Introduction

There’s a post on Mike Davies’ site that suggests that Accessibility [is] in trouble. Hmm. I respect Mike, I don’t always agree with him, but I respect him, so I’ll give it a go.

One of the things we’ve disagreed about in the past is that of the definition of the term accessibility. I subscribe to the Camp 1 view that accessibility is about making sites accessible to everyone, including people with disabilities. Mike is firmly in Camp 2 believing that accessibility should be used solely in relation to disability. It turns out that this is what we’re disagreeing about again. I don’t know if Mike has been sparked off by the Accessites article or the one on 456 Berea St which comments on it, but the result is the same either way.

Let’s win the argument by name-calling!

Mike’s article opens by saying:

Its time to get web accessibility back on track. Take it back from the zealots with their own private agendas and grudges.Mike Davies

I’ve got to admit, this starts me off on the wrong foot. Is Mike implying that people who disagree with him are zealots, with private agendas and grudges? Some people — for example SiteMorse — would happily describe Mike as a zealot. Is Mike happy to be termed a zealot? Does he have private agendas and grudges? If not, then I don’t believe he should be assuming that this is the case for other people. In my mind, this amounts to an Ad hominem attack, where the fallacious argument is used that because there’s something wrong with the person who holds that viewpoint, that viewpoint is inherently wrong. Not so. The same thing therefore applies to Mike: just because some people may think he’s a zealot, doesn’t necessarily mean there is a flaw in his argument.

I defended Joe Clark from an ad hominem attack, because to my mind this sort of argument is plainly fallacious. As it happens, I know Joe believes in the same definition of accessibility as Mike Davies, but I hope he’d back me up on the point that the way to win the argument is by swaying your opponent with reasoned argument rather than name-calling.

Definitions

Okay then, I categorically reject the ad hominem terms, I’ll move on to look at the rest of the article. Mike asserts that:

Web standards is a colloquial term used to refer to the W3C‘s RecommendationsMike Davies

…that’s certainly true up to a point, but when you’re referring to a colloquial term, you have to bear in mind other people may differ slightly in the definition. I, and some other people I know would also include what we believe to be good practice in usability in what we would loosely term web standards. Therefore in some definitions “web standards” is not restricted to the W3C, but also includes other sources.

Mike also says that:

And yet, accessibility ‘experts’ refuse to accept that web accessibility — a core part of the web standards toolbox — is primarily about people with disabilities

…

And yet, there are ‘experts’ who are committed to web standards who reject the fundamental basis of WCAG.

…

By denying the recommendation definition is to deny the recommendation.

Mike Davies

Note the ad hominem use of putting the word experts in quotes. The implication is that if they agreed with Mike, they would be experts, but they don’t so they aren’t. In addition, Mike then sets up a straw man argument, shifting the position of those “accessibility = for all” people so that Mike believes they don’t believe people with disabilities are a major part of accessibility. I’m in the accessibility for all camp, and that’s not what I believe at all. I believe that an integral part of accessibility is to make web sites so that they can be used by disabled people but that we shouldn’t stop there.

Also, as I’ve pointed out before, just because you disagree with some parts of WCAG emphatically does not mean you are rejecting all of it. For example, this:

<p>Arnie said &quot;Hasta la vista, Baby&quot;</p>

Would fail WCAG 1.0 on two counts — it doesn’t identify a change in the natural language, and it doesn’t mark up a quotation. Under WCAG 1.0, as one of these is a priority 1 failure, it would make my site impossible to access for users with disabilities. I refute this wholeheartedly.

That doesn’t mean I’m rejecting all of WCAG; it just means that I have taken it in; absorbed it; attempted to learn as best I can the actual requirements of disabled users and then drawn my own conclusions from it. I would still recommend that people use WCAG as good starting point to make their sites accessible; it’s the best starting point around — but that doesn’t mean it’s infallible.

Mike also says that people in Camp 1 are upset that the W3C have used the word in this manner:

These so-called experts go on and claim it is their ‘opinion’ that accessibility should be taken in its dictionary meaning, and how dare the W3C take a word and redefine its usage.Mike Davies

Again note ‘so-called’. Although why ‘opinion’ needs to be emphasised in this manner is beyond me. Firstly, I’m probably one of these so-called experts, and I am happy for the W3C and the WAI to use the term as they choose in their documentation; I will happily understand what they mean by it. I would however dispute that they then have the right to insist that this is the only possible definition of the word that is valid. Note that the W3C explain what they mean by accessibility. If I explain I’m in Camp 1 as regards accessibility, then people know what I mean by it, so what’s the problem?

Mike again:

And there lies the problem — if these ‘experts’ cannot agree on a fundamental basis for a recommendation, what signal is that sending about web standards?Mike Davies

I’m not sure which are the ‘experts’ here: does he mean both camps this time, or just that the ‘experts’ aren’t agreeing with the (without single quotes) experts? Well Mike, in my mind what it’s saying about standards is that standards are evolving. That standards aren’t fixed and immutable. That standards, like science, are likely to progress because people are prepared to challenge prior assumptions.

Problem, what problem?

For all that, I don’t really see that there’s that much disagreement — certainly not enough to go to war over. Both sides include users with disabilities, but one group goes further. Come on now, seriously, what’s the problem with me using the term accessibility to mean “access for all” if I’m clear about it? For that matter, what’s the problem with other people using it to “mean access for people with disabilities” if they are clear about it?

Both sides are entitled to their point of view. That should be respected. If they are clear about how they mean it — as the WAI are — then no confusion can arise. Mike’s assumption — and I apologise if I’m misrepresenting him — is that the WAI, being the publishers of WCAG, have more right to determine what the terms relating to accessibility mean than anyone else. Again, while I recognise their right to use it in their documentation how they see fit, I don’t remember signing over any of my sovereignty to them. I’m not some lowly serf who isn’t entitled to an opinion.

Now in conversation before with Mike — over a beer — he’s mentioned that part of the reason he’s concerned is because if the concept of accessibility includes universality, then if checkpoints or guidelines that relate to universality hold up web developments — for example in relation to AJAX — then this will weaken the whole accessibility movement, and that’s why he wants the two kept separate. Mike, you have my apologies if I’m mis-representing you here, that’s how I remember it (although I had been drinking!).

I accept this as a valid concern to some extent. Mike and myself both want the web to be accessible to disabled people. He’s not writing this because he’s an argumentative so-and-so (or that’s only part of the reason), he’s writing this because he cares, and he believes that it’s important. And that’s a good thing. I respect Mike: I disagree with him fundamentally on this issue, but I’m sure he’d agree with me that we both know the other’s intentions are good, even if we’d disagree on the outcome. Equally, my “accessible to all” is an approximation; I know I can’t necessarily make sites available to users of every browser, just as I can’t make my site accessible to someone with severe cognitive impairments. But I’ll do my best in both regards.

This is why I’m happy that in the UK our legislation is based on actual disability and user experience, rather than a specific set of guidelines. I’m even happy that the WAI’s definition of accessibility is focussed around disability. I just don’t think they, or anyone else for that matter, has the right to say that I can’t use another commonly used definition for it.

Accessibility Is In Trouble, However

What are we all agreed on?

• Accessibility must include being accessible to users with disabilities
• Accessibility is a good thing

Accessibility might well be in trouble, however. But it’s not in trouble because we can’t pin down a definition of the word “accessibility”. It’s in trouble because we’re not mature enough to hold our own views, and be capable of disagreeing with others while still accepting they have a right to their opinion.

Right, I’ve said my piece, I’m off to play with some alt tags…