21 Wow - and just when we were getting it

Now I haven’t read it but I do trust Joe’s judgment and thats an entirely worrying article. At the end of the day, if we’re looking for improvement and widespread adoption of these standards into websites, shouldn’t we be making this much simpler and easier to achieve? not the other way round. Too many academics in ivory towers methinks.

posted at 01:35 am on May 24, 2006 by Damien Buckley

22 The problem runs deeper

Oh, I think it’s worse than Joe writes. As I see it, the WCAG 2.0 accomplishes two things: It makes it less likely that sites will ever really be accessible to persons with disabilities. And it makes the price of admission for an ostensibly accessible site (i.e. one that “meets” the guidelines) quite high.

Who will have the resources to build such sites? Answer: large corporations. Individuals and small businesses need not apply. Now all we need are laws to mandate the use of the WCAG 2.0 and big corporate interests can finally finish the job of wresting control of the Internet from ordinary folks.

And how clever! The end of democracy on the Internet brought about in the name of protecting the weakest members of society.

Having once served on the WCAG 2 committee, I doubt that many on the committee see their work this way. But just as journalists internalize the values of their corporate bosses and self-censor, the members of the WCAG 2.0 committee, under steady pressure from the big corporations who are the W3C, gave us a document that works to advantage big corporations over the rest of us.

Does this surprise anyone?

Many years ago (1997, I think), I wanted to join the W3C but discovered to my surprise (given Tim Berners-Lee’s talk about democracy) that there was no provision for individual membership. Small businesses (under, I think, $1 million gross per year) could join — for $5000 per year. Since that was about my yearly gross at the time, membership was impossible. Note that much of what the W3C does is behind closed doors, despite their claims of openness, so there’s good reason to want to be a member.

I wrote to Tim Berners-Lee and another member of the W3C’s board of directors asking about individual membership. Berners-Lee couldn’t be bothered to reply, but surprisingly the other board member did. I don’t remember his name, but I remember clearly what he said. He said that the W3C had considered individual memberships, but the big corporations upon which they were dependent for their financing (his words) didn’t want to dilute their power in the organization, so they’d decided against letting individuals join.

When I sat, briefly, on the committee back in 2001, we thought we were a matter of months away from a new version of the WCAG. Now, five years later, an unrecognizable document has finally emerged. I wish I could say I’m surprised, but I’m not.

The problem is not with the WCAG 2.0 Working Group. Certainly, there is plenty of backstabbing, grandstanding, dirty politics, whining, and worse on the committe, as there is on every committee in which humans participate, but there are also many very bright, very dedicated, and very well-meaning individuals on the committee. The problem is that the committee exists within the context of an industry consortium, not a democratic entity, in which one man who depends entirely on the largesse of big corporations for his salary has the final say on everything.

The W3C will never produce anything that doesn’t benefit big business. If the needs of big business and those of the common people coincide, then the W3C produces useful product. If those interests conflict, however, the W3C always has and always will protect the interests of its members over those of the public. Sadly, few people seem to understand this as the truth is carefully hidden behind talk of consensus and transparency.

We, the people, built the Internet. We ought to own it, and it should be operated for our benefit, not for the further enrichment of private interests.

Fat chance of that, though.

posted at 02:02 am on May 24, 2006 by Charles Munat

24 P.S. Where Joe goes wrong

One thing I forgot to mention above:

It’s funny how sometimes people can have all the right data, make all the right connections, and still manage to draw the wrong conclusion. In his section entitled, “The Process Stinks” Joe points out that the WCAG 2.0 Working Group has been anything but open. In fact, it’s an elitist group of so-called experts and it is highly resistant to input from anyone else. And Joe is exactly right in pointing out that the WG manifestly /does not practice what it preaches/ — persons with disabilities need not apply (as well as those who cannot afford two hour long distance phone calls or flying all over the world for face to face meetings).

So what does Joe conclude from the lack of openness in the WCAG 2.0 WG? That “[A totally open process] is a viable model for standards development . . . but in web accessibility it is proven not to work.” Um, come again? How exactly does the complete lack of a totally open process prove that a totally open process doesn’t work?

Joe’s solution, not surprisingly given his authoritarian temperament, is to create yet another elitist, closed, (and this time even secret) group to solve the problem. Apparently, in Joe’s world the ends really do justify the means.

Unfortunately, in the real world the ends and the means are one and the same. You are what you do, not what you are trying to accomplish. Joe’s WCAG Samurai will accomplish exactly what Joe is trying to avoid: they will legitimate the use of elitist, closed groups to create web standards. Then it will be the WCAG Samurai vs. the W3C WCAG WG, and the loser will be…

The rest of us.

Come on, Joe. Here is your chance to expose the W3C for what it really is. But to do that you have to give up your demagoguery and embrace a truly open process. How about it just once?

posted at 02:41 am on May 24, 2006 by Charles Munat

26 Nominally?

Where decision-making rests is more than a little important. And as for the “nominally” open process, for evidence of just how open a process the WG is, I refer readers to this writer who sums it up quite nicely:

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tohellwithwcag2#WCAG-documents:process

And if it’s just “errata” that the WCAG Samurai will be writing, why the secrecy? Why the need to hide the process? Why not have the discussion right out in the open so that everyone knows who’s involved and what’s being discussed?

Also, it seems to me that the whole point of these “errata” is to kick the legs out from under the WCAG 2.0, so effectively they are determining the standard, if the Samurai are successful.

The logic of Joe’s argument escapes me. Wasn’t the problem with the Working Group that they wouldn’t listen? So how is this rectified by creating a new group that won’t listen? Or is the point that this group is controlled by Joe? Is that the secret to successful standards? Ask Joe?

What’s funny about all this (or what would be funny if it weren’t so anti-democratic) is that I think that Joe is probably right about the WCAG 2.0. But somehow a very perceptive critique segued to a very bad solution.

Open, fair, and transparent processes in standards-making are not optional elements to be discarded whenever inconvenient. That’s like saying “We had to destroy the village to save it.” It just doesn’t work that way.

posted at 07:49 am on May 24, 2006 by Charles Munat

27 SAMURAI

@Charles:

Given that Joe hasn’t outlined the way that the proposed ‘Samurai’ group will work, I think ascribing secret and anti-democratic principles to his suggested solution is tilting at windmills.

One would hope that the Samurai, secretive though they may be, will still solicit public opinion; if they do not, you can be sure there will be a backlash – but let’s see how it pans out first, no?

posted at 09:33 am on May 24, 2006 by Matthew Pennell

28 For The Rest Of Us…

While not all of us follow what the W3C is up to, I’d just like to give Mr. Clark thanks for bringing up the issue to the uninformed masses who keep tabs on ALA more than they do on W3C.

I’d always thought of the W3C as a bit bureaucratic, but this takes the cake…

Good luck with the errata—if nothing else, it may give the W3C a better idea of how many people are against the new specs.

posted at 09:50 am on May 24, 2006 by Damien Wilson

29 Untitled

From http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/#N11138
“Empty summary attributes are acceptable on layout tables, but not recommended.”

So they recommend not to use a W3C recommendation? Yep. Confusing.

posted at 10:19 am on May 24, 2006 by Antonio Bueno

30 To recommend

From http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/#N11138
“Empty summary attributes are acceptable on layout tables, but not recommended.”

So they recommend not to use a W3C recommendation? Yep. Confusing.

posted at 10:22 am on May 24, 2006 by Antonio Bueno

Discussion Closed

New comments are not being accepted, but you are welcome to explore what people said before we closed the door.

Got something to say?

Discuss this article. We reserve the right to delete flames, trolls, and wood nymphs.

Create a new account or sign in below if you’d like to leave a comment.

Forgot your password?

Subscribe to this article's comments: RSS (what’s this?)