that
>> > may or may-not have anything to do with "accessibility" (WebAIM, FUNKA).
>> > W3C membership is NOT a badge that separates "us" from "them".
>> >
>> > The consortium is NOT a members-only country club, it's NOT a
>> > by-invitation-only collection of monoculture businesses, advocates, and
>> > other stakeholders (EDU, government, etc.), and as disappointing it may
>> > be
>> > to see a company that many of us have serious reservations about
>> > actively
>> > seeking to participate at the W3C, I for one would fight tooth and nail
>> > to
>> > ensure their right to do so remained in place. It may turn out
>> > positively,
>> > it may turn out negatively, but frankly I'm offended that some would
>> > even
>> > contemplate actively slamming the door in their face simply because they
>> > don't see things the way *we* see them.
>> >
>> > IMHO, it's the antithesis of inclusion.
>> >
>> > JF
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 4:52 PM Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org
>> > <mailto:shawn@w3.org>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi, Karen,
>> > >
>> > > The Code document includes some of that information directly and links
>> > > to
>> > > other:
>> > >
>> > > * Section 4: Reporting Violations and Supporting the Code
>> > > https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/#Reporting
>> > > <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/#Reporting>
>> > >
>> > > * "Procedures" in Positive Work Environment Home Page
>> > > https://www.w3.org/Consortium/pwe/
>> > > <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/pwe/>
>> > >
>> > > Best,
>> > > ~ Shawn
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 27-May-21 3:39 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>> > > > I can respect your stance.
>> > > > may I ask how the w3c insures anyone complies with this code of
>> > > > ethics?
>> > > > By which I mean, is it possible to join, yet engage in the sorts of
>> > > behavior illustrated by some posts here, without anyone the wiser?
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > Karen,
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, 27 May 2021, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I actually have concerns about this discussion. I'm sure going
>> > > > > over the
>> > > list of current members https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List
>> > > <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List> each of
>> > > us can find at least one or two current members that don't, in our
>> > > view,
>> > > fit our view of a good actor - maybe they are in the cryptocurrency
>> > > market,
>> > > or maybe they're tied to a media company heavily invested in embedding
>> > > DRM
>> > > schemes into standards, or maybe they're tied to a particular
>> > > government
>> > > body that is actively working on the suppression of free speech, or
>> > > ...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > However, under the rules, as long as they behave in accordance
>> > > > > with the
>> > > membership agreement, and follow the code of ethics and professional
>> > > conduct https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/
>> > > <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/> (and as long as they pay
>> > > their membership fees), they are free to join.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > P
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Patrick H. Lauke
>> > > > >
>> > > > > https: //www.splintered.co.uk/ <http://www.splintered.co.uk/> |
>> > > > > https: https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>> > > > > https: <https://github.com/patrickhlauke>
>> > > > > https: //flickr.com/photos/redux/
>> > > > > https: <http://flickr.com/photos/redux/> |
>> > > > > https: https://www.deviantart.com/redux
>> > > > > https: <https://www.deviantart.com/redux>
>> > > > > twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> > *John Foliot* | Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility
>> >
>> > "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
>> > Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *John Foliot* | Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility
>>
>> "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
>> Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"
>
>
Received on Friday, 28 May 2021 20:25:40 UTC