[walking]
[watching some high quality videos]
KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK
*ded*
For more infomation >> Zidane interview : Ronaldo a mis un Missile ! Zidane reaction au but de Cristiano Ronaldo - Duration: 0:41. 
For more infomation >> Jason Chaffetz: Things Congress should do, but won't - Duration: 4:53. 
For more infomation >> SLO saw a decrease in crime last year, but burglaries are already on the rise again - Duration: 2:38. 
For more infomation >> Tonight at 5: Small but Strong - Duration: 1:20. 
For more infomation >> Power restored to many Grove City customers, but some may be in the dark until Sunday - Duration: 2:13. 
For more infomation >> Some Denver Residents Will Hear Gunfire, But It's Only A Test - Duration: 0:23. 
(audience laughs)
- There's my one and only impression that you get.
Both right, write WCAG for your enterprise, okay?
I'm going to start this out with,
this is a topic that can cause
a lot of good healthy controversy,
so I will have another disclaimer, but this is a topic
that is my viewpoint, from my observations.
I am Todd Liebsch, I do work for Deque Systems,
and I do some side projects a long time ago.
I came from Target, when Target was the one who got sued
and kind of started really the high focus point
of web accessibility that it is today.
So I'm bringing to you about 18 years
of accessibility experience
both with physical space ADA as well as the web.
I've worked with different organizations to make festivals
accessible, to ensure that we have interpreters on stage
for any performance artists, for physical space bathrooms,
making sure that we have all the right necessities,
and then on the web, this is where I've been focusing now
for about 12 years, so it's really a passion for me,
but what I find is that WCAG is not as clear
as what everyone wants it to be and I'm one of those people.
So I'm kind of taking digs at W3C today.
I'm taking digs at the WAI today,
but most importantly it's not about taking digs,
it's about us coming together to figure out
who do we scale accessibility, because what is missing
is the usability from the standards.
So, disclaimer: the views, opinions expressed
in this presentation are that of Todd Liebsch
and do not necessarily reflect the official policy
or position of any employer, agency,
or CSUN attendee, speaker, or exhibitor.
It's just my funny way of saying,
you wanna hold someone accountable, it's all about me, okay?
Compliance versus usability.
We talk in this term of compliance.
That's what WCAG is.
We call it a standard, we call it the global standard.
But when we look at it and enterprise level organizations
come to us as experts, they're expecting us
to interpret those standards as best as we possibly can
for them to meet the standard.
To me, WCAG is not a standard.
The minute you use a term like the word guideline,
standards is off the table.
That's not a rule anymore folks.
It's a guideline.
It is a base place for you to start.
I have a history of UX and UI.
I have absorbed everything possible
from my UX/UI experience because I always thought
the web needed to be a usable space.
Usable includes everyone.
When Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the internet,
he didn't intend it to be for a select few.
He didn't intend it to be for a few privileged.
He truly intended information to be available to everyone,
the masses, and HTML, CSS, the web today,
allows for that to happen.
So, when we look at the WCAG standards,
the four principles, perceivable, operable,
understandable, and robust, four very generic terms.
Where's the other U?
Because when I'm talking about the letter U,
I'm talking about the you, Y-O-U.
We need to account for the us, the we, the them,
the yous of the world, and if we're not doing that,
and scaling accessibility for everyone,
then what good is a guideline?
One of the quotes that I like to bring up is,
if there is no way out, and confrontation and battle
is inevitable, one can use power and strategy,
balance and wisdom and enlightenment to win,
but the best battle is the battle that's never fought.
I work with multi-platform corporations,
not single small level mostly informational websites.
These are dynamic websites that change daily,
monthly, weekly, they're constantly being refreshed.
The teams at the organization are one piece of the pie.
An organization like Target corporation,
when I left in 2012, there were 23 agencies
that created content and helped to develop
what was target.com to you the user.
That means there are 23 organizational perspectives
about WCAG and what it was.
I was the single point of success
or the single point of failure when Target was getting sued
because I was the only one.
They have now scaled that program into a lot more people
and I applaud them for it.
How do we interpret the WCAG?
Because every time I get into a discussion
about WCAG, it causes battles.
Now we're not talking like kicking screaming bloody battles
here, right, this is no Game of Thrones moment.
This is just argumentative
I'm right, no, I'm right, no, I'm right,
when essentially everyone is right,
but the one that we should err on is,
who's right for the user,
what makes the most sense for the user?
So who is right?
You are.
If you are the one leading your platform
for your organization, you are their expert.
Your job is to take all of those WCAG success criteria
that are in there, all four principles,
all of the different guidelines,
all the different checkpoints.
Measure that to, does my company just only follow A,
hopefully not, double A?
Probably, but there is this other level called triple A.
And while triple A in full is not possible
to be met by any organization of size,
it's something that most of it is achievable.
So we have to start bridging that,
because that's where the usability part
really begins to exist.
So you get to be the one to stop the confrontation,
and for anybody non-sighted in the room,
I have a picture up of a little man
standing between two boxing gloves
and he's pushing them apart saying,
you know what, the confrontation stops with me.
So who is right after I ask you these questions?
When multiple individuals from the same organization
read the requirements, do they conclude
the same understanding as the next person?
I'm expecting all of you are part of this so, show of hands?
How many of you, at your organization, same organization,
all interpret the guidelines exactly the same?
Have you had these battles that I've referred to?
(audience responds)
Bet you, even if it's a complete co-worker
and you're a designer, you'll fight with the developer,
if you're a developer, you're going to fight with PM,
a designer, these battles always happen
because we interpret it so many different ways,
because the language of WCAG is so ambiguous.
So, my answer to that is no, never in my experience
has that ever been true.
Second question I have up here:
when multiple teams of different organizations
read those requirements, do they conclude
the exact same meaning of that success criteria?
Likely, if number one was false, yeah, so is number two.
Yes.
- [Questioner] Just in case you're interested
to continue this position, the same organization question,
regardless of organization,
the Silver Task Force has done the research.
- The what task force?
- [Questioner] The Silver Task Force to show
that among experts, people who are self-proclaimed experts
in accessibility, the highest degree of match
in human testing you will get is 76% between any two humans.
- Isn't that amazing?
- [Questioner] And that's on the simplest criteria.
- So if you couldn't hear him,
the gentleman said
that Silver?
- [Questioner] The Silver Task Force.
- Silver Task Force has done a study amongst experts
and I'm doing air quotes, because I have to consider myself
an expert, that the highest rate of matching
on agreement of any success criteria is 76%.
That's just one percent over 3/4,
and there's a lot of us out there.
So, to this point, that's great feedback,
so thank you for that.
That just shows you how disconnected these guidelines are
and by the way, a lot of co-workers of mine
and colleagues in this space, sit on that WAI
and come up with the wording for WCAG,
and I've been a part of some of those discussions.
It's nothing but argument and confrontations.
(audience laughs)
So, is anyone really ever wrong?
I solicit your feedback.
It's an interactive session, folks,
and trust me I do get up all into it.
(audience laughs)
Sometimes.
What I have found in my experience,
and my experience alone, is that a lot of people
do try to break it down to its most finite words
of the guidelines, and they find
that the smallest thing that they could possibly do
is what meets the standard
and I'm doing that air quotes again for meets, and standard.
Because again, it's a guideline, not a standard.
So, example, take for example form error messaging.
I'm going to show you two examples.
The first one, it is an animated gif,
and what I've got happening here is that it's a form,
and we've got name, email, phone number,
error display preferences, and comments fields.
When the user clicks the button and enters nothing
the get a little modal window that says,
please do the following blah blah blah.
And it tells you all four errors,
exactly what needs to happen on that page.
On the second example, we have inline error messaging,
and by the way we're going to take into account
that these were coded perfectly.
(audience laughs)
Yes, this is my utopian world right now.
(audience member responds off mic)
Developers never disagree.
I'm a developer, I disagree with everyone,
but that's just my nature.
Inline error messaging.
We have the same fields, except this time,
upon submitting, an error appears underneath
each form element, in red and in text.
Are either of these right or wrong?
(audience responds)
Just what, I'm sorry?
They're just differences.
Preferences, correct.
Yes, they're just preferences, sorry,
I'm also hard of hearing, so I'm reading lips
most of the time, so if you guys try to talk to me,
I'm coming for ya, in the back.
Yes, it is, it's a preference.
But WCAG doesn't indicate anything
about the user's experience here.
So, which example is right?
Both of 'em.
But again in my humble opinion,
if you've got 23 vendors and they all create
a different form and produce something differently,
by the very definition of WCAG, they both have to pass.
Because a user is not blocked from being able to use
that content, there is no obstruction,
there is still an accessible format.
But if you're utilizing both formats on the same page,
the user experience is terrible,
because if I've gone through several forms
and I'm now engaged, and I'm using assistive technology
and I now get an error in a completely different manner,
it throws me a bit.
From a cognitive level perspective,
this could be even more damaging
and it's really hard for us, many of us,
to put ourselves into someone with a cognitive disability.
WCAG 3.3.1 says error identification.
This is the normative language of the standard.
You cannot read anything past the normative language.
Everything else is supplemental and there to help guide you
but this is the, what everyone calls the standard.
If an input error is automatically detected,
the item that is in error is identified
and the error is described to the user in text.
So by a show of hands, if all I did was,
taking those two examples, click the button, I'm blind,
nothing happens, text appears.
Red text, purple text, doesn't matter.
The text appears that there's errors.
Is that accessible or not accessible?
- [Man] By this guideline you will pass,
because there's text there.
- Precisely.
- [Man] Is it accessible, or is it conformative?
- Ah! - [Man] Ah.
- Thank you! (audience laughs)
- See how we're getting around this?
Because we're going to be approached with these people
from these enterprise levels,
it's like I got plant in here or something.
(audience laughs)
I really didn't, but thank you.
Because that's it.
Are we really talking about someone being accessible,
or are we just talking about
we want to meet what we have to do
and get away with it and not get sued.
Because that's where a lot of companies are headed,
and I don't like that.
I don't like that path.
I didn't allow Target to take that path in lawsuit.
I'm like no, we're doing this, we're going full steam ahead.
We're going to make a better user experience for everyone.
And it took a couple of years,
but they finally figured it out,
that it actually was bettering.
We were dropping a lot of the flash,
we were dropping a lot of the fancy stuff
that would happen because it was nonsensical.
It didn't help improve what the called conversion.
It did not help in the shopping experience,
turn someone from a browsing customer
into a checked out customer, at all.
So, I choose always in my life,
in my career, to be a protagonist.
I want to do better, I will force and push people
to do better, so because it's possible, I say it is better.
If you stay stagnant, you are not improving.
So I'm trying to avoid these battles.
I don't want to get into a room,
when I'm now meeting developers and designers
and UX/UI teams for the very first time,
and I'm coming in as this expert consultant,
'cause I'm looked at already very negatively
because I'm about to change their dynamic.
But I'm going to change their dynamic for better.
I'm going to get all those teams talking with each other
and thinking about this topic way before,
but I have to get them on the same page first, okay?
So let's take images for example.
How many success criteria, again,
if you guys are not fully embraced in the success criteria,
it is quite all right, these are just questions.
How many success criteria do you think talk about images?
- [Man] Seven.
- [Todd] Who said seven?
- [Man] I did.
- [Todd] Seven. - [Man] Yeah, yes.
- [Todd] That's yes? - Yeah, totally.
- [Todd] Anybody else wanna say something other than seven?
- One? - [Todd] One.
- [Man] Twentyish? - [Todd] Twentyish?
- [Man] Two. - [Todd] Two.
- [Todd] It's seven. (audience laughs)
You might want to go play the lottery tonight.
(audience laughs)
The first one is of course 1.1.1.
It talks about non-text content.
You need to have alt text, okay?
Well, again to a developer, they're going to be like,
all right, everything needs alt text,
everything needs alt text okay, that's great.
Or it needs the attribute.
Contrast minimum, what about images of text?
Aha, and that's single A.
All right sorry, double A.
So went from single A to double A
and we've got true images of text.
So now we have to talk about contrast minimums
without images of text, right, because now what does it mean
if I'm talking an image with contrast minimum?
Well what if that image that you use with that background
has a deficient color for any text
that you're going to lay upon it
that's actually not embedded in the image?
Then we've got three flashes or below.
Hello folks, animated gifs, I was just using them.
They exist all over the place now,
and they're starting to get
more and more exposure on everyday websites.
We have to be cautious, we're not saying
you can't use animated gifs, but it's an image.
We have to be cautious that we're not doing three flashes
or below, or above, I meant.
So link purpose and context.
Now we might have an image map, hopefully not,
because that's still very 1992, but whatever.
- The flashes, and I've always been
kind of confused by this.
I'm not sure exactly what qualifies as a flash,
is it just movement, does any animation qualify for that
or what does that mean?
- Sort of yes, but there is another WCAG standard,
this is probably the one thing excuse me
that they actually define very well.
It'll actually give you a,
you have to be a mathematical expert.
(audience laughs)
So hopefully you graduated with a degree in calculus
or something, applied mathematics.
- Not the case.
- And you're working at NASA. (audience laughs)
There is a way to calculate three flashes per second,
but most of us can tell
at the human eye level what it can do.
The unfortunate part is testing that,
for someone without a disability, is quite challenging,
because they need to know how often it's moving,
there is a visual gauge of how to test for it.
Oh sorry, still on link purpose and context,
so image maps, but what if we have a button that's an image?
Those are linkable, those are activatable by mouse
and keyboard, so now we have to worry about the link purpose
being in context with the rest of the page.
Focus being visible.
Is there focus indication if that element is linkable?
Do I have an applied keyboard focus indicator around that?
4.1.2 says, Name, Role and Value
Well, okay, so now this image that I've used
is acting as an expand collapse feature.
I have to name it that it is something
that is going to expand collapse.
I have to ensure that I give it the proper state,
what the role is intended to do for the user,
and give it a proper name.
Somebody who is not familiar with WCAG
is never have going to even thought
that all of these applied to images, at all.
So what I'm saying is, stop giving these people
reference points and going, oh you didn't meet
1.1.1, and oh by the way
that same violation also doesn't mean
1.4.3, 1.4.5,
and one, 2.3.1
(audience laughs)
You inundate them with all this language
and you're like, dude, back up,
you're giving me too much and how can it fail eight things?
Well it's 'cause the way WCAG was written!
It's not something that is able to be digested quickly
and I don't know about any of you,
but every project that I'm on is,
I need that three days ago.
Could you get that to me six days ago?
The world is moving at such a rapid pace
our clients, our customers, our internal teams,
they don't want to wait, they want everything today,
except for when we are fighting
all of these arguments and these disagreements
to get to a central point of thought.
We're never going to achieve this.
We will achieve that WCAG 2.0 again, air quotes, compliance,
'cause it's not a standard,
it's not an actual, truly defined standard.
This is an eye chart, I get it, but as I deliver it
I will get it to you, but this is how I've been writing
out companies and this is my role at organizations,
is to build their program.
I get accessibility started from the very very beginning
and make them move this through the life cycle
all the way through and it never stops.
So the minute someone comes up with a concept or an idea
of a new webpage, we are talking about accessibility.
They have guidelines that are achievable to reference.
So, a couple of these.
Images should not have text embedded in them
unless it's protected under a copyright,
trademark, or service mark under the copyright laws of 1978.
(audience laughs)
Is that more clear than images must have alt text?
And it also takes into account that we're saying images
that exist on your website will never
have text embedded in them,
because you cannot meet double A if you don't.
Second one: if images are used as backgrounds,
ensure that the color of these images does not
present a lack of color contrast
from any text that will be overlaid whilst in production.
Pretty clear statement, right, that becomes a standard.
This is something that someone
in your organization can readily meet.
A developer will look at this and go,
okay I need to make sure that my end product
does not have text that is going to overlap
a background that I think violates contrast.
Hopefully the designer read that and doesn't even design
something that will even function that way.
Images which are purely decorative
or used for aesthetics which, if removed from the site,
provide no added value or information,
that's my little parenthetical,
so how do I describe decorative,
should be placed in the page's CSS background.
One page like we see as a developer,
I care about how quickly my pages load,
and second, if I don't want to browse your website
with style sheets enabled, I'll lose all of that,
and that's a good thing.
Clear me of the clutter.
Images that are links or buttons
must have descriptive alt text
to convey the meaning and the use of the link or button.
Images used for links or buttons
must have a focus indicator.
Ensure that any clickable image has the correct HTML role,
state, and value for its intended use.
I put a "dot dot dot," [Elipsis] writing the rest to make sense
to your organization is what is key.
You are the expert for your organization.
When you've got this document complete,
you're no longer sending them
to this W3C.org\WAI\2.0\
whatever guideline, you're giving them
clear, English language instruction
that is reproducible, that is checkable, scalable,
and ultimately usable by anyone
including those that don't even care
at your executive level, at your project management level.
They can carry this through,
they have something that says you didn't do this.
They don't need to have a developer's mind,
they don't need to have a developer's understanding,
and a lot of those requirements are written for developers.
So what can you do to avoid the confrontation?
Oh you have a question, yes.
- [Man] Yeah, so you said you've done this exercise
for a number of organizations.
Have you found any preference or feedback
on phrasing it in positive language
instead of negative language?
Must instead of must not?
- Well, because I'm trying to take into account
what the W3C already uses, which is they have a must should
and Steve can you help me?
- [Woman] May. - May?
- [Woman] May.
- Must, should and may language.
I'm sorry?
- [Man] RFC 168?
- RFC 168, okay, but it's already the language
because if they want to govern this is the standard.
Have you ever read positive language governmental document
that gives you laws in positive language?
I haven't.
- [Man] It's a valid question though.
- It is, but I have not done it,
but I also don't know how to do that in positive,
because it will start to give,
I guess an ambiguous look at it?
If you don't use defined words...
I guess we'll talk after, 'cause I'd like to hear
an example of what maybe you think.
So before a project, this document is created
and from that document, you can work with again,
this is large scale enterprise.
Not all small organizations will have the ability
to create a lot of this,
so I'm sorry if it does not apply to you.
You can take parts and pieces.
But style guides at any large organization
are pretty intrinsically embedded.
If you go to any organization,
they will have a style guide on how their logo can be used,
what colors can be used, what font type, all of that.
You can actually bridge accessibility
and start creating the style guide to reflect
some accessible language in it.
You can have your developers build code repositories
for code that can actually be re-used, repurposed,
so that the next agency, the next employee
that you onboard is not trying to solve the puzzle
yet again and start from scratch.
And it's key here, that with your large organizations,
a lot of times, those documents stay behind the firewall
and are never allowed outside of a firewall.
They have to be publicly available,
or at least password protect them so that users
who don't exist inside of your walls
can use them too, because you're hiring them,
you're holding them responsible to ensure that your content
is good, but you have to give them a way to help you.
And then finally, contracts.
I always want to put contracts first,
because the biggest thing that I see to companies' detriment
on why they think accessibility is so expensive,
is they sit there and go, well they charge me so much more
to redo it after we tell them it's wrong.
Well why are you allowing them to?
Put it in your contract that says
they need to meet your standard.
You can hand them the standard.
You must agree to meet this,
and you don't get to charge me more because you messed up.
That works very well, by the way.
If you have good attorneys, they write it in so beautifully,
everyone signs, and when you're a really large organization,
everyone wants to work with you
because they want a piece of your money.
They're going to sign on, and they're going to agree.
The big companies are the way we change the dynamic.
The small companies are sometimes very limited.
It's not impossible,
but it's always much harder at the enterprise...
but when we see the big companies doing it,
we know that we can become that.
During and post project, make sure you share requirements.
You can share it with every person.
Everybody should know where these exist,
your QA teams need to know this, that it's built on WCAG,
'cause I think it's a very good foundational stepping stone
but now everyone can test against your rules,
your guidelines, and it's scalable.
The next person that comes and sits down at the desk
that wants to be a QA person, here you go.
This is what you're testing for.
If you see images, here are all the things
that they need to do.
If you're looking at links,
here are all the things you need to do.
At the end of the day, you are solely responsible
for your success and your failure,
and the sooner you realize that, you accept that,
and then integrate that into your work ethic,
you will start being successful.
As long as you blame others
for the reason you aren't where you want to be,
you will always be a failure.
This does not mean you, you as a person,
you as an organization.
The person who said that, her name was Erin Cummings.
All we're saying is that this is a possible thing.
We need to make this a part of our work ethic,
we need to write it down and stop the confrontations
from happening, because the more we keep fighting,
and this is like a political thing too,
if we keep fighting, we don't progress,
it's real world issues here, this affects real people.
If we can change that, find some agreement,
'cause again, one person is not going to write this.
You're going to bring someone from development,
from design, from UX/UI and you as the accessibility expert,
making sure that we don't ever go underneath
the bare minimum but push for the biggest bang for the buck.
I have been Todd Liebsch.
(audience laughs) "Just Jack"
I'll leave this open to questions.
(audience applauds)
Thank you!
So yes, question.
- So you said you need to write this.
To what point have you found,
if you any or ever, prudent or smart,
thinking to invite others into the you know,
when you're documenting everything?
- The first time we did it,
are you familiar with the Target lawsuit?
It was quite public.
The reason I ask you that is,
there was a lot of controversy because Target agreed
to a set of guidelines called TOATG, T-O-A-T-G.
Target Online Assistive Technology Guidelines.
At the time it was WCAG 1.0,
which already was a little bit more prescriptive
with the language than WCAG 2 is.
That was the first time.
We brought people from development and from design
because the lawyers needed us to come up with something
that we were actually going to be able to achieve.
- Okay.
So the answer is yes, invite others.
- Yes, always invite others, because if you act
as the single voice, that automatically puts you
as a big old bull's eye target
that you did not know what you were talking about.
Nope, we got consensus.
It may be a consensus that went over timeframe,
and all those people are gone now,
but that's why they should be a council that keeps it going.
These documents live.
Technology in my last 18 years of doing this
has not been flat folks.
Technology advances every minute.
By the time we leave this room,
somebody will have come up with something else new,
and we're going to have to figure out
how to make it accessible.
- We know WCAG is technology agnostic.
Do you recommend that when we're making
these more specific guidelines for our organization,
that they include things specific
to the technology that we're using?
- I think it's extremely important that again,
you lay out what are your testing platforms,
so if your organization agrees that you're using
NVDA and Firefox, JAWS and IE,
VoiceOver on iPhone, Android on TalkBack,
I think that's absolutely a very smart idea,
because it puts everyone on the same level.
Again, having that public, an internet site
that I believe should be accessible,
that was set out and that can be changed
rather quickly, you can actually scale that.
That way if a new version of something comes out
and you guys now need to move to that, excuse me,
you should post that so that everyone knows
what we're achieving, and I never recommend,
but I always do make an asterisk when I put this down,
as do not change mid-project,
because that will cause you
backwards movement in many cases.
It's been happening a lot less,
but iOS 11, was a big one for me.
Pissed me off. (audience laughs)
Yeah, anybody else, yes?
- So, in situations, if you're an accessibility consultant
and you are working with a client
who's responding to an OCR complaint, okay,
basically it's prescribing them to be accessible with WCAG.
What advice do you have for using your sort of guidelines
or your standards in those situations,
when the client's really thinking of, we need to you know,
we need to bring to double A compliance as an example.
- So if you're already in lawsuit, it's really difficult
to change the minds of an attorney.
They're scared.
Their job is to protect the company from the media,
from losing money, from a lot of different things.
You're going to have to start with just doing WCAG.
But again, it's interpreting WCAG.
Someone in your organization should be smart enough,
even at the legal level, to know that we need
to come together and figure out something.
So if somebody is smart enough to voice up and say,
hey, this is very ambiguous, let's make something
a little clearer, maybe you will get the consensus
and maybe, 'cause I'm not an attorney,
they might take it over.
We did it mid-lawsuit at Target, and we had to figure out
a way 'cause we were going to settle.
We needed to figure out a way to make it something
that we actually could achieve.
We built it on the quote unquote standard,
which at the time was WCAG 1.
But we wrote it in our own language
so that it was something,
and it was still at the time ambiguous
but it was at least a lot more achievable.
There was something we could point to
that we had control of.
So it is possible, and we get really good reception.
As a consultant, when I come in
and people are looking to start this as a program,
they're a lot more open and receiving ideas
because they don't want to get to the lawsuit phase
but once you start touting
how this better improves usability
and if you can tie it to the almighty dollar, guys,
you will have every executive saying
"Yeah let's do it, let's do it."
In retail and like banking it's really easy
because you can find conversion.
You can find someone in the organization
who can prove conversion, that's why they do tests.
They'll do like an AB test, they'll send out there,
and depending on where your cookies and your cache are,
you may get one version and your neighbor next door
may be getting another version.
They're going to see how well that layout,
that design converts you to being a coming up customer,
a paying customer, so when you're more of a static website,
you maybe have less problems anyways,
because it's more textual versus transactional,
but that's not always true either.
Yes my dear.
- How do you counter those folks
when they conduct that AB testing
and they say well 75% of the customers like design A
but it's inaccessible,
and so they're chasing that hard dollar?
- Well now see, there's the first problem.
If it went public, there should have been
an accessibility viewpoint.
We stopped that at Target.
Nothing went out until it was made accessible
because at the time,
we were also under the scrutiny by the NFB.
We didn't know when they were coming to our website,
and if they got the wrong page,
that was the page we were going to get assessed on,
and if it was inaccessible, it was a danger.
Both experiences should be accessible, right?
So when they go out,
you still are dealing with a level playing field.
So I would say that would be the first thing
in your organization that you need to change.
If they're doing an AB testing at your marketing level,
you need to stop them from being able to do that
without going through the same checkpoints
of accessibility webpage that would be permanent.
You are putting it out for public consumption.
That should not be going out inaccessibly
because ultimately you could have just blocked somebody
permanently at that page, if you found
a big blocking violation.
Does that make sense? - [Questioner] Yes.
- Did it answer your question? - Absolutely.
- [Todd] Okay. - Where do you start?
I mean if you were to, let's say for example
as a consultant, not only particularly doing accessibility,
but if you were to start a large project
and if you have to always get buy in and say,
multi-week process to create these standards
that we all agree on, timing sometimes doesn't matter,
you have buy in sections and stuff like that.
Where do you, I mean, start small?
- You start with the small changes,
do what you can, 'cause again, back in 2008,
when the lawsuit came out, CNBC and MSNBC and CNN
and everybody else was talking about the Target lawsuit?
It was like, night and day difference
how you watched Sears, Kmart, Walmart,
everybody started to add alt text to imagery,
(audience laughs) they were adding the tags,
I mean you could literally go the pages
and overnight you were watching them change.
They were not amazing perfect websites,
but they were nervous enough
that they were going to start making some changes.
I look at it as, progress is progress.
What I always used to tell people a long time ago was,
I'll probably be out of a job in several years.
Rob Haverty said the same thing,
if you know who Rob is from Adobe.
He was giving a PDF class a couple days ago.
We all thought that at one point,
but again, the reality is, is that technology
is forever changing, that we could keep talking
about this because we're always learning.
The more we keep learning, the more we have to teach.
So small changes while you're making the larger stuff
in the background, it's kind of like the micro versus macro
version, you gotta do something micro if you're in danger,
but I think if you start even with the micro
adding the larger conversation, then getting the buy in.
- Yeah, this'd be more at the beginning of the project
in terms of a brand new project when you're starting
from absolute scratch. - Ah.
But see, you're talking about projects versus programs,
because if there's a program in place
for accessibility, every project
should be following that program.
- [Questioner] Right.
- But if you don't have that program established yet,
then you need to be able to do small things
on those projects to keep them moving
while the bigger picture is still being baked.
Does that?
- Yeah, I know, that kind of gets in, it's just, um--
- You can't change, especially enterprise,
it'll never happen-- - [Questioner] No, exactly.
- It will never ever happen.
- [Questioner] Is there a skeleton
that you would have maybe built
when you approach an organization and say
hey let's, what, at Bank of America,
you want accessibility, I want accessibility,
I come with accessibility knowledge.
Where do you come together with what I already know?
- I wouldn't allow this out of my back pocket
at the start instead of showing them the value.
Usually if I have enough time,
I can actually do enough research to figure out
how I'm going to be able to show them in dollars
what it costs to pay for me,
and what you're going to get in return.
That's become more of a sales thing.
(Todd whispers behind his hand) "I'm not the sales Thing"
'Cause I'm "Just Jack", I'm just that good, I'm kidding!
(audience laughs)
Any other questions?
I don't know if we're over time, on time,
I don't follow clocks.
Yes?
- Could we email you and get the slides?
- You can, so if anybody has it non-visually,
I'm going to read this off to you.
My name is Todd Liebsch,
L-I-E, B as in boy, S as in Sam, C-H.
You can reach me at Deque at todd.liebsch@deque.com.
Or, todd@toddliebsch.com.
And you will find me on Facebook
at Todd Liebsch Web Accessibility,
and on Twitter I am the A Eleven Y diva [A11Y-Diva], and my ring.
I hope you guys took away something.
I know it's 40 minutes,
I can't teach you exactly how to do this.
I hope we have left you inspired to go do this.
- [Woman] Thank you!
- You're welcome, thank you.
(audience applauds)
- Do you know Lance? - Lance. -Thornswood
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét