Archive index

A11y Slackers Gitter Channel Archive 12th of October 2016

What fresh hell is THIS now? - Patrick Lauke
  1. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 00:09
    [garcialo] Actually I don't think there is actually any recognized "certification" for WCAG conformance
  2. [garcialo] ...actually
  3. [lowellreade] depending on your needs, the closest thing might be a VPAT…..?
  4. [caesar] If you Google "WCAG Certification" plenty of places will help organisations make a WCAG 2.0 Conformance Claim... which is probably what they want
  5. [caesar] Just a marketing shorthand, methinks.
  6. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 00:16
    [shawn.henning] People are beginning to use the AIM WAVE tool to threaten litigation in California under recent legislation. So I am getting inquiries on how to ensure sites are not targeted.
  7. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 02:22
    [marcysutton] There are multiple accessibility APIs that do similar things, as well as the companies that @garcialo mentioned. (deque being one, which created the aXe api)
  8. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 03:11

    [karlgroves] @shawn.henning You should treat anyone willing to say they will “Certify” you with significant suspicion. There’s no such thing and no “certification” is recognized by industry or by, in your case, lawyers.

    If you want to ensure sites are not targeted, make them accessible. Here’s a blog post on the topic of Accessibility and Risk: http://blog.tenon.io/web-accessibility-in-high-risk-segments/

  9. [caesar] Be that as it may, all the majors advertise "certification" though:

    http://www.deque.com/services/certifications/

    https://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2009/03/the-paciello-group-and-webaim-announce-web-site-certification-services-for-accessibility/

    http://webaim.org/services/certification/

  10. stevefaulkner
    @stevefaulkner
    Oct 12 04:55
    We don't think certification is of much worth, but if a client insists we could provide some sort of document to state that on a given date a site/application was found to conform to standard x and thankfully most clients don't ask/want
  11. @caesar note the tpg article you referenced was from 2009, if you look at our current offerings https://www.paciellogroup.com/services/ certification is not one of them.
  12. of course we do VPATs but that is a different fish
  13. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 05:05
    [caesar] Thanks. Just picking out the top results from Google though, which is likely to be a similar experience to clients looking for info. Not saying it's right...
  14. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 05:12
    [shawn.henning] Thank you everyone.
  15. [shawn.henning] My suspicion is that given the legal landscape it will be difficult to get any kind of certification and I don't know who would really want to take on that risk.
  16. [shawn.henning] I'm not sure how a website that has to be present in multiple jurisdictions is going to meet guidelines in a way that businesses tend to want to ensure against legal risk.
  17. [caesar] I can't speak for the US, but at least in Australia it wouldn't be right to characterise people with disability as being (legally) vindictive about website inaccessibility. Mostly, if an organisation makes some kind of effort then that's appreciated and recognised, and they offer assistance to help make sites more accessible rather than subpoenas.
  18. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 10:20

    [karlgroves] > My suspicion is that given the legal landscape it will be difficult to get any kind of certification and I don't know who would really want to take on that risk.

    The problem isn’t so much the risk aspect, but relevance. For instance, if we do a VPAT document, it is based on an exhaustive audit and relevant only to that version of the product. The VPAT document is out of date whenever the product has a new release.

    A public website isn’t versioned. Very large companies and e-commerce websites change constantly. Content-heavy sites constantly add content. In some cases, the “certification” would probably be inaccurate by the time it actually gets posted on the site.

  19. [karlgroves] > Be that as it may, all the majors advertise "certification" though: http://www.deque.com/services/certifications/

    A VPAT isn’t a “Certification”. The NFB certification doesn’t mean diddly squat to AFB, ACB, NAD or anyone else. What it means is you’ve paid a shit ton of money to NFB to get off your back. This isn’t an anti-Deque comment - and admittedly the site has to be accessible and verified as such by Deque - but the reality is that this certification has more to do with getting NFB off your ass than a “certification”. And it has absolutely zero weight whatsoever with anyone and no protection from being sued by anyone else.

  20. Mallory
    @StommePoes
    Oct 12 10:57
    Thanks @garcialo @fionaHolder @car for the input on timing
  21. I thought, for example with Target (or was it Kohl's?) that the lawsuit stage comes after someone sends a message of some sort to the company (a customer complaining or something) and the company is then considered "aware" of the problem and then they either have to do nothing long enough for someone to sic lawyers on them or make some statement along the lines of "wontfix"
  22. At least, I've heard of companies who didn't want it known what they did or didn't know about their own site accessibility because of a worry (not sure how founded) that if they're considered "informed" of the problem, they're now responsible.
  23. Mallory
    @StommePoes
    Oct 12 11:02
    I'm not talking schools though. I think there all you need is a student to struggle unnecessarily to the point that their grade/diploma/degree is in danger. As little as a semester maybe.
  24. Esp as schools in the States more and more consider students to be "paying customers" instead of scholars. Which I rather dislike, but maybe that's what you get when school puts you under a dog-poop-pile of debt that takes decades to pay off.
  25. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 13:13
    [jdan] @jessebeach loved your article! https://medium.com/@jessebeach/beware-smushed-off-screen-accessible-text-5952a4c2cbfe#.ehu8to1ob
  26. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 13:49
    [conley] This is a good one, would be nice to know which screen reader they experienced this in
  27. [conley] but regardless use of the white-space property is much more thorough
  28. [shawn.henning] It was Target. Here is their write-up: https://corporate.target.com/article/2016/09/accessibility-team
  29. [shawn.henning] In one situation I am familiar with it seems as though a lawyer is using the WAVE tool or similar tool to target a web site, but they miss pretty glaring issues which makes me wonder if an actual screen reader user was involved in the findings. This does not mean the issues should not be resolved, but that the "fixed" website might not be useable even if it "passes" an automated test.
  30. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 13:58
    [karlgroves] @shawn.henning Of course it depends on the law firm, plaintiff, etc. but generally speaking the more active a law firm is in this space, the more likely it is that they’re only using an automated tool
  31. powrsurg
    @powrsurg
    Oct 12 14:24
    I remember a tool we were looking at was "certified to almost by compliant with WCAG 2.0 A-level"
  32. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 14:27
    [conley] If a law firm is rely on an automated tool, that’s a big red flag in my book
  33. [conley] Wave is okay but no one should rely solely on that. Automation is somewhat helpful but still can bring up false positives that require manual inspection
  34. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 14:35

    [karlgroves] > If a law firm is rely on an automated tool, that’s a big red flag in my book

    I agree 100%. A specific law firm in Pittsburgh has been carpet bombing companies with demand letters justified almost solely by the output from an automated tool (not WAVE, by the way).

  35. [karlgroves] Many people don’t realize this:
    On any given day, Monday through Saturday, there are around 1-dozen a11y-related lawsuits filed in the US court system. Nearly all of them are (at the moment) related to physical access.
  36. [karlgroves] Those lawsuits are based solely on drive-bys. A person who ostensibly is part of the "protected population" (PWDs) literally drives by, sees whether or not there’s a ramp to the door, and then files a lawsuit
  37. [karlgroves] Or, sometimes, tries getting in the door and sees it is too narrow. Or tries getting to an order counter and sees it is too high. But these folks are basically professional plaintiffs.
  38. [karlgroves] The overwhelming majority of these lawsuits are the same plaintiffs and the same law firms.
  39. [karlgroves] I guarantee we will begin seeing this happening with websites soon. That lawfirm in Pittsburgh is only the first, but not the last
  40. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 14:40
    [karlgroves] At Tenon we were contacted by one of these professional plaintiffs, actually. Not really business we want and not how we want our product used, but at the same time, fully within our Terms of Use. Ultimately they didn’t buy, which gave me a sigh of relief
  41. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 15:03
    [shawn.henning] Thank you @karlgroves your article is very helpful in summarizing the situation.
  42. [karlgroves] thumbsup emoji thanks!
  43. luis garcia
    @garcialo
    Oct 12 17:03
    @karlgroves surely you have kind of protection that would have allow you to refuse service, right?
  44. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 17:20

    [car] @stevef Does HTML5.1 become the W3C Recommendation tomorrow?
    https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/

    W3C Advisory Committee members are invited to advise the Director on whether this document should become a W3C Recommendation through the relevant questionnaire in their WBS questionnaires, before 13 October 2016.

  45. James Nurthen
    @jnurthen
    Oct 12 17:25
    @car I doubt it. Potentially if there are no comments it could but if there are any comments especially if there are formal objections those would need to be resolved prior to progressing.
  46. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 17:29
    [car] Thanks, @jnurthen. Was just wondering, and trying to understand the process.
  47. James Nurthen
    @jnurthen
    Oct 12 17:30
    @car I'm not involved in HTML specifically but this is how the w3c generally works.
  48. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 17:32
    [car] Also wondering if there's a known date when ARIA1.1 will reach Candidate Recommendation. Must be soon...
  49. [car] Ah, ok.
  50. James Nurthen
    @jnurthen
    Oct 12 17:35
    @car Can you see this mail. I think the archives are public. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria-admin/2016Oct/0000.html
  51. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 17:36
    [car] Yes, I can. Perfect - thank-you!
  52. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 17:45
    [car] @jnurthen - I love all the +1's! So... 7 days from Oct 7 is this Friday, Oct 14 - assuming there are no -1's. :)
  53. James Nurthen
    @jnurthen
    Oct 12 17:51
    I think it may need to go through AC review after. I am not 100% sure on the process.
  54. stevefaulkner
    @stevefaulkner
    Oct 12 19:16
    @car projected date early November
  55. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 19:49
    [car] Cool, @stevef - Thanks!
  56. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 20:42
    [marcysutton] Hello to the folks just joining us from the Twitterverse! :wave:
  57. [car] o/
  58. [ryan.leisinger] yep, I saw your retweet
  59. [ryan.leisinger] its almost like twitter works for spreading information or something
  60. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 20:50
    [cordelia] who woulda thought!
  61. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 21:09
    [marcysutton] I refer to it as my giant megaphone :loudspeaker:
  62. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 21:51
    [caesar] This is just the whole "gay cake" thing though, isn't it?
    @karlgroves surely you have kind of protection that would have allow you to refuse service, right?
  63. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 22:01
    [alice] @caesar Does that reference travel outside of AU? :)
  64. [caesar] No, that case in Texas where the bakery refused service to a gay couple
  65. [caesar] Without making any judgements on the merits of that case, I'm saying this seems like a similar example
  66. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 22:22
    [alice] Oh yeah! Ah, gay cake, the universal symbol of bigotry.
  67. powrsurg
    @powrsurg
    Oct 12 22:31
    Any thoughts on http://allthingssmitty.com/2016/10/03/responsive-table-layout/ ?
  68. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 22:32
    [caesar] LOL maybe we can call the a11y legal one "blind WAVE" like a Jedi mind trick or something
  69. powrsurg
    @powrsurg
    Oct 12 22:32
    I'm not sure putting aria-label on every td that corresponds to its desired th is something simple/scalable
  70. and I'm not sure if that really is desired from an a11y standpoint ... my initial reaction was that it shouldn't be, but thinking about it it could work
  71. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 22:33
    [caesar] Commenter makes a good point about it making the table unnecessarily long and arduous to read, especially where there are many rows
  72. [caesar] Also unsure how it would behave with table shortcuts
  73. zakim-robot
    @zakim-robot
    Oct 12 23:19
    [caesar] When a WCAG Technique refers to a Guideline instead of a Success Criteria, what conformance level does it have (if any)? E.g. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G201.html
  74. powrsurg
    @powrsurg
    Oct 12 23:34
    https://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2012/05/html5-accessibility-chops-hidden-and-aria-hidden/ this blog post might need updating after @stevefaulkner's recent tweet