What annoys me the most about the Discussion about Chris Heilmann’s talk at A-Tag in Vienna is not only that Chris doesn’t want to speak at German accessibility events at all anymore, but the claim that Chris is solid against any laws. That is not what he said.
His point was that accessibility in the real world can only be so good or average as the developer and designer knowledge is. If a designer/developer is suddenly in charge to provide an accessible website he will look for a way to archive that goal with as little effort as possible. This will lead to accessible websites but badly designed ones. Additionally there may be problems with jump links which are hidden with display: none and other oddities (like text-only versions etc.).
Of course we all think: Such a person should never be in charge to make a website (as, to my understanding, we aim that all websites are accessible, right?) – but then 90% of web developers needed to change jobs, and we’d get only two websites a year online as those few agencies who do accessible websites can’t cope with the demand.
The other problem is that law hinders progress. German law, which is a (not compatible) reformulation of WCAG 1.0 prohibits the use of any scripting and other non-standard techniques. That means no youtube, even embedded on a website even if the video is completely subtitled and accessible. The accessible youtube player is nice but not allowed. WAI-ARIA techniques: not allowed.
The problem: German law is very old (2002), but it was also amongst the first to even implement a law about web accessibility. The now so often cited PAS78, the British accessibility law, is from 2006. And it is not undisputed either. We have to see how fast that really gets updated, the German law is about to update as well.
And then there was the claim about “eleven years of education and nothing changed, we need thumbscrews”: This is not true. Layout tables are in general gone, federal websites are accessible and even websites that are not required by law are generally better accessible. I wish that all websites are required to be accessible, but that isn’t possible as it seems. Even disability associations don’t bother to fight for it, which is the real scandal here.
There are a few tasks that a good accessibility law should do:
- Create awareness. Only if there is awareness in companies, they will give developers time to be educated and do great stuff.
- Do not create a climate of fear. If you have to fear that you are sued, because you made a mistake you’ll get conservative and lethargic. This shouldn’t happen as the web and accessibility technology is getting better and better every day.
- Create mediations. If there is a problem with a website people should come together and talk (first), not sue. That works quite well in Austria. Mediations are often a lot cheaper than trials, too.
- Reference international standard. WCAG, whatever version is current. Austria does that as well, so immediately after WCAG2 were out, web developers were required to use that. This creates again a climate of education. Germany copied WCAG1 and made that a regulation which is now outdated for over a year.
- Be inclusive. There is no reason why public and private websites should be treated differently, so don’t.
We need laws, but we need good laws, not outdated ones. The myth of the flexible law is exactly that, a myth.
…freier Webentwickler. Dabei spezialisiert er sich auf sehr gut nutzbare User Interfaces und barrierefreie, standardkonforme Webseiten. Er gibt sich nicht mit dem Status Quo in den Browsern zufrieden sondern erforscht deren Grenzen und reizt ihre Fähigkeiten aus.
Kommentare (Abonnieren)
Artur Ortega
28. Oktober 2009, 13:44 Uhrthe argument is about these two statements:
1) Barrierefreiheit darf kein Zwang sein. Wir koennen Barrierefreiheit nicht von der Kanzel herab der Welt aufzwingen. Das fuehrt nur zu theoretischen und religioesen Debatten.
(Accessibility shouldn’t be enforced. We can’t force the world to accessibility from the pulpit. This leads only to theoretical and religious debates.)
2) Barrierefreiheit muss unter die Haut gehen. Anstatt dessen muessen wir uns darauf konzentrieren Barrierefreiheit als Leidenschaft fuer Kommunikation und Menschen eine Freude zu bereiten zu verkaufen.
(Accessibility needs to go under the skin. We have to focus on accessibility as a passion for communication and for people to have a pleasure to sell instead.)
I agree with (2) but I consider statement (1) as wrong – and that’s why I challenge this statement.
I’m a great friend of the old Greek idea of the Agora. If someone makes a statement I love to discuss the statement and argue for a different view. That’s why I won’t go into the sandbox discussion about someone’s free will to not longer attend accessibility conferences in German speaking countries.
A lot of enthusiastic accessibility experts are trying now for years to educate and sell accessibility. Unfortunately a lot of companies and local governmental administrations don’t care about accessibility at all.
Accessibility is pushed out of the backlog for years now. I want to stop this happening.
My experience with accessibility in general shows that only with an amount of pressure or enforcement we get the right enthusiastic accessibility experts get the chance to be consulted and get the chance to make accessibility happen. This pressure is only possible with proper laws which enforce not only governmental but every company to provide accessible pages.
Accessibility has to become mainstream and part of the abilities of a professional webdev. I want to move accessibility out of the amateurism into professionalism. The accessibility experts have to be able to move on from only selling accessibility to develop accessibility to the next level and push the boundaries of today. They have to become the shining raw models and be a step ahead.
This is only possible if we don’t longer discuss about “if” accessibility happens. I want to open the race “how” much accessibility we can achieve. Eleven years after WCAG 1.0 we are wasting our talent and enthusiasm for implementing accessibility instead of making it mandatory and being passionate about the next steps.
The statement (1) is dangerous for getting good laws in place. This is the reason why I challenge this statement.
Personally I don’t care why web pages are accessible, as long they are accessible. I care to move on in accessibility and educate people. My belief is that (2) only can succeed in the long run with good laws in the first place.
I’m quite happy to discuss how we can achieve that. I agree that the Austrian idea of a mediation board is great. It doesn’t cost any money and it sends companies a strong signal that they are potentially doing something wrong. But we need to be able to sue a company if the mediation wasn’t successful, too. How to keep up with changes in technology in a law we can learn a lot of German environmental laws. There is no reason why we can’t use similar legal terms for accessibility to stay up to date.
Eric Eggert
28. Oktober 2009, 15:36 UhrAs you are again and again singling out statements and present them out of context I refuse to discuss that issue with you any further, Artur.
Christiane
28. Oktober 2009, 18:21 UhrFor the next A-Tag please make sure that it’s clear that comments other than applause (especially from disabled people) are not welcome. I will try to respect this in the future.
Eric Eggert
28. Oktober 2009, 20:11 UhrChristiane, this is not true. First: I’m not commenting here as an moderator or co-organizer of the A-Tag. This is my personal opinion and they differ inside the organization team. I can live with that. I can live with you and Artur having other opinions than me, I’m fine with that. I have no problems with discussions. I have problems with discussions in which claims are repeated, which are not true and out of context.
I’m able to listen to people with different opinions, I’ve read your blog posts and comments, looked into it and even wrote an article which should be quite in your sense. And I don’t see that we differ that much in the basic “we need laws” opinion (which is the title of this blog post, see). I don’t know why you think this fight has to be fought on a personal level rather to acknowledge that there are different opinions. I would never say I’m right and I got the clue to the universe and everything. I think it is only fair that other people have other opinions. But when it gets into those religious fights, which I refuse to fight, nobody will ever get to an acceptable resolution and nobody is helped.
At the A-Tag we appreciate every feedback we can get, you should know that, as you and Artur were there last year. We appreciate and value your and Artur’s opinion. We like thoughtful discussions and insights in your blog posts. Artur showed last year in practice what Chris is preaching, fun, emotion and solution oriented accessibility. In many developers that created a feeling that they can change things with their work. That is a good thing. That is the emotion we need to get the best out of the laws that are here and are yet to come. Education creates pressure and normality from the bottom, Laws create pressure and acceptance from top. Both target different people, developers and designers on one hand, executives on the other hand.
It just hurts me that those who get on the road week after week, preaching accessibility, really wanting to change something, get slapped in the face hard for one sentence in one presentation. (And he said similar things a year ago at the same venue, in context you didn’t argue against it, iirc.)
Christiane
29. Oktober 2009, 00:06 UhrJust for the record: we did argue against it last year already – but not publicly. It was not “only one sentence” in the presentation. It was quite an important part. The statements are not “out of context”. I just listened to the audio file: http://ia311039.us.archive.org/3/items/PantaRhei-AllesAendertSich-WarumNichtWir_580/PantaRhei-AllesAendersSichWarumNichtWir_.mp3 (at 36:16).
It was quite similar to the statement last year. I didn’t “slapped him in the face”. Me and other bloggers didn’t offend someone. We just challenged the statements. This should be possible on and around a conference where you have a political topic like accessibility.
Chris Heilmann
29. Oktober 2009, 13:00 UhrChristiane: why don’t you just speak at the next A-Tag (or any other conference) about this topic? Clearly you are passionate about it and you want people to understand it.
Christiane
29. Oktober 2009, 14:04 Uhr@Chris
Sorry, I don’t have the feeling that there is much interest in discussing this topic any further @ A-Tag (esp. not from the organisers). I can live with that.
Chris Heilmann
30. Oktober 2009, 07:55 Uhr@Christiane Chicken.
Eric Eggert
30. Oktober 2009, 08:19 Uhr@Chris: …says the one who never wants to speak at (German) accessibility events again. Brick-throwing in a glass house, anyone?
Markus Ladstätter
30. Oktober 2009, 16:26 UhrI don’t know what everyone here is talking about. In my opionion everyone of you is right.
Artur at requesting lawmakers to enforce accessibility so that more and more sites become accessible regardless of whether a company wants to or not.
Christiane at also requesting accessible sites not dependent on a good will basis of companies/webdevelopers
Chris is also right that everything stands and falls with passion, which is necessary if you want to to something better than “just fine”.
For me the only difference in you opinions is, that in reality, that’s my point of view, they are targeting to different groups of people.
For me, passion is necessary for those, being creative and implementing a website or whatsoever, BUT it’s not necessary for the employer/customer/auftraggeber.
The discussion in the last few days were surprising to me because everyone of you wants the same. Good/Great usable, accessible websites.
Christiane: Your sentence about comments about A-Tag sessions is very unfair and I can’t leave it uncommented. Every input is greatly appreciated.
One thing: the organisation team at A-Tag is happy to host controversial sessions. Everyone is invited to submit a topic if he or she wants to.