1 - Understanding ADA Title II and Digital Accessibility Requirements

Digital access is a foundational part of access to public services. For state and local governments, websites, mobile apps, and other online services are often the primary way residents interact with agencies, apply for benefits, receive services, pay bills, access critical information, and participate in society. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II establishes a clear legal requirement that state and local government services and programs must be accessible to people with disabilities. While Title II has been law for decades, the Department of Justice (DoJ) final ruling of 2024 clarified how these obligations apply to digital services, prompting many public entities to reassess what compliance requires and how to demonstrate usable digital accessibility programs. Why ADA Title II matters now

Digital services are no longer supplemental to government programs. When these services are inaccessible, residents with disabilities are effectively excluded from participation, even if an agency technically offers the service. Imagine a blind or low vision resident attempting to pay their taxes via an online portal. If the forms collecting information are not labeled correctly, they may be unable to fill in the form, creating an accessibility barrier. The result is a digital service that is available and usable to sighted residents, but fails to provide equal and effective access under Title II. For blind and low vision users, access to digital services depends on assistive technologies (AT), such as screen readers and screen magnifiers. These tools translate digital content into speech, Braille, or magnified visual displays, allowing users to independently navigate websites and interact with online services. When digital services are not designed to work reliably with assistive technologies (AT), access breaks down. Under Title II, independence and equal access are not optional outcomes; they are core obligations. What ADA Title II covers in digital environments

Title II applies to all programs, services, and activities provided or funded by state and local governments, regardless of how those services are delivered, not just buildings or individual web pages. As government entities increasingly move interactions online, this obligation extends fully into digital environments. That includes:

Public-facing websites providing information

Mobile apps that deliver services, information, or notifications

Digital documents, such as PDF and Word files, application forms, reports, meeting minutes, and public notices

Applications supporting transactions, providing portals to services and activities, and other self-service tools

These digital properties are often interconnected, and a single service may rely on multiple systems, document types, and workflows. Under Title II, accessibility is evaluated across the entire digital experience a service or program provides, and is not restricted to a page or document in isolation. As a result, Title II compliance is not assessed at the feature level, but programmatically, based on whether the service as a whole is accessible. If a disabled resident cannot independently complete a required task, such as submitting an application, accessing time-sensitive information, or paying a fee, the service itself may be inaccessible under Title II, even if individual pages or components appear to meet technical guidelines. This standard is especially relevant for large government ecosystems, where accessibility gaps often occur at transition points between systems, documents, and workflows rather than within a single page. Programmatic access and effective communication

Title II requires public entities to provide effective communication and equal access to services for people with disabilities. In digital environments, this requires ensuring that content, workflows, and documents work reliably with screen readers and magnification tools and support real-world use by people who are blind or have low vision. The DoJ has consistently emphasized that effective communication is a core Title II obligation, not a best practice. At a baseline, effective digital communication includes ensuring that:

Screen reader users can navigate content and workflows in a logical order

Screen magnifier users can zoom, pan, and navigate content without loss of information, functionality, or context

Information is available without relying on color perception

Interactive elements such as forms can be completed and submitted using the keyboard alone

Documents are structured so information is conveyed through identifying headings, lists, and table headers using appropriate document styles

Status messages, notifications, error alerts, and confirmations are available to AT users

Under Title II, accessibility is a service-level obligation, meaning users must be able to use digital services as intended, without unnecessary barriers or workarounds. This distinction is why organizations relying solely on automated testing often struggle to demonstrate Title II readiness. Instead, organizations must evaluate digital accessibility in the context of how services are actually used, not just how components are coded. How WCAG fits into ADA Title II compliance

To provide clarity for digital accessibility expectations, the DoJ’s final rule specifies that covered websites and mobile applications must conform to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA. Developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), WCAG provides a shared technical framework for identifying common accessibility barriers in digital content. Under Title II, WCAG 2.1 Level AA serves as a baseline for evaluation, but it does not replace the broader obligation to ensure services are accessible in practice. Conformance helps identify technical issues, while AT testing and task validation help determine whether services actually work for users with disabilities. How ADA Title II compliance is evaluated in practice

ADA Title II does not mandate specific tools or technologies. Instead, compliance is evaluated based on outcomes: whether people with disabilities can effectively access and use digital services. This is where many organizations run into trouble. Automated accessibility checkers can be helpful for quickly catching many accessibility issues. However, they cannot evaluate context, meaning, or usability. This can result in surface-level conformance, creating experiences that don’t hold up to scrutiny or work in real-world settings. In practice, effective evaluation includes:

Manual accessibility audits led by accessibility experts

AT testing with screen readers and screen magnifiers

Validation that users with disabilities can independently complete critical tasks from start to finish, using assistive technologies as needed.

Why prioritization matters under ADA Title II

Most government digital ecosystems are large and complex. Websites, subdomains, documents, and third-party systems often span departments and vendors. Additionally, many government entities leverage a mix of cloud, on-premises, and legacy systems, which can easily create accessibility gaps. As a result, accessibility issues can number in the hundreds or thousands. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has highlighted the extent of the challenge. In a 2025 review, GAO identified 11 federal legacy IT systems maintained across 10 agencies that remain in critical need of modernization. While these findings are from the federal level, which is subject to separate accessibility regulations, they highlight the risk of outdated systems and fragmented architectures complicate efforts to modernize digital services in a prioritized, risk-based way. Responding to ADA Title II requirements extends beyond identifying how many issues exist to implementing a strategy for addressing issues in a prioritized manner. Effective prioritization considers:

Impact on people with disabilities

Criticality of the service or task

Frequency of use

Effort to fix

Legal and operational risk

This approach helps organizations focus limited resources where they matter most, reducing risk while improving access in meaningful ways. From awareness to action

Understanding ADA Title II is the first step toward readiness. For state and local governments, compliance is not a one-time project. It is an ongoing responsibility tied to how digital services are delivered, maintained, and evolved over time. Organizations that take a structured, user-centered approach grounded in expert-led audits, usability testing, and strategic prioritization of remediation efforts are better positioned to deliver and maintain accessible services and demonstrate good-faith compliance. While private companies are not covered by ADA Title II, state and local government entities should assess the risk posed by vendor-supplied digital resources that may not meet Title II accessibility requirements. And, in turn, vendors providing digital tools to state and local government entities should be ready to ensure their tools meet Title II requirements. Explore digital accessibility services

Digital services have become synonymous with public access, but making them sufficiently accessible to meet ADA Title II compliance can seem overwhelming. An accessibility partner can streamline the compliance process, helping organizations navigate complex regulatory requirements with confidence. With over 30 years of experience in assistive technology and accessibility implementation, Vispero’s Digital Accessibility Services help public entities assess current-state accessibility, identify high-impact barriers, and prioritize remediation aligned to ADA Title II requirements. Our expert-led approach supports sustainable accessibility across websites, applications, and digital content, helping agencies reduce risk while improving access for constituents and staff. Learn how Vispero’s Digital Accessibility Services support ADA Title II readiness for public sector organizations.

2 - Add audio description file

Once you have your audio description file, you can add it to your video using these steps:

Step 1: Sign in to YouTube Studio on your computer.

Step 2: From the left menu, select Languages.

Step 3: Click the video that you’d like to edit.

Step 4: Click the pencil icon (i.e., Details) under Languages.

Step 5: At the bottom, to the right of Descriptive Audio, click Add.

Step 6: Select the audio file containing the descriptive audio track. Files must be in a supported audio-only file format and roughly the same length as your video.

Step 7: Once the file is selected, click Publish.

Step 8: Click Update.

Step 9: Wait for descriptive audio to process. Then your audio description will be ready to toggle on and off!

How to Turn On Audio Description On YouTube

When viewing a video, turning on YouTube audio description can feel a little unintuitive, but this is how it’s done:

Step 1: Click the gear icon (i.e., Settings).

Step 2: Click Audio track to view language and descriptive audio options.

Step 3: Click English descriptive (or whichever language you would like descriptive audio for).

And with that, you can now watch the video while it plays the track with audio description!

How to Create Audio Description for YouTube Videos

The two most common ways to create audio descriptions for YouTube videos are to create descriptions manually or use an audio description vendor.

Going the DIY route will be less expensive, but it is a far more labor- and time-intensive process. On the flip side, you’re guaranteed high-quality, accurate descriptions when you go through a professional audio description vendor like 3Play Media.

Our professional describers watch your video and utilize technology and human editing to create clear, accurate descriptions that follow the DCMP guidelines. The descriptions, using synthesized speech or professional voice actors, are placed using the existing timecodes from your caption file so that they don’t disrupt the viewer from the original audio track.

Outsourcing to 3Play Media

Begin by logging into/creating your 3Play Media account.

To order audio description, you must first order transcription.

Select Order Services at the top of the screen, and select Transcription & Captioning as your main service. Choose your preferred turnaround time, and click next to continue.

Select Audio Description as an additional service. Choose your preferred service level and turnaround time, then click next.

Select the method you are going to use to upload your video. From Links is a great option for YouTube videos, especially those you don’t own. Copy and paste the video URL, click Add Files, then hit next.

Review and submit.

• If you already have a transcribed file from a YouTube video in your account, navigate to the file for which you want audio description, click on the file name, choose Order More when the menu appears on the right of the screen, and choose Audio Description. Follow the prompts to place your order.
• If you already have an audio description file from a YouTube video in your account, continue to Step 2.

3 - Alternatives textes

4 - Commercial

5 - Common misconceptions about testing accessibility

Posted on Wednesday, 7 January 2026 by Ela Gorla in Design and development, Testing

Tags: Assistive Technology

Testing for accessibility is often misunderstood. Teams either overestimate what tools can do, underestimate their own role, or assume testing is something that happens once only, at completion of the development process.

In this post we tackle some of the most frequent misconceptions about accessibility testing.

With so many testing tools and methodologies available, it’s not easy to know what the most effective approach for testing the accessibility of your products is. We look at some of these misconceptions and how to address them.

In case you missed them, you can read the other blog posts in our Common misconceptions series:

• Common misconceptions about screen readers
• Common misconceptions about disability
• Common misconceptions about WCAG
• Common misconceptions about implementing accessibility

Misconception 1: I can rely on automated testing tools

You may have come across automated tools that promise to test and identify all accessibility issues within your website or app. It can be tempting to rely solely on these tools when testing for accessibility. However, no automated tool can truly test all aspects of accessibility, no matter how expensive or advanced the tool is. The most they can test for is between 20% and 40% of accessibility requirements from the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).

Accessibility is more than just accessible code

Automated tools mainly focus on the code behind websites and apps. As explained in common misconceptions about WCAG, accessibility is much more than accessible code. It’s good visual design, inclusive multimedia, well-crafted editorial, inclusive language and more. Many of these are missed by automated tools.

Human judgment is still required

Many accessibility tests cannot be performed by automated tools as they require human judgment. For example, can generative AI write contextual text descriptions and how can a tool judge whether an error message is clear and provides useful suggestions?

Automated testing tools can help you quickly identify some common issues with your website or app code. However, you shouldn’t rely on them alone; use them in conjunction with other testing methods, such as manual testing and usability testing with disabled participants.

Misconception 2: it should be done at the end of development

In some organisations, accessibility testing is the sole responsibility of QA testers and it happens at the end of a product or feature development process. Issues identified this late can be difficult and costly to fix.

As covered in common misconceptions about implementing accessibility, everyone working on a digital product is responsible for its accessibility. This includes testing against accessibility requirements at each stage of development. For example, designers should check the accessibility of their designs before sharing them with the development team; media producers and content writers should do the same with the content they create; and so on.

When everyone plays their role in both following accessibility guidelines and carrying out basic testing, products should present fewer issues when they reach QA.

Testing accessibility as early as possible and at every stage of development is key to delivering accessible products.

Misconception 3: only accessibility specialists can do testing

For people new to accessibility, testing may seem a challenging and at times overwhelming. They may therefore assume that only accessibility specialists can and should do it. This isn’t the case.

As mentioned above, everyone working in digital teams are responsible for the accessibility of products and should be able to perform some basic testing. You don’t have to know all about accessibility; you should focus on those aspects of accessibility relevant to your role. Content writers, media producers, designers, and developers should all conduct a separate, specific set of tests.

At times, you may need the advice and expertise of an accessibility specialist, especially when working on a complex or innovative component, for example. However, most of the day-to-day testing can be performed in-house.

Ensure that people working in digital within your organisation have the training and tools required to perform accessibility testing. This will make it an integral part of everyone’s job and will reduce your reliance on accessibility specialists.

Misconception 4: I should test across all Operating Systems (OS), browsers, and Assistive Technologies (AT)

Digital products can be accessed across many operating systems and browsers, using different types of assistive technology and adaptive strategies, input devices, and built-in accessibility features. This often leads teams to assume they need to test across every possible device and combination.

Thankfully this is not the case. That would require a huge amount of time and money.

As long as products comply with accessibility standards and best practices, such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and the Inclusive Design Principles, they will work well across devices and with all technology. While you may decide to test some content, such as non-standard components, with a wide range of OSs, browsers, and ATs, this is generally not the norm.

When testing your products, focus on the most commonly used devices, browsers, and ATs. The WebAIM Screen Reader User Survey is a good place to find out about screen reader usage.

Misconception 5: I can just ask people with disabilities for their feedback

Watching people using a product is a great way to identify accessibility and usability issue. Agile Usability Testing gives teams an opportunity to place their products in front of people with a range of disabilities and get valuable insights.

There may also be people with disabilities in your team or across your organisation who you can reach out to for quick feedback.

However, relying on people’s feedback alone is generally not a good approach.

People are unique

We are all unique. Each of us, either with or without a disability, have our own needs and preferences, and use digital products in different ways. For example, not all people use screen readers in the same way.

As discussed in our inclusive user research: analysing findings post, when running user research with people with disabilities we often end up with quite different and, at times, contrasting feedback from different people. If you’re not an expert in accessibility, you may easily mistake personal preferences or opinions for accessibility issues. For example, a person new to their screen reader may struggle navigating tables as they are still unfamiliar with table navigation keys; this doesn’t mean there is a problem with the tables.

Some requirements may be missed

Unless you have access to a very large panel, there is a good chance you won’t be testing all accessibility requirements. For example, Success Criterion 1.4.10 Reflow from WCAG requires that:

Content can be presented without loss of information or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in two dimensions for:

• Vertical scrolling content at a width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels;
• Horizontal scrolling content at a height equivalent to 256 CSS pixels.

Unless you happen to have a person in your panel that enlarges the content and uses the settings listed in this Success Criterion, you won’t be able to test this specific requirement.

Running formal or informal user research is hugely valuable and allows you to uncover practical accessibility and usability issues. However, on its own, it cannot replace thorough accessibility testing. As mentioned under Misconception 1 above, you should run it in combination with other testing methods, such as automated testing and manual assessments.

Next steps

Head to Assessments to find out how we can help your organisation validate the accessibility of your products, or learn how our Agile Usability Testing and User Research Mentoring services can assist you with running user research with people with disabilities.

6 - Compliance failures are triggering urgency or internal organizational

Compliance failures are triggering urgency or internal organizational reckoning less frequently. Instead, they prompt budgeting discussions, legal modeling, and risk acceptance exercises. Fines, legal fees, and settlement agreement costs are appearing in budgets. Legal teams estimate exposure ranges. Finance teams compare the cost of compliance with the combined cost of enforcement actions, settlements, and reputational management. Leadership approves risk with the same detachment applied to insurance premiums or licensing fees.

This approach reframes regulation as optional and treats harm as acceptable as long as it remains within acceptable financial constraints. While that framing may look efficient on a spreadsheet, it introduces deep operational, ethical, and strategic risks over time.

How fines and settlement agreements replaced accountability

Most regulations are reactive; they exist because people were harmed. Infrastructure failed in ways that caused lasting financial or human damage. Each regulation reflects lessons learned from financial or human harm, as well as from subsequent litigation and public pressure.

When organizations decide to absorb fines or resolve violations through settlement agreements rather than meeting regulatory obligations, that logic gets flipped on its head. Harm becomes a theoretical mathematical calculation rather than concrete. Impact becomes abstract rather than personal. Projects shift from preventing harm through compliance to loss containment.

Over time, this shift reshapes organizational behavior in predictable ways.

Executives focus on the likelihood of enforcement rather than the possibility of harm. Often, the attitude “we haven’t gotten caught before, so the risk is low” is pervasive among leadership. If you think about that in the context of a speeding ticket (I didn’t get caught yesterday, so my risk of getting caught today is low), you know what a fallacy that is. Despite this, product teams move faster because it is accepted that, if compliance remediation is required, it can occur later, if at all.

Rewards are paid for on-time delivery despite the product’s noncompliance with regulatory requirements. When harm occurs, legal teams negotiate settlements that include no admission of fault, minimal operational change, and limited or nonexistent ongoing oversight. Most importantly, the victims are always silenced. The organization continues operating as designed, while the underlying risks remain unchanged.

This is the new reality for most regulatory requirements, especially when a company is owned by private equity, which aims to maximize value with minimal investment and focuses on the short term. Private equity is worse than other forms of corporate ownership because it is typically assumed that the company will eventually be divested, and any accumulated harm is then shifted to others to address.

Why this strategy scales harm

Paying fines or entering settlement agreements resolves individual incidents without correcting the systems that caused them.

Settlements typically address a specific violation while leaving incentives intact. Fragile data pipelines remain fragile. Safety checks stay underfunded. Testing coverage remains incomplete. Accessibility barriers persist. Bias remains embedded. Security gaps remain documented but unresolved. Even settlement agreements that require future regulatory compliance are rarely re-assessed for that compliance.

Each cycle reinforces the lesson that the consequences of regulatory violations are survivable, negotiable, and rarely transformative for the company that violates them. The same can’t be said for the people harmed by the violation.

This is how isolated violations become patterns and how edge cases turn into routine failures. This is how manageable risks accumulate until they produce systemic damage that no single settlement or recall can meaningfully address.

Organizations that rely on this model often describe it as pragmatic. They argue that compliance slows delivery. They claim regulation interferes with innovation. They frame enforcement as a source of friction rather than as a means of customer protection.

What these arguments consistently ignore is the compounding cost of repeated harm.

The human cost never stays external

Within a boardroom, fines and settlement agreements seem distant and manageable. Outside that room, the impact is immediate and personal.

Employees burn out when they are repeatedly asked to ship work they know carries avoidable risk. Customers lose trust when failures recur, accompanied by apologies that sound as if they are being read from a script generated by ChatGPT. Communities suffer when infrastructure fails repeatedly. Regulators escalate scrutiny when patterns become impossible to dismiss as isolated incidents.

Eventually, accountability takes the form of outcomes that frequently do not align with early risk models, including leadership turnover, sustained brand damage, market instability, talent loss, and regulatory oversight. This fallout is far more disruptive than completing the compliance work required from the outset.

Paying fines or settling claims delays accountability, but it certainly does not eliminate it.

Compliance is a design choice

Organizations that take regulation seriously behave differently long before enforcement becomes likely.

They involve experts in quality, safety, accessibility, privacy, and risk early in decision-making. They document decisions and challenge assumptions. They treat uncertainty as something to be tested rather than ignored. They invest in governance, monitoring, and validation so that failures surface internally rather than after customer harm. They make these choices not out of fear of penalties or settlements, but because they understand how to minimize risk in complex systems.

Mistakes still occur. The difference lies in how quickly those mistakes are detected, acknowledged, and corrected. Failure becomes a signal for improvement rather than a tolerated byproduct that triggers the “blame game.”

What regulators cannot fix

Regulators can impose fines and approve settlement agreements, but they cannot design internal systems. Judges and juries can assign blame and quantify financial penalties, but again, cannot change corporate processes and policies. When regulators, judges, and juries are involved, the response is always reactive, occurring after the harm has occurred. Regulators, judges, and juries cannot influence test strategies, incentives, or product schedules. They cannot override leadership decisions made long before a violation occurs. Finally, they can’t prevent the company they just penalized from continuing the same bad behavior the next day.

When leaders treat fines and settlements as routine costs of doing business, regulation alone cannot create safety, fairness, or reliability. The organization will continue to search for the least costly acceptable failure.

Real compliance begins with a different question. Not “how much will this cost if we are caught,” but:

1. Who could be harmed if this fails?

followed by

2. Is there a group that will be disproportionately harmed if this fails

Until organizations consistently choose that question, fines and settlement agreements will remain a tax on preventable harm, and the public will continue to bear the real price.

Final Thoughts

Treating fines and settlement agreements as routine operating expenses does more than weaken compliance. It reshapes how organizations define responsibility. When harm becomes a line item rather than a failure to prevent harm, prevention ceases to be the goal. The system prioritizes organizational profitability over safety, legality, or fairness.

That choice carries consequences that compound over time. Each accepted violation reinforces incentives to defer fixes, narrow accountability, and externalize risk. Each settlement that leaves systems unchanged teaches the organization that it can continue as is. Eventually, the gap between leadership models and public experience becomes impossible to contain.

Compliance does not fail because regulations are unclear. It fails because organizations decide that meeting those regulations is optional until enforcement becomes unavoidable. By the time regulators intervene, the harm has already occurred, trust has already eroded, and the costs for remediation far exceed anything early prevention would have required.

The question is not whether fines and settlements can be absorbed. Most large organizations can absorb them for years. The question is how long an organization can operate while repeatedly choosing not to prevent known harm before the damage becomes irreversible.

Organizations that want to avoid that outcome must reject the idea that compliance is a financial calculation performed after the fact. It is an architectural and governance decision made at the beginning. Until leadership treats harm prevention as non-negotiable, fines and settlement agreements will continue to function as a fee for permission to fail.

7 - Les offres d'emploi sur l'accessibilité sont en hausse.

Sur a11yjobs.com, même à la fin de l’année, lorsque les choses ralentissent généralement, le volume diffère de manière significative de ce qu’il était il y a même six mois. Récemment, j’ai vu 17 nouveaux rôles en une seule journée. C’était plus proche de ce qui s’est présenté sur deux semaines.

D’autres annonces sonnent comme une bonne nouvelle, non? Les détails à l’intérieur des listes racontent une histoire plus compliquée. De nombreuses organisations embauchent. Moins d’employeurs embauchent de manière à signaler que leurs programmes d’accessibilité sont durables. Et encore moins fournissent encore un salaire de subsistance dans des zones coûteuses.

Le volume a augmenté, mais la conception du rôle est souvent restée bloquée

Un pic d’affichage peut indiquer des investissements dans des programmes d’accessibilité. Cependant, cela peut également signifier que les organisations réagissent aux délais, aux risques d’application de la loi, aux changements de politique ou à la pression exercée par les arriérés. Quelle qu’en soit la cause, la façon dont les professionnels de l’embauche décrivent le travail dans les publications révèle comment ils pensent que l’accessibilité se produit.

À l’heure actuelle, de nombreux postes suggèrent que les organisations considèrent toujours l’accessibilité comme une fonction complémentaire plutôt que comme une capacité de produit qui nécessite de la dotation, des processus et une attention soutenue du leadership.

Il y a sept modèles que je vois dans les publications récentes sur l’accessibilité.

Modèle n ° 1: Beaucoup d’équipes veulent des compétences de licorne combinées avec des arachides pour le salaire

Une grande partie des descriptions de poste lisent comme un programme complet compressé en un seul rôle. Stratégie et gouvernance. Examen de la conception et expérience du système de conception. Consultation d’ingénierie. QA et exécution d’audit. formation. Soutien à l’achat. Remédiation du document. Gestion des fournisseurs. Reporting et métriques. Parfois, même la coordination juridique et la réponse aux incidents. Si vous pouvez faire ce type de travail et le faire bien, c’est génial, mais la plupart n’ont pas cette expérience.

Voici pourquoi c’est problématique: lorsqu’on s’attend à ce qu’un rôle soit mené à bien tout un programme, l’organisation n’embauche pas un employé. Il s’agit de sous-traiter la conception du programme à celui qui accepte l’offre. Cela conduit généralement à l’un des deux résultats.

• Soit le rôle devient triage, et l’organisation ne construit jamais de capacité durable.

• Alternativement, la location brûle et part, et l’organisation reposte le même rôle.

Quel que soit le résultat, c’est aussi un signal que le financement sera une bataille, et les heures supplémentaires non rémunérées sont presque garanties. De plus, vous ne pourrez jamais « dépasser les attentes » dans votre revue, puisque les attentes sont clairement irréalistes.

Modèle n ° 2: «niveau d’entrée» signifie salaire d’entrée de gamme, pas qualifications d’entrée de niveau

Un autre modèle apparaît dans les rôles étiquetés « entrée de gamme » avec des titres et une rémunération au niveau « starter role », combinés à des exigences pour des années d’expérience, une maîtrise technique avancée et un désir de certifications. Les exigences décrivent quelqu’un qui peut fonctionner de manière indépendante le premier jour, influencer les équipes interfonctionnelles et gérer les compromis de mise en œuvre complexes. La rémunération est comparable à celle de la gestion d’un restaurant de restauration rapide.

Cette inadéquation n’est pas seulement frustrante pour les candidats; elle est coûteuse pour les employeurs. Le chiffre d’affaires est le facteur le plus coûteux qui n’apparaît pas sur un poste de ligne budgétaire. Les gens prennent le travail parce qu’ils sont désespérés, puis partent le plus rapidement possible. De plus, les personnes qualifiées s’auto-sélectionnent souvent lorsqu’elles rencontrent une description de poste qui signale un sous-niveau, car c’est un signe de croissance de carrière limitée.

Si une équipe veut un talent d’entrée de gamme, l’affichage devrait refléter cela. Portée claire, mentorat structuré, budget de formation et responsabilités qui augmentent au fil du temps. Si l’équipe a besoin de quelqu’un qui peut livrer de manière indépendante, le titre et la rémunération doivent refléter cette réalité.

Modèle n ° 3: Le titre II indique souvent un désir de conformité à l’accessibilité, et non de compétence en matière d’accessibilité

Most Title II organizations have real accessibility obligations, timelines, and public accountability. Accessibility work in that context can carry high operational and reputational risks. Yet compensation for these roles often does not match the scope implied by the posting.

Low pay communicates that accessibility is treated as a compliance line item rather than infrastructure. It becomes harder to recruit experienced practitioners who have already learned, often the hard way, what it takes to build sustainable programs that get organizations where they want to go.

Public sector budgets are real constraints. Still, organizations can improve outcomes by defining roles realistically, building teams rather than assigning single points of responsibility, and investing in systems that reduce repetitive remediation work.

Pattern #4: In office requirements are rigidly common

Vous avez trouvé le travail parfait. On dirait que la description de poste a été écrite pour vous, et la rémunération est ce que vous recherchez. Et puis, boom, vous arrivez à la partie où il dit que vous devez être physiquement au bureau trois à cinq jours par semaine, à 1500 miles de distance. Même lorsque le travail quotidien est l’examen de la documentation, la collaboration de conception, l’examen du code, la coordination des tests et la formation, de nombreux affichages nécessitent toujours une présence au bureau. Parfois, l’exigence est encadrée en termes culturels. Parfois, elle est conçue comme une collaboration. Il n’est jamais encadré comme facultatif.

L’impact est simple. En particulier dans le domaine de l’accessibilité, le travail en cabinet requis réduit le bassin de candidats et filtre de manière disproportionnée les praticiens qualifiés handicapés, les responsabilités en matière de soins ou les contraintes de localisation. Il pousse les organisations vers des entonnoirs de recrutement plus petits et plus chers, puis le leadership se demande pourquoi il faut si longtemps pour trouver un candidat qualifié.

Hybrid and remote models are not perfect. They do, however, align well with the core workflows of most mid to senior-level accessibility roles. If an organization insists on maintaining an office presence, it should be prepared to justify the operational need and then accept the recruiting trade-offs.

Pattern #5: Jobs are moving to lower-cost areas

Another trend is the increase in roles tied to lower-cost locations, either through location-based salary bands or explicit requirements that candidates be based in specific regions. Sometimes this shows up as a subtle narrowing of approved work locations. Sometimes, it is a clear shift in where teams are building accessibility headcount.

Organizations will always manage compensation budgets. The risk to the employer is when location-based decisions override the desire to build a competent program.

Si le travail sert un produit national ou mondial, l’organisation a toujours besoin de capacités de haut niveau et d’une influence transversale. Le déplacement du rôle dans une zone à moindre coût ne change rien à la complexité du travail. Cela change le bassin de candidats qui peuvent se permettre de prendre le poste.

Pattern #6: Reposts raise uncomfortable questions

Some organizations repeatedly repost the same role every month. At a certain point, that pattern becomes a signal that can indicate a number of things about the program, most of them bad.

1. The compensation is not competitive.
2. La portée de l’emploi est trop large.
3. The hiring process is not doing a good job at skills assessment.
4. The role is not supported internally, and hires leave quickly.
5. There is no alignment on what success looks like.
6. The organization really doesn’t know what it’s looking for
7. The organization doesn’t have a “real” job and is collecting resumes for future needs or visa requirements.

Candidates notice. So do other hiring managers. A monthly repost becomes part of the employer brand, whether the organization intends that or not. There are well-known companies I will never apply to because they repeatedly post the same job, and there are no social media announcements about people accepting the previously posted position.

Pattern #7: Jobs are with agencies and are short-term 1099 contracts, not benefited employee positions

Short-term 1099 accessibility roles create real risk for practitioners with disabilities who rely on stable health insurance. C This is a poverty trap when pay exceeds the Medicaid eligibility threshold, especially given the recent elimination of health care subsidies on the federal exchange. Contract work without benefits frequently forces candidates with disabilities to choose between employment and health insurance.

Agency-based contracts often result in noticeably lower take-home pay because a significant portion of the rate gets skimmed off the top and never reaches the worker. The organization pays a premium, the agency takes its share, and the person doing the work gets whatever is leftover.

There is a deeper morale cost as well. Many contract roles focus on logging issues, writing reports, and moving on before remediation happens. When you never see fixes land, accountability blurs, and the work starts to feel transactional rather than meaningful. Accessibility work needs continuity to succeed, and short-term contracting undermines that continuity at every level.

What these patterns cost

Lorsque la conception de l’emploi est mal alignée, les coûts apparaissent rapidement.

Le temps de remplir le poste augmente à mesure que moins de candidats répondent aux exigences au niveau offert. Les résultats du programme se dégradent parce que le rôle devient réactif et motivé par l’arriéré. La rétention souffre parce que le travail s’étend plus vite que le soutien. Les intervenants perdent confiance parce que l’accessibilité ressemble à une urgence constante plutôt qu’à une capacité gérée.

Dans les contextes du titre II, le coût peut inclure des manquements de responsabilité publique. Dans les contextes du secteur privé, il peut englober le risque de litige, le risque contractuel et le risque d’accès au marché. Dans tous les contextes, cela implique souvent une livraison retardée des produits car les équipes redécouvrent à plusieurs reprises les mêmes problèmes d’accessibilité tard dans le cycle de publication.

À quoi ressemble une meilleure embauche d’accessibilité

Les offres d’emploi de meilleure accessibilité partagent plusieurs traits.

Le rôle est défini comme faisant partie d’un système. La description de travail clarifie ce que le rôle possède et ce qu’il influence. Il nomme les équipes partenaires. Il décrit comment les décisions sont prises. Le travail sépare le leadership des programmes de l’exécution pratique. Plus important encore, le travail n’a pas d’agence au milieu faisant très peu pour leur coupe.

Si un rôle définit la stratégie et la gouvernance, il ne devrait pas non plus être responsable de l’exécution de chaque vérification et de chaque plan d’assainissement. Si un rôle est un exécutant, il ne devrait pas être demandé d’assurer la gouvernance à l’échelle du programme sans autorisation.

L’emploi aligne l’ancienneté, la rémunération et les attentes. Les rôles d’entrée de gamme devraient inclure la formation et le mentorat. Les rôles de direction ont l’autorité, le soutien interfonctionnel, un budget et une rémunération à la mesure des responsabilités.

Si le travail peut être fait efficacement à distance, dites-le. Si une présence en bureau est nécessaire, expliquez pourquoi en termes opérationnels. N’appelez pas une télécommande de travail si elle est hybride. Ce ne sont pas les mêmes choses.

Dernières Pensées

L’augmentation des offres d’emploi pour l’accessibilité est réelle. La question est de savoir si les organisations renforcent la capacité d’accessibilité ou augmentent le nombre de rôles avec des défauts mortels, ce qui signifie qu’elles ne réussiront jamais.

L’embauche d’accessibilité est un renforcement des capacités. Les équipes qui le traitent comme une infrastructure vont embaucher, soutenir et retenir différemment. Les organisations qui ne continueront pas à publier, à rechercher et à se demander pourquoi le pipeline semble occupé alors que les résultats restent inégaux.

8 - Les personnes en situation de handicap sont plus susceptibles que les autres d’avoir une expérience judiciaire (United States of America)

Aperçu

Près de la moitié des adultes en situation de handicap vivent dans un foyer où quelqu’un a été impliqué dans une affaire judiciaire, selon un récent sondage national réalisé par The Pew Charitable Trusts. Il s’agit des premières données connues sur la fréquence des interactions de cette population avec les tribunaux, fréquence nettement plus élevée que pour les personnes sans handicap.¹ Le sondage montre également que les personnes en situation de handicap trouvent les tribunaux difficiles à appréhender et leur attribuent des avis moins favorables que les personnes sans handicap.

Build Communities — Experience With State Courts Highlights Areas for Improvement

Note d’information — 4 août 2025

Le sondage, réalisé par la société de sondages d’opinion publique SSRS, visait à comprendre comment les personnes aux États‑Unis interagissent avec et perçoivent les tribunaux d’État et locaux dans leurs communautés. Il a intégré les points de vue d’adultes en situation de handicap — ayant ou non une expérience judiciaire.² Les résultats offrent aux responsables des tribunaux des informations sur la performance des tribunaux, l’adoption des technologies et la facilité d’accès, utiles pour moderniser l’accès et établir la confiance avec cette communauté.³ Ils soulignent aussi l’importance de comprendre les perspectives et expériences de populations démographiques distinctes afin de garantir que les efforts de modernisation reflètent les besoins et réalités de tous les groupes servis par les tribunaux.

Prévalence élevée des personnes en situation de handicap dont le foyer a eu une affaire judiciaire

Près d’un adulte sur deux aux États‑Unis en situation de handicap (49 %) vit dans un foyer où quelqu’un a eu une affaire judiciaire (civile, pénale, familiale ou pour infraction routière). Ce taux est nettement supérieur à celui des adultes sans handicap (29 %). Au total, les adultes en situation de handicap représentent environ 30 % de la population générale.⁴

Les réponses varient selon les caractéristiques démographiques parmi les personnes en situation de handicap. Les hommes ont déclaré des participations judiciaires à des taux plus élevés que les femmes (55 % contre 46 %). Les répondants noirs et hispaniques étaient plus susceptibles de déclarer une expérience judiciaire — 57 % et 55 % respectivement — que les répondants blancs (47 %). Et les républicains déclaraient plus souvent une expérience judiciaire que les démocrates (57 % contre 45 %).

Les adultes en situation de handicap attribuent des notes moins favorables aux tribunaux que les autres

Plus de répondants en situation de handicap — qu’ils aient ou non une expérience judiciaire — ont donné la note « C » aux tribunaux (40 %) que toute autre note ; c’est légèrement supérieur à la proportion chez les adultes sans handicap (37 %).

Seulement 29 % des personnes en situation de handicap ont attribué un « A » ou « B » aux tribunaux, contre 35 % chez les personnes sans handicap. Par ailleurs, 21 % des répondants en situation de handicap ont donné une note « D » ou « F », contre 15 % des répondants sans handicap.

Les adultes en situation de handicap ont également déclaré une moindre confiance dans l’équité des tribunaux. Si la majorité (63 %) a déclaré être confiante que les tribunaux de leur communauté traitent les personnes équitablement, que celles‑ci aient un handicap ou non, ce taux est notablement inférieur à celui des adultes sans handicap (73 %).

Aller au tribunal a aussi affecté la confiance dans le système : 40 % des personnes en situation de handicap ont déclaré que leur confiance a quelque peu ou fortement diminué après leur expérience judiciaire récente. Treize pour cent ont déclaré que leur confiance a quelque peu ou fortement augmenté.⁵

Les adultes en situation de handicap ont une opinion moins favorable de l’adoption des technologies par les tribunaux

Les personnes en situation de handicap (57 %) — qui comptent souvent sur la technologie pour l’accès, comme la visioconférence ou téléconférence, les sous‑titres, les logiciels de reconnaissance vocale, les outils d’orientation et les équipements activés par capteurs — étaient plus susceptibles que les personnes sans handicap (49 %) d’évaluer la capacité des tribunaux à adopter et utiliser de nouvelles technologies comme « passable » ou « faible ».⁶

La flexibilité est essentielle pour l’accessibilité judiciaire, car il n’existe pas de solution universelle. Lorsqu’on leur a demandé leur avis sur la comparution virtuelle ou en personne, près de 65 % des adultes en situation de handicap ont déclaré que les tribunaux devraient permettre de choisir la comparution virtuelle pour la plupart des types d’affaires, exprimant un léger penchant plus marqué que les personnes sans handicap (59 %).

La plupart des adultes en situation de handicap ayant une expérience judiciaire ont trouvé le tribunal difficile à appréhender

La majorité (55 %) des adultes en situation de handicap dont le foyer a eu une affaire judiciaire ont déclaré que le tribunal était difficile à appréhender, notamment pour comprendre les étapes de la procédure ou les formulaires.⁷

Malgré l’effet de l’expérience judiciaire sur leur confiance envers les tribunaux, 60 % des adultes en situation de handicap ont déclaré avoir ressenti un peu ou beaucoup de respect de la part des juges tout au long du processus judiciaire ; et la plupart — 56 % — ont déclaré faire confiance au fait que les juges et le personnel du tribunal avaient essayé de faire ce qui était juste pour tous les participants.⁸

Parmi les personnes en situation de handicap ayant eu une affaire judiciaire, les réponses selon des groupes démographiques (tels que race/ethnicité, sexe, affiliation politique et niveau d’études) n’ont pas donné de résultats statistiquement significatifs, possiblement en raison de la taille de l’échantillon, et ne sont pas présentées ici. Toutefois, comme la recherche indique des différences démographiques dans la manière dont les personnes en situation de handicap vivent certaines parties du système de justice, ces facteurs demeurent importants à considérer dans de futures recherches sur les perspectives et expériences judiciaires.⁹

Les responsables des tribunaux peuvent utiliser ces résultats pour renforcer les efforts d’accessibilité

Les personnes en situation de handicap font souvent face à des obstacles d’attitude et d’accessibilité lorsqu’elles interagissent avec les tribunaux d’État et locaux.¹⁰ Ceci, couplé à leur surreprésentation parmi les foyers ayant eu une affaire judiciaire, souligne l’importance pour les tribunaux de s’assurer que cette population puisse naviguer efficacement dans le système et participer pleinement à leurs affaires.

D’autres recherches sont nécessaires pour relier directement ces résultats de sondage aux barrières d’attitude et d’accessibilité, et à la manière dont ces barrières peuvent affecter les résultats judiciaires. Mais les différences de réponses entre les adultes en situation de handicap et ceux sans handicap suggèrent que le statut de handicap peut façonner les perceptions des tribunaux ainsi que les expériences au sein de ces tribunaux. Ces constats offrent donc aux responsables des tribunaux des éléments pour orienter les efforts d’accessibilité et de modernisation afin de favoriser une plus grande confiance parmi les personnes en situation de handicap et garantir l’égalité de la justice pour tous.

9 - Livres et ouvrages

Accessibility for Everyone - Laura Kalbag

https://accessibilityforeveryone.site/

10 - Optimizing VoiceOver in an iOS E-Commerce App with Conditional Accessibility

11 - Outils

12 - Outils

13 - Présentations

14 - Shifting Left: How Teams Can Bake Accessibility Into Everyday Document Workflows

Transcript

0:17

Okay, I think we’re uh we’re we’re live. So, welcome everyone uh to today’s round

0:24

table. We are going to get started in a few minutes. I think there’s still uh

0:29

some people joining. So, while we wait just uh a little bit

0:34

of logistics, you know, we you know, the format is fairly simple. We’re going to

0:39

ask I’ll I’m the moderator. I’m Eugene Wu by the way. I’m the CEO of Vengage.

0:44

Um and if you don’t know Vengage, Vengage is a design tool that has a

0:49

focus on accessible uh accessible documents. So, we you know export

0:53

accessible PDFs. Uh and I will introduce the rest of the panel soon. Uh from a

0:58

logistical point of view, um there is a if you have any questions, you can put

1:03

it in the Q&A. There’s a Q&A button on the Zoom uh interface where you should

1:09

be able to type your questions in uh and we will try to answer them, you know, if

1:14

we will try to answer, you know, most of them on the call. If not, you know,

1:17

we’ll try to answer them after. Uh okay, I think we can get started. So

1:23

welcome everybody to uh today’s round table uh today’s round table is called

1:27

shifting left how teams can bake accessibility into everyday document

1:32

forms and in today’s uh round table we have three guests I think you know if

1:38

you’re in the accessibility field you probably know all of them so our first

1:42

guest is Neil Milikin he is a strategic uh assessment adviser and uh former head

1:51

of former global head of accessibility and digital inclusion at ATOSS. Uh Neil

1:57

has uh you know decades of experience in accessibility uh and you know and in

2:03

leadership and enterprise change. He’s also the co-founder of AXS chat which is

2:08

a very longunning chat uh podcast on uh accessibility. So welcome Neil.

2:13

Thank you. Glad to be here. Uh and next we have uh Samantha Evans.

2:18

Samantha is the uh certification certification director at IAP. Uh I’m

2:24

sure you know all of you know IAP. It’s the leading um certification body. Uh

2:31

and so she’s she leads global efforts to build accessibility maturities through

2:36

professional standards education and organizational uh strategy. Um welcome

2:42

Samantha. Hey y’all. thanks for letting us join

2:46

you all today and making time. And last but not least, we have Rob

2:50

Carr. Uh Rob Carr is the strategic assessment lead at Web AIM and former

2:55

architect of Oklahoma’s uh statewide assessment program. Uh Rob, you know, is

3:01

fairly well known as well in the access field. Uh and obviously I mean if you

3:06

don’t know what web aim is they, you know, I think they’re most known for

3:09

publishing the web million uh survey or research that looks at the top 1 million

3:16

sites in the world based on accessibility. So uh welcome Rob.

3:20

Pleasure to have you. Yeah, thanks for having me. Glad it

3:22

worked out. Yeah. Cool. So today we’re going to talk

3:25

about shifting left. And I first want to, you know, I think when I first heard

3:29

the term shifting left, like it, you know, I think invariably I think about

3:33

politics, but it’s not about politics. Uh, so what does shift left, shifting

3:39

left mean uh to you? Like Rob, maybe you can take a stab like let’s give the

3:43

audience like your definition. Uh, so I think the idea is that we we

3:47

push accessibility into the earliest phases of a project. So we try to push

3:53

accessibility upstream so that it’s not just left to the implementers or the

3:57

testers or QA folks so that we’re considering it as early as humanly

4:00

possible. I think it’s a concept that goes into document design, web design,

4:04

procurement, etc., etc. Yeah. And that that is uh it’s exactly

4:10

how I’ve said it. Um how about how about you uh Neil? in in your work with in in

4:15

ATOS in such a large organization I don’t know do you ever use the term

4:20

shift left or oh sure I mean we’re an organization

4:25

that that lived by the principle of shifting left um you know as a systems

4:30

integrator and IT services provider people are always looking to uh do stuff

4:36

earlier find more effective ways of doing things I I think the the term

4:40

comes from the old sort of project gant charts where you’re looking at your

4:44

timelines and and the end is at the right. Well, you need to be doing it at

4:48

the left because that’s at the start because you need to be thinking about

4:51

accessibility at the at the start of things in order not to be sort of just

4:56

continuously testing broken stuff. So, so, so from the accessibility context,

5:01

the shifting left is is about, you know, putting it as far into the ideation and

5:07

creation process as far into the earliest parts so that you’re not having

5:12

to do all of that rework when you when you find the stuff, and you test the

5:16

stuff. It should be right from the beginning.

5:19

Okay. Um, Sam, I’m going to ask you like, so why

5:23

why did this why does this problem still exist? And I think you know we we know

5:29

you know as Neil said that it is it’s a lot easier to address things you know at

5:34

the start what what’s the main problem with accessory now where you I would say

5:40

the vast majority of organizations are still treating it as you know like a

5:45

checklist at the end of of their of their processes

5:49

and I think it comes down to people haven’t started considering

5:52

accessibility is a core component of government governance process and

5:57

maturity. So we know things like privacy and

6:01

security and other protocol are all requirements. So we all it’s known we

6:06

understand it’s expected from the public and so the the the earmarks of good

6:11

organizational maturity and governance is that we do these things. I think

6:15

people are still learning. I’m going to say it in a positive progression kind of

6:19

a way that accessibility should be partnered in with all of those elements,

6:24

but a lot of it starts with training and learning how to use the tools that we

6:27

already have um and why it helps make us a better teammate, partner, vendor,

6:34

consultant, um and helps eliminate barriers. So, I just think people

6:39

haven’t started to understand how it improves their organization, their

6:43

teams, and their capacity yet. Once they have that aha moment, it becomes very

6:48

easy for individuals to make change happen. But strategy and practice is is

6:55

the bigger puzzle for organizations. Okay. Uh Rob, do you have anything to

7:01

add to that? Like what, you know, why does this problem still exist? You know,

7:06

why is it still it’s it has made I would say very little progress over the last,

7:11

let’s say, decade or so. I mean, I I think to kind of add to what Sam said, I

7:16

think that there’s a lot of uh a lack of accessibility being a norm,

7:21

accessibility being a part of a culture within organizations. And I tend to to

7:26

find or I guess scale accessibility barriers up to the organizational level

7:30

where it’s we don’t have the scaffolding, we don’t have the

7:33

facilitation by leadership, we don’t have active leadership establishing a

7:37

culture where accessibility is a norm. And I think from there it just kind of

7:40

ripples out to where it really it keeps accessibility from maturing at the same

7:44

rate that we’ve seen privacy security fundamentally accessibility is not often

7:50

a strict requirement. It’s something that we consider as we’ll when we get

7:54

the requirements done we’ll think about accessibility a lot of the time. So I

7:57

think it is a bigger picture organizational behavior issue as much as

8:01

as anything. Okay. You so I’m going to ask your

8:04

followup question. you use the term scaffolding and I know you had a talk

8:08

about organizational scaffolding. Can you share a little bit like I think it’s

8:11

like really practical like what do you mean by scaffolding?

8:16

I mean I think it’s it’s training. Well, I’ll kind of back up a little bit

8:18

because I think another issue that organizations face is viewing training

8:22

as the beall and endall. Um or looking at other puzzle pieces. Uh so maybe

8:27

evaluation is what they’re really focused on. come in and evaluate our

8:30

documents, evaluate our web presence, and they don’t think about the other

8:33

pieces of the puzzle and need to come together to build something that’s

8:36

sustainable. But if we look at training in isolation and think about scaffolding

8:39

around that, I talk a lot about, well, training is one thing and clearing time

8:43

to participate in training is one thing. People then need the time to actually

8:48

learn that training, to practice it, and then to put it into their practice. And

8:51

I think that when we consider shifting left and bringing new roles that aren’t

8:55

commonly thought of as contributors to accessibility into this conversation,

8:59

then the challenge is even more so because people think we need our

9:02

designers trained. We need our web people trained and they won’t think

9:05

about the people who are upstream even including any research that you’re

9:08

doing, any kind of AB testing that you’re doing and having that have an

9:12

underpinning that includes accessibility. Uh I think the problem

9:15

just magnifies as we try to shift the tasks left when it comes to uh pulling

9:21

this off in in a pragmatic way. And there’s a whole lot more to it. I do

9:24

have talk about it. I don’t want to monopolize the time, but that’s one

9:27

example where I think it’s just a matter of looking not just at individual puzzle

9:30

pieces, but the context that those drop into place and considering teams uh

9:35

existing workload, existing um deadlines that they have and not dropping, you

9:40

know, training or an evaluation on top of a team that is trying to push

9:43

something out the door because they won’t actually be able to engage it

9:46

typically. Yeah. And and I’m I we will we will get

9:50

into more details on the science of it later on because I think you know I’m a

9:55

big systems fan. I think yes training is great but at the end of the day uh you

10:00

know I think systems build habits and if you’re a fan of like atomic habit from

10:06

James Clear he talks a lot about that as well although that’s on an individual

10:09

level but if you kind of extrapolate out systems be you know like people like

10:14

individuals right you have to have these systems and that’s I think very aligned

10:17

with the scaffolding concept you you talked about um Neil I want to talk a

10:22

little bit about leadership I think at the end of the day you know without

10:25

leadership it’s very difficult to move any programs and you’ve been you know at

10:31

a very high leadership position in a fairly large organization uh and you’ve

10:36

been able to you know I mean I you know the CEO signed you know the uh valuable

10:41

500 for example uh while you were there so talk a little bit about how do you

10:46

move you know I think part of shifting left is like getting the leadership to

10:50

buy in and and as you had mentioned you know that sort of makes everything kind

10:55

of trip I know trickle down to the rest of the organization.

10:59

It does to a certain extent. I think uh if you’re in the accessibility field,

11:05

you’re in the field of diplomacy. You need to be um you know building

11:10

relationships to be able to um couch your arguments as to why people need to

11:16

do this in the language that they understand. So if you’re talking to

11:20

leadership, you need to talk in in the language of business. uh if you’re

11:23

talking to developers, you need to be talking about the pragmatic things that

11:28

they need to be doing as part of their agile development cycle. So

11:32

accessibility needs to be in the definition of done. Um so so there are

11:36

different things that you need to communicate to different parts of the

11:39

organization and um organizations are uh complex systems of human beings with uh

11:50

cultures as well as processes. So, so you do need to sort of take this

11:55

holistic view, but sometimes that can be overwhelming and that can be one of the

12:00

issues that that stops organizations from trying to implement things because

12:05

it just seems like all too much. on the positive side um to to to turn a

12:12

negative into a positive. If you look at very many companies out there, despite

12:20

us saying that privacy and security are mature, very large professional

12:25

companies have privacy breaches, they have security breaches. So even though

12:31

it’s in the mindset of the general population, stuff still doesn’t always

12:36

happen. So I think that the accessibility industry ought not to beat

12:39

itself up too much about the the level of progress. We have made progress.

12:44

There has actually when you look back been significant progress over the years

12:48

in terms of professionalization understanding of the importance of the

12:52

subject matter. But one of the areas where you end up

12:56

with a problem is that that very large organizations have constant churn. So

13:01

even if you put in place processes, you teach people, you train people, you

13:06

start creating a culture, it’s not a onceanddone thing. It needs to be

13:10

continuous because you’ve got new people coming into teams and into the

13:14

organization. So you you have to continuously communicate that and you

13:18

have to continuously re-evaluate your processes and your standard operating

13:22

procedures and so on to make sure that this stuff doesn’t break.

13:29

Well put. Uh Sam, what you know as a a certification organization, how how

13:37

does that support an organization’s sort of a

13:44

a goal towards you shifting left? So I think I can I can speak to our

13:52

certifications and one of the key tenants that we require is that

13:55

everything that is involved in our blueprints or our content outlines and

13:59

our certifications is the impact that whatever this activity is has on people

14:04

with disabilities and what happens when it’s done well not

14:09

done or done incorrectly so that there’s some impact number one

14:15

but second I think um all of I’ll talk about organizational maturity and how to

14:23

implement these whatever the pra the job tasks are the organizational

14:26

responsibilities whichever niche it’s in on how organization should consider

14:32

going beyond like Rob said beyond training beyond audits beyond

14:36

evaluations how do you implement that into your practice without it being seen

14:41

as um an additional be you know burden on teams and their capacity But that

14:47

when we do that, you’ll eventually remove the lift that happens after the

14:52

fact where you have to remediate, add new tickets, add new projects and go

14:56

back. That if we if we do it this way first, we will deliver better products

15:00

and services and be whether that’s to your

15:05

accessibility pros have to be kind of translators.

15:08

They have to learn to speak the language, the projects, and the goals of

15:11

whatever audience they’re talking to to help those teams reach their goals, to

15:16

meet their KPIs, to meet their requirements. And if you can help speak

15:20

to them in their terms, whether that’s how do I plug this into my organization

15:25

or to my team, that will help them become better champions, but also

15:30

understand how and why it matters to advance their organization. So I and

15:35

we’re talking all of these points that we’re talking about all are

15:38

complimentary to one another I think. So um but all of our programs require

15:42

people to understand the impact people but also how to build this into your

15:46

organizational structure and why. So so for an organization who’s just

15:52

starting out uh you talk about this maturity model. What would your advice

15:57

be to them like as like the first step? I guess there

16:01

would be like they would be at like stage or step zero in you.

16:06

So what I I personally try to encourage people to do is don’t be put off by not

16:11

being able to do it all and not be able to do it perfectly. Pick elements that

16:15

are achievable. What’s realistic that you can do? What are changes you can

16:19

implement now? And what are changes that you want to plan to implement and have a

16:23

step-wise process so that you can work towards that progress. Uh the biggest

16:28

fear people have is is I can’t do it so I’ve just I can’t do it all so I won’t

16:32

do any of it. Um but I think organizations and teams find really

16:38

great excitement when they’ve done something and seeing the progress

16:40

happens and then they can document it and it becomes part of policy process

16:44

and job tasks. That is like that’s the big step. That’s going from like zero to

16:49

three on a scale of 1 to five. But we just need to get to one. Move to step

16:53

one where we’ve we’ve we’ve become aware and we have a plan.

16:58

And it doesn’t have to be for everything. But find your find your find

17:02

your awareness. Create a plan and and implement that plan. Just start for some

17:07

progress that you can measure. That is exciting. It doesn’t seem as

17:12

overwhelming for teams. And they can say, “Hey, we achieved this goal.” And

17:17

then they could talk to marketing about how they can sell it and to sales to see

17:21

the revenue drivers and then talk to leadership about how this meets, you

17:26

know, other larger strategic goals. So, but it really just means start with that

17:30

first step. Be reasonable and and understand that sometimes progress is

17:35

not a straight line. Sometimes it’s ups and downs and and it’s okay. It’s okay

17:40

if it if you don’t understand to ask. The accessibility community is amazing.

17:44

I’ve worked in a lot of professions, but I’ve never seen one where literally tens

17:49

of thousands of people around the world are willing to help their colleagues

17:52

learn and do better. Yeah. And I I would second it. I’m

17:56

fairly new to the accessory world and I joined this flat group and everybody was

18:01

very definitely very helpful. Uh Rob kind of a very similar question

18:09

going back to the uh scaffolding you know example or metaphor you use like

18:14

you know I think a lot of the questions are you know same question like where

18:17

where do you start building you know this organizational scaffolding or or

18:21

whatever it takes to to get an organization to start shifting left

18:26

I I and and there’s there’s a balance Sam brought up overwhelming an

18:30

organization and there’s a balance that I have to strike with this because my

18:33

first impression question like if someone reaches out to us and says hey

18:36

can you help us put together roadmap implementation plan whatever it might be

18:40

I’ll usually say yes but let’s go through a self- assessment process and

18:43

usually it’s a guided self- assessment process looking not at anything

18:46

involving technical accessibility but the organizational behaviors

18:51

norms lack thereof and I I mentioned I referenced Sam’s not overwhelming

18:56

because that process and I’ve been through that process within a higher ed

19:00

institution in the past and I’m leading folks through it uh but I know it can be

19:05

overwhelming and it can be kind of you can be kind of downtrodden with it

19:09

because you identify a lot of gaps and especially when organizations are at

19:12

that step zero. They might not really have much in place. But what I encourage

19:16

organizations to do is to bring together a group of people who have insight into

19:20

the organization who can go through a self assessment to identify where maybe

19:26

do we have you know a unit or a department that is doing well with

19:29

accessibility. Not that we want to have them be the resident accessibility gurus

19:34

within the within the organization, but are there things that they have done

19:37

from a grassroots level that can inform work elsewhere? And how can we identify

19:43

the gaps that we have in place and then really get to the level of u you know

19:47

planning out how do we fill these things in? You know, how do we begin to address

19:51

these? What are the things that are within our reach, within our control

19:54

that we can reasonably expect to do as an organization? Um, what are the things

19:59

that are outside of our control that might be in a second tier of activities?

20:03

Uh, what are the things that are so beyond the pale because of resources,

20:07

revenue, what have you, that it’s in a third tier? It’s things that we really

20:10

want to get to, but we know in a five-year plan that’s going to be year

20:14

five before we can even really address it. Uh so that’s really where I I try to

20:18

start with organizations is let’s really think through what we have in place and

20:21

what we don’t and what we can and can’t do and begin to take what is at the end

20:26

of that self assessment a very large and overwhelming set of data and drill it

20:31

down to actionable okay we are going to move forward with these things for these

20:35

reasons informed by the business practice um but be able to um you know

20:40

manage the expectations and and flesh something out that is doable and as Sam

20:44

said sometimes times we’re going to think this is great, let’s do this, we

20:48

can do it and then you find out you really can’t and be be ready to then

20:51

pivot to something else. So it’s it’s a very organic process I feel like when

20:56

organizations are at that step zero or or one or sometimes even a step you know

21:01

50 I feel like it becomes a very fluid situation when you have a new

21:05

opportunity a new barrier whatever it might be u but I again tend to try to

21:09

paint the picture a little bit bigger and then walk people back and say okay

21:13

yes there’s a lot of information but here’s where I would suggest we get

21:16

started here are the things you identified that you can do let’s to

21:19

Sam’s point move forward with the actionable things and then figure out

21:23

how to map out making the other things actionable that aren’t currently.

21:28

Great. Very cool. Um, Neil, what if you were to go back, you know, at the the

21:33

start of your career and in AOS, kind of, you know, I don’t know if you you

21:36

can do this, but give us a sense like how, you know, what has changed, you

21:41

know, in, you know, because I think it would be great for the audience to hear

21:43

like an example in in a in a in a large organization, how how, you know,

21:48

shifting left actually is implemented and and what you know, if you can talk

21:52

about specific programs that that that you know of.

21:56

Yeah, sure. I I think I was having a discussion about this with someone else

22:01

earlier today. In in many ways everything has changed because the

22:05

technologies that people are using are very different today. Um the way that we

22:12

interact and development cycles are much much faster. We’ve gone from waterfall

22:16

to agile to devops to no ops you know. Um you know so so the speed of

22:24

development and and everything has speeded up. Um and that has caused

22:31

issues in terms of accessibility because you no longer have the the luxury of

22:37

long planning times and you know design workshops and all the rest of it because

22:41

you’ve got this continuous ship. So then it’s you have to be thinking about well

22:45

how can we get accessibility into this set of features for this sprint and

22:49

everything else. So then you’re going back to culture, right? And I think that

22:52

that in that respect, you know, the need to uh engage with an organization’s

22:58

culture hasn’t changed. Um I I think there’s been some progress on that front

23:03

and and I’ve learned a lot in my time about how to um successfully um engage

23:10

with organizational cultures. So um I think the the real learning point for me

23:16

was to not try and um push accessibility into an organizational culture but to

23:24

step back and observe what are the successful things within that

23:29

organizational culture not necessarily related to accessibility. So to take the

23:33

example of the the place that uh I I I was at last ATOSS right ATOSS has a

23:40

fantastic culture around sustainability and green IT and energy uh reduction and

23:48

so uh energy and carbon reduction and is you know highly rated globally for for

23:54

this kind of stuff. So it’s in people’s mindsets to do this stuff. It’s in their

23:59

ways of working. is in the cultural norms of the organization. And so what I

24:04

did was I observed this and this was something that people really into and

24:08

it’s like well how can we co-opt this to and and and and put an accessibility

24:13

lens on it and I I went to a talk it’s a decade ago now like the the light bulb

24:19

moment for me was a talk by Jim Tobias at the Funka conference in Stockholm

24:24

where he said oh you know inaccessibility is kind of like

24:28

pollution right and and and we developed on that because it’s like right well

24:33

that’s a negative externality we’re talking about negative externalities in

24:37

carbon reductions we can use the and co-op the same processes the same

24:42

structures the same governance right so people understand it so what we’re doing

24:46

is instead of creating a new structure we’re just putting accessibility into

24:52

into an an existing successful structure uh one that people understand one that

24:58

people have bought into and they go yeah okay if if If if exclusion’s like

25:03

pollution, well then what we need to be doing to shift left is, you know, reduce

25:08

it. So we’re we’re up with reducing exclusion. We like the the idea and now

25:14

we have a sort of conceptual framework scaffolding if you like

25:19

with we can apply to how we’re going to do this in our jobs. So it’s not big

25:24

bang, it’s a case of well we look at all of these things when we’re when you’re

25:29

looking at carbon emissions. looking at, well, you know, if we reduce the power a

25:33

little bit here, um, you know, can we turn the, you know, the the processor

25:37

down a little bit, what’s that going to have an impact on 100,000 machines?

25:41

Well, that’s going to reduce our carbon emissions. Well, you can have the same

25:44

kind of approach and mindset when you’re doing this in terms of your

25:48

accessibility programs. And I think that that’s how you you start devolving the

25:53

responsibility for microactions for accessibility across

25:59

the organization. I think that sometimes there is a danger when you say

26:03

accessibility is everybody’s responsibility is that when something is

26:08

everybody’s responsibility, it’s no one’s and no one and people go, “Well, I

26:12

thought I thought this was done. Of course, we were taking care of it, but I

26:15

thought it was someone else that was doing it.” Right? Whereas when you start

26:18

looking at it as sort of microactions and describing well what is it that

26:22

you’re doing in this part of your job that you can then contribute to

26:25

accessibility it becomes less burdensome and people start wanting to do it and it

26:30

becomes part of their normal ways of doing things.

26:33

Okay. I I really like that you when you say that I I have heard the the the

26:37

phrase, you know, SSL is everyone’s responsibility a lot and and and I think

26:43

but in practice you do need some some people some roles and and you know and

26:49

in product there’s a there’s a term called minimum viable product right like

26:52

what’s the minimum you can get away what are you know is there a minimum viable

26:57

are they minimum viable roles that are necessary for an organization to move

27:02

this to to move in this direction. Oh yeah, I mean I would say like first

27:08

to address the minimum viable product. Is it viable if it isn’t inclusive? If

27:12

people can’t use it, is it viable? Now to a certain extent um that depends on

27:17

what your market is, right? you know, um, as as Gareth Ford Williams who XP

27:23

BBC uh, used to say, when you’re discussing accessibility,

27:27

you’re always talking about who are you going to exclude because some people

27:30

will be excluded because there are always compromises in product design.

27:34

Um, so, so you have to think about that. But

27:38

then I think you’re always going to need some level of governance. And so you’re

27:42

going to need a level u a person with a level of knowledge and a level of

27:48

authority to be able to

27:55

to sometimes be the the unpopular person saying actually you

28:01

can’t ship this because you’re not done yet. Um, and so you you need you do need

28:06

to be able to have someone where that they’re empowered to be able to to do

28:12

that if you want to be successful. But they shouldn’t just be Dr. No, right? I

28:18

I actually, you know, if if your accessibility role is Dr. No, then

28:23

there’s something wrong with the way that you’re doing accessibility and

28:27

you’re probably far too too far too far to the right.

28:30

Sure. Right. So, so what you’ve got to be is

28:33

the person that says, “Look, you can do all of this exciting stuff and it’s

28:37

going to open up a world of possibilities to you.” And then

28:40

occasionally you have to sort of rein them back in because they’ve forgotten

28:44

something rather than just constantly being the the blocker.

28:49

Yeah. Does anyone else want to want to answer or you know add to this question

28:54

about like what are some of the what are the minimum roles because often

28:58

organizations either don’t budget for it they they kind of you know there’s some

29:02

lip service around accessibility but there’s no hiring actually happening or

29:07

yeah so Sam go ahead so s this is Sam Evans I think that

29:13

every team or division or unit needs to have at minimum at least one to two

29:19

people that understand how accessibility is part of what they deliver, create,

29:24

contribute, oversee, or are responsible for. So, I think that we’re going to

29:29

find a lot more people that don’t have accessibility in their title, but have

29:33

it as part of their roles and responsibilities. So, I think it really

29:35

does come across to teams, divisions, units, products, product lines, or or

29:41

services. And so if if there’s at minimum one to two people in every unit

29:46

if we’re talking about larger groups, that’s two people that could contribute

29:50

to shifting left, making sure that we aren’t skipping over things too far down

29:55

the timeline or raising questions about have we considered should we this this

30:01

might be a good time to do X Y and Z or hey if if we don’t keep doing it this

30:06

way we could change this and save time later. So having those people built in

30:11

where people understand how accessibility fits what they do in their

30:14

team, unit, vision, whatever, that I think is really going to be where

30:18

success happens larger than just saying people who have accessibility in their

30:22

title. Rob, you want to add or you mean I think

30:29

that lends itself to a thought that I’ve been ruminating on lately, which is the

30:33

accessibility unicorn role. And Sam, I think this is the exact opposite of what

30:36

you’re talking about because I feel like a lot of the roles roles

30:40

that are available right now, if you look on LinkedIn, you look on A1Y jobs,

30:44

you’ll find that they want somebody who knows basically everything about

30:49

accessibility from document to technical web to like JavaScript. Not just what

30:54

does markup need to look like in order for things to be accessible in the

30:58

browser, but how do you write the code to make that markup work? Also, you need

31:02

to know policy. Also, you need to know just like every facet of accessibility

31:07

and the salary is going to be around, you know, 85,000 US or something, right?

31:11

which u I think that Sam’s model is what we need to try to get industry to move

31:16

toward and that’s one of the challenges that I think in the accessibility space

31:19

we might face to an extent and and something I’m trying to do this year is

31:23

figure out where can we carry this message of hiring managers HR technical

31:28

leaders don’t fall into that that trap of creating one position that will know

31:34

everything about accessibility and assuming that that poor human being is

31:39

going to be there after a year number and number two can handle the work the

31:43

work of of the entire organization as opposed to where do we find ways to

31:49

integrate accessibility into the skill sets like Sam was talking about and

31:52

unfortunately I feel like at least and Sam and Neil and Eugene you all are in

31:56

the space as well I don’t know if you can sadly confirm this observation or if

32:01

it’s just some kind of bias I have in kind of scanning what’s out there but I

32:04

feel like increasingly organizations want the accessibility unicorn and I

32:10

think that’s just an unsustainable approach. So, it’s really just kind of I

32:13

think reinforcing Sam what you were talking about by describing the

32:16

antithesis of your idea which does seem to be what’s more prevalent now.

32:23

Neil, go ahead. I definitely want to come in on this

32:25

because um I am observing it in in the job adverts and in the in the market. Um

32:32

and I think that when organizations are asking for that unicorn,

32:38

it immediately tells me that they have a low level of maturity in that

32:43

organization. And we spent years building and I had the privilege to

32:47

build a a pretty large accessibility team. And so people had lots of

32:51

different roles. we had legal councils in the team um and procurement

32:57

specialists and so on. So, so the there so what we did was we uh we were looking

33:02

at things like so job families and so you have a bunch of different skills but

33:06

then you also sort of fit into the complex corporate job ro matrices and so

33:12

I think that as organizations get more mature then you see that there are

33:18

multiple roles for different types of accessibility specialists but you can’t

33:25

necessarily blame organizations for requesting a unicorn when they don’t

33:31

know what they need to look for. And I think that this is where IAP has come

33:36

in. And I, you know, I’ve been a member for a long time and and and part of the

33:42

rationale behind the certifications right from the the get-go was to give

33:46

these organizations that didn’t have accessibility, that didn’t have

33:50

knowledge, at least some kind of uh reassurance that they’re picking someone

33:56

with some kind of knowledge. I think that to a certain extent, your first

34:01

hire is always going to have to be, if not a unicorn, a Swiss Army knife.

34:05

You’re going to have to have multiple different skill sets and apply them in

34:08

different ways. And that as organizations get more mature, you can

34:12

go into these more specialist roles and start scaling out and start devolving

34:19

elements of other roles and developing elements of accessibility into other

34:24

standard roles within the company. But yes, um to be really positive, the fact

34:30

that we’re demanding unicorns means there is an increased demand from new

34:34

companies entering the market wanting to do accessibility. So let’s have the sort

34:39

of the peppy positive spin on it. Yeah. And and and to add to that, Rob, I

34:45

I also have seen seen that and also have have heard of that. Uh and you know, you

34:50

often hear of accessibility uh uh generalists, so to speak. That’s their

34:54

job title. you’re a journalist uh and they they get burned out because they’re

34:58

doing everything from, you know, remediation to, you know, uh uh planning

35:03

to testing uh and and everything. So, and and I I would bet that there’s

35:08

probably a fair amount of our audience who are these unicorns or treated or

35:13

expected to be these unicorns. So, so if you were, you know, to advise someone

35:18

who has that role like the soul one person in a in a, you know, maybe a

35:23

fairly large organization, what can they do to sort of move from a

35:29

more of a unicorn one person uh role to to more of a you know like to a role

35:33

where uh sort of what Sam kind of mentioned where where it is a little bit

35:39

more distributed. This is a question any anyone can answer

35:42

this. I think this is Sam. I’ll I’ll take a a

35:49

first pass at it. I think that the professional generalist where they are

35:53

the one person, the one go-to person, if they can build alliances with other

35:59

team members who have aha moments where they get it, they understand, and they

36:03

can build alliances and in partnerships where they share knowledge with other

36:08

people in their organization. Um, I think that’s where professional

36:11

generalists can I don’t know I don’t want to use a term evangelist but

36:17

conversions to becoming accessibility champions whether it’s formal or not

36:22

that that’s probably the only hope that the professional

36:26

the professional generalists have is to have other people who get excited about

36:30

it intrigued interested share the knowledge and then start to build even

36:33

if it’s organic a distributed model across the organization

36:38

so they’re not the only ones doing the lift.

36:41

Yes. I’ll just add this is Rob. I think that

36:44

they’re well positioned as well to illustrate to leadership the need for

36:48

either more of them or this notion of let’s let’s really start to do what Neil

36:51

was describing. Let’s look at the the role families job families that we have

36:55

and let’s start to to parse this out. So, I I do think that um I like I really

37:00

like the Swiss Army uh analogy, Neil, as opposed to the unicorn because in my

37:05

mind, the unicorn is a dramatically over stuffed position, whereas somebody who

37:08

is, as Sam said, a professional generalist or that Swiss Army knife, I

37:12

think that’s more akin to being something that is more sustainable as a

37:16

role, who can come in and has that perspective to be able to identify where

37:20

accessibility fits and articulate that to leadership. To me, so much of it is,

37:25

well, I’ll I’ll say this. You’re not going to change roles without leadership

37:29

facilitating those changes. And so, I think you need and have an opportunity

37:33

with someone who’s in that Swiss Army knife kind of role to be able to

37:36

articulate to their team lead, their director, help that leadership

37:41

articulate further up. And depending on where that generalist is is located

37:44

within the organization, maybe they have direct access to somebody who’s in the

37:48

seauite to be able to really illustrate this picture a little bit more fully and

37:53

help folks in the seauite begin to, you know, then become advocates to one

37:57

another and and and that’s where I think in a utopian sort of situation that that

38:02

that top-down approach is what’s going to help to really get a place to where

38:06

the the job roles are better defined, etc., etc. But I I see it as working

38:11

across and being most effective when somebody is in that kind of Swiss Army

38:16

professional generalist role, but they’re also positioned where they’re in

38:19

the meetings they need to be in and they have at least the ear of some in

38:23

leadership who can make some of these or facilitate some of these bigger picture

38:27

changes as well. I think that’s um a possible benefit of that role depending

38:32

where it exists in the organization. I’ve also seen those folks like tucked

38:35

into a department way over here on the on the side where they’re not really

38:40

heard and they’re not in a position to hear much themselves and that brings up

38:44

another set of issues and challenges those roles can face as well.

38:48

Okay, so we have some burned out question on the this on the unicorn

38:53

generalist. So I’m going to read them out and any you know any any one of you

38:56

can take a stab at it. Um so the first is uh I you know I would be uh that I’m

39:02

I’m reading the question or comment. I would be that unicorn in that

39:05

organization and I love it. My problem is getting everyone on board with

39:09

accessibility and the only way it has worked uh is to work on contracts with

39:16

the uh where the government requires it. So so I think you know again back to the

39:21

you know the question of that. So uh I think the second so that’s the first

39:26

question. So, how do you get everyone else on board uh if it’s not required?

39:33

Okay. I I think one of the things I’ve learned from

39:39

having a couple of legal specialists uh working for me is that there are far

39:44

greater requirements than people really appreciate. So

39:49

um we were we were operating in 70 countries and we’d identified over 400

39:54

different laws that required um accessibility either directly or

40:01

indirectly. Right? So whether that be procurement

40:05

law, non-discrimination legislation, uh you know adherence with standards,

40:12

right? Actually those requirements are there. it’s it’s finding them and

40:16

because you know a lot of the time these requirements are buried. So so there’s a

40:21

a bunch of detective work that sometimes needs to go on. Um but some of this is

40:26

out there. You can go to Lady Fineold’s website for example and find stuff about

40:31

the the the state of laws around the world. Um we created um a chat bot

40:38

internally called Reggie that people could ask questions about regulations

40:42

and what they needed to do. Um and and so the mandate for accessibility is

40:49

actually far greater. It’s just not enforced and it’s not well known. Right.

40:53

So yeah, you know, the the the laws already on

40:58

your side. It’s just that people don’t know about it. It’s not well publicized

41:02

and it’s certainly not well enforced. So I think communicating about the mandate

41:07

is is is one thing. I also think that the other thing that that that that we

41:14

don’t do enough as a profession in accessibility is show how we can deliver

41:19

profitable services because because most of the time organizations see

41:24

accessibility is the cost center. When you start becoming a profit center as

41:29

well the whole thing changes right companies like to invest in things that

41:34

are profitable. So if you can find angles where some of your work is

41:39

actually delivering margin for the organization, you’re going to carve

41:42

yourself out more budget, that means that you can maybe hire a contractor to

41:46

do some of those specialist tasks. So you’re putting away a couple of the

41:50

blades on your Swiss Army knife and, you know, only keeping the the the cork for

41:54

opening the expensive bottles of wine, which is the most important task. Um so

41:59

so I think that there are those those ways of of of incrementally

42:06

um moving away from being that that that sort of hero person because you can’t do

42:12

that forever. You will burn out and and and also once you’ve communicated about

42:17

it sometimes the only way for organizations to learn is for you to let

42:22

it break because it’s not your responsibility to fix everyone else’s

42:27

mistakes. And so sometimes you have to do that

42:30

that piece where you’re you’re saying to them, I told you that this is going to

42:34

happen. Now it’s happened and now you can actually see

42:39

that it’s cost you money. And and so so sometimes much as we don’t like as

42:45

accessibility professionals to let something ship that’s inaccessible

42:51

or that that is in breach of the contracts and everything else because we

42:55

feel responsible for it. Sometimes you have to become comfortable with letting

43:02

people own their own mistakes and that is really important in in terms of the

43:08

organization starting to understand that this is their responsibility and and and

43:13

so I think that they can take it from from there.

43:18

Oh Sam, go ahead. just going to say to follow up on that

43:22

based on some of the things in chat that I think it’s really important that if

43:25

you’re that one person um that you’ve put in writing to all the folks whose

43:30

things are going to break to let them know you’re trying to help them prevent

43:33

this from breaking and here’s ways to do this. So, I was looking at somebody who

43:37

said they’re burnt out and they’re the only it for your own sake. Find kind

43:42

ways to illustrate this in writing in an ongoing basis where it’s documented and

43:46

shared so that you can show that when the thing does break

43:51

if the fingers point that you can help share where you have handheld and

43:55

offered your opportunities for improvement before the break. So, just

44:00

just a little piece of advice. Yeah, I’m not I’m not saying wash your

44:05

hands of everything and just go I told you so. I think I think that what you

44:08

need to do is be be careful in the way that you do it. Be gracious. Uh but also

44:16

then start logging this stuff and document the cost of inaccessibility

44:22

because once you start demonstrating to the organization the cost of rework, the

44:27

cost of delays and all these kind of stuff and you can calculate this then

44:32

you can show them it’s cheaper to shift left and do it earlier

44:36

and they’ve got within their own organization. It’s not just sort of

44:41

mythical law. Yeah, and there’s actually a comment

44:46

now. Um, so I’m working on showing how what I do with accessibility is saving

44:50

company money or preventing cost for remediation. Uh, never mind the

44:55

litigation prevention. Any advice to the sea to get seuite attention, right? So I

45:01

think kind of very similar to what you guessed. I don’t know if uh you know Rob

45:05

you’ve got you know I know I’ve talked to other guests who’ve talked about sort

45:09

of documenting the quoteunquote ROI of of accessibility and how to present it

45:14

to get seuite or leadership buy in and I think there are some practical

45:19

pieces Neil spoke to the efficiency gains um I remember being at a

45:23

conference a couple of years back and somebody from a firm and I won’t name

45:27

them but it rhymes with Google was talking about how when they were doing

45:31

when they were looking at the amount of time invested in accessibility and they

45:34

were just looking at shifting into um web application design. So, a little bit

45:39

different than document workflows, but I think the logic still carries. They they

45:44

con conservatively figured that any hour that they spent uh doing some evaluation

45:49

on their design artifacts led to at a minimum a savings of 5 hours of uh

45:55

rework if they found something near to or in production. And again, they they

45:58

were pretty conservative. They said it’s probably more than that. So I think that

46:02

you’ve got a practical concern just to reiterate what Neil talked about with

46:05

efficiency of not having to go back and rework. I think that’s something you can

46:09

probably potentially track internally as well and be able to show here are actual

46:13

numbers that we discovered looking at, you know, this one project comparing it

46:17

to other project work. I think from a practical perspective, one of the things

46:20

that and I know we I feel like accessibility has a complex relationship

46:24

with privacy and security, but I’ve come to feel more so that accessibility is

46:30

privacy and security. And I think that we as a field can do a better job of

46:35

intertwining those not just in a workflow manner. Not just saying, “Okay,

46:39

here’s what’s worked with information security. What can we learn and apply

46:43

that to building an accessibility program?” But pointing out that if you

46:46

remove if you remove someone’s ability to independently input a username and a

46:51

password or financial information or personally identifiable information, you

46:56

are exposing your organization to privacy and security risks. and it’s

47:01

just innate within it. And I feel like that’s a part of a conversation that’s

47:05

just kind of beginning to emerge a little bit more in the mainstream

47:08

accessibility space, which I think is is helpful. And I hope it kind of resolves

47:12

some of the tension because there there is tension between the two. Often you’ll

47:16

find that we will say on the accessibility side that security

47:19

measures work against us and vice versa. That happens. But I think that there’s a

47:23

lot that we can work together on and we’ve started to see some emerging

47:27

models particularly I feel like in higher education in the states where

47:30

they are more uh more overtly blending security and accessibility questions

47:35

into one you know vendor questionnaire at procurement for example. So I I just

47:40

think there are a lot of practical things we can look at when it comes to

47:42

trying to illustrate to leadership the gains the the risk mitigation some of

47:46

it’s difficult to quantify but I think some of it with yes a bit of added

47:50

effort you probably can quantify at a very local level to say look if we

47:54

invest this much time here we save this much time in fixing stuff in addition to

47:58

the things that we can’t track the opportunity costs what are we not doing

48:01

while we’re fixing um what are the stressors that come in I think there’s a

48:05

lot of of uh you know kind of relatively easy metrics we can probably track to

48:09

quantify that a bit better as well as just looking at security, improved

48:13

quality, some of these other things that members of leadership might actually

48:16

find resonant. Cool. I want to switch, you know, we’ve

48:20

got about 10 minutes left. I want to switch the conversation uh to tools and

48:25

systems, right? So, I think it’s, you know, training. We we you know, we I

48:29

think everyone understands there’s always training. There is, you know, you

48:33

need uh uh policy, you need some governance. uh but but at the practical

48:37

level you also need tools like and and if you look at like uh you know Rob you

48:41

used the you know higher ed as a as an example you know there are some very big

48:45

tools like the CMS’s and the uh LMS’s and uh and the you know the tools that

48:51

make their documents uh and this is a question for everyone

48:55

not just Rob like what are some tools that you you know you don’t have to

48:59

recommend the exact thing but the types of tools or requirements of tools

49:04

what type of requirements would you need the tools to do to kind of help build

49:08

this system uh that will allow the team you know to shift left right I think a

49:14

lot you know if tools are a sort of part of the structure part of the scaffolding

49:19

that that is very important that often gets you know forgotten and you need to

49:24

spend money on tools too I think that’s the other thing that you know that that

49:28

is uh one of the things that you know if an organization is serious about it they

49:33

not only need to pay for the people they also need to pay for the tools

49:38

So Eugene, I’ll take a first pass at that. I about eight years ago was asked

49:42

to do a teach document access for a higher ed school. What we discovered was

49:48

people they could understand document accessibility, but what they first

49:51

needed to do was learn how to use the tools that are built into the systems

49:55

they have in their office suites. if people can learn how to use that

49:59

tool. So training it became bring your documents, show me what you do. Let’s

50:04

let’s see how it works in your role for your team. When you teach people how to

50:08

use the tools that they already have at hand that the company’s already paid for

50:12

for documents in particular, you can get 75% of the way towards document

50:17

remediation with what’s built in. And then if you understand how to preserve

50:21

it or save it, you can cut time, resources, revenue. So understanding the

50:26

tools that we have in house I think is probably the biggest step

50:31

service level agreements procurement for what tools you buy is a different part

50:35

of the path and I’ll let Robin Neil talk more about that stuff but

50:43

I don’t know Neil you want to like um so so sure I mean I think that um

50:49

yeah you’re not organizations are always looking to find ways to cut costs so

50:54

like to to take point teaching people how to use what they’ve got within their

51:01

their tooling uh is really important. Um you know you can create pretty

51:06

accessible documents using your mainstream uh desktop publishing tools.

51:12

Um if you know how um you can also uh within things like office turn on

51:18

accessibility notifications domainwide.

51:23

Right? So one of the things that I did was I asked our former like I asked our

51:29

our CIO to turn on the accessibility checker across the entirety of the

51:35

company domain. Right? So you can do that. That’s a setting that that the

51:38

system administrator can do. And that that doesn’t mean that everybody’s going

51:42

to suddenly, you know, start making accessible documents, but it means that

51:46

everybody gets nudged, right? And then yes, you do need people that are are

51:51

constantly working on document publishing or they’re doing specific

51:56

roles. Then they then you need to be buying them the right tools that enable

52:00

them to publish their documents um and and make and render them accessible

52:05

without having to go to the accessibility specialists all of the

52:09

time. It should be a a quick check. So um the balance there is is actually um

52:16

getting informed by procurement early enough that the team in Malaysia or um

52:25

Canada is deciding to buy some tools for the team and making sure that those

52:32

tools can actually output something accessible because

52:37

once they’ve bought it, it’s pretty much too late because they’re going to

52:42

thing and and so it’s really, you know, one of the things that’s shifted us left

52:47

has been working with procurement um and and getting those into the sort of

52:52

procurement processes as well and the evaluations of things um of all kinds of

52:57

mainstream tools to make sure that accessibility is a consideration because

53:01

once it’s bought then you’re stuck with it for years maybe,

53:05

you know, because you’re you’re not going to undo purchasing decisions

53:09

quickly. And if you’re in a large enterprise, that might mean hundreds of

53:14

thousands or even millions of documents need to be painfully manually remediated

53:20

for accessibility afterwards. So, so that’s a a really good example of where

53:24

you need to be choosing the right toolings that um can support the

53:28

workflows of the teams and meet their needs, but that also generate accessible

53:34

content. Yeah, agree 100%. And and I think to to

53:40

add to that, you know, there is a role for that, you know, accessibility

53:45

specialist unicorn, whatever you call it. I mean they they they would be and

53:50

the way I see it in in organi you know at least with the with the customers

53:53

that we work with if they come up with templates you know for example in a CMS

53:57

right that are just by default accessible and and you know the the you

54:04

know the people who are creating those pages are not just starting from scratch

54:08

which is often very difficult. they’re starting from a template that is already

54:12

95% accessible and they may just have to add some you know all text all the

54:17

headings are already all tagged properly and all that right so so there is a role

54:22

for uh the tools and for setting up a bunch of templates or design systems or

54:27

whatever you call it essentially the things that everyone else will use uh

54:32

whether it’s for a web page or for a document that uh I mean same with

54:36

documents if you create some presentation templates if people are

54:39

making presentations or you know people are writing documents some document temp

54:43

some common document templates that uh that are you know that are accessible it

54:49

just makes everyone else’s job like you know a lot easier because they don’t

54:53

have to start from scratch 100% agree we I mean we were an

54:57

organization that loved PowerPoint we love doing presentations and and so we

55:01

spent a lot of time working with our marketing and and and coms teams to

55:06

develop accessible uh presentations templates down to, you

55:11

know, um all of the icons and and so on. And what we did was we also got the

55:16

accessibility into the brand bible. So, uh again, so when you were maybe

55:22

contracting that work out and people had to follow the brand guidelines, it was

55:26

written into the branding guidelines as well. So, the creative teams that you

55:30

outsource to then have to also uh create accessible content. So that

55:35

templatization of accessibility whether that be you know in a a repo for

55:40

creating you know applications or in um in your sort of uh in your git for web

55:47

pages or whether it’s in you know in your corporate templates it’s the it’s

55:51

the same approach you know you build it in you make it easy for people. I think

55:56

that the thing that we need to be doing as as accessibility practitioners in the

56:02

space is trying to make it easy for people to do accessibility in their

56:06

jobs. Look to reduce the friction and then people will want to do it because

56:11

it’s easy. Rob, do you want to add to that or

56:18

I I have zero notes. The only point I was going to make on the on the the

56:22

tooling side of what Neil talked about where I feel like that’s one of the

56:25

biggest one of the bigger inhibitors is toolkits that organizations approve that

56:29

uh don’t facilitate accessibility. So yeah, really nothing nothing to add on

56:33

on that front and then with templatization and just you know really

56:36

narrowing narrowing the content and domain expertise people have to have to

56:41

what they need to know as opposed to expecting people to account for

56:45

everything really does reduce that that friction and that tension. So yeah, no,

56:48

no, it’s just reiteration. Okay. Yeah. And so great. And and I I

56:53

think that’s um putting in the grand a brand guide is brilliant. Yeah. I I

56:59

think you know I don’t see a lot of organizations doing that. So So that’s

57:03

that’s that’s a good that’s a I would say that’s a that’s a good tip for sure.

57:10

Yeah. we went and we we we did a an eco brand

57:15

and so we were we were doing things to reduce um energy consumption in our

57:19

brand. So we put stuff into dark mode and we did a color palette but while we

57:22

were doing the color palette we also made sure that that color palette had

57:25

all of the correct color contrast. So so there was a great example of us reducing

57:30

two sets of externalities in one exercise. And it’s those kind of

57:35

multiple wins that you can show offer up to leadership and say here’s a great

57:40

case study that you can go and you know post about that will make you look like

57:46

the the the you know the thought leader in in the space with your other CEOs. So

57:51

I think that yeah finding those little nuggets that you can offer up to to your

57:57

your your seuite also helps you sort of open doors and and more importantly

58:02

wallets and budgets for the things that you want to do later down the line.

58:08

Great. So I think we have one last question on what can we expect to see in

58:12

terms of coming accessibility regulations for organizations beginning

58:16

in April. I believe they are referring to the title two ADA title two changes

58:22

in April. Um, and they’re asking in terms of I’m asking in terms of market

58:27

and if contract work might increase for generalists. Was this knowing at all?

58:34

I think I understand from what I understand they’re asking about the

58:37

market for accessibility generalist is I hope I got that right.

58:43

Um although I’m not sure. Yeah, go ahead, Rob.

58:49

Okay. No, I was just going to say briefly. I mean, I think that

58:52

I think that some of the things that we talked about before, we’re going to

58:54

continue to see magnify where a lot of these public entities in the states

58:58

don’t have the maturity to know what they’re looking for yet. And so I think

59:02

we might see a ballooning of those kind of oversted positions. To Neil’s point

59:07

earlier though, I I do think that organizations, and this is one of the

59:10

first recommendations that I make even before a self assessment, you probably

59:14

need somebody to focus on this within your organization. It’s not something

59:17

that you can add to uh someone else’s plate and expect them to understand some

59:22

of the nuance that’s in the regulations, in technical standards, and in

59:26

organizational behavior. Um, but I I think that we’re going to see a couple

59:30

of different tracks, and I don’t think we’re going to know for sure until

59:33

April. I think a lot of entities are keeping this at arms reach until this

59:36

first deadline coming up in a few months and then I think we’ll really have a

59:39

better handle on what’s going to happen. But it’s kind of unpredictable as a lot

59:43

of things in the states are at this point in time.

59:49

Damn, were you going to say something that I’m not

59:51

I was going to say to Alice’s to the question as I think you’re going to see

59:54

probably about March the deadline is in April around March you’re going to see a

59:59

massive ground swell of so for each title 2 organization they have an ADA

1:00:05

coordinator that has to submit a plan once a year you’re going to find a bunch

1:00:08

of those people have no idea this title two deadline is looming in April and so

1:00:12

there will be a a a fear-based what do we do now how do I find

1:00:18

resources Much like we saw with European Accessibility Act with ADA in 2018, it’s

1:00:24

coming. The market will swell and there’ll be people that are looking for

1:00:28

resources. Okay, very cool. All right, we are out

1:00:32

of time. Um, I want to thank all of our panelists today. Um, uh, Sam, Rob, Neil,

1:00:39

it’s it’s it’s been great having all of you here. Um, we will drop links and

1:00:44

we’re going to send out an email with the I think the link to recording and

1:00:46

links to all of our panelists. You can find all of them on LinkedIn as well.

1:00:50

Um, I think it’s fairly easy to find. But thank you everyone uh for for

1:00:55

attending. It’s been uh it’s been a pleasure and thank you Sam, Rob, and

1:00:59

Neil. Appreciate it. Thank you.

1:01:02

Yeah, you’re welcome. Thank you.

Transcript segment selected at 0:17 seconds

15 - Sur l’accessibilité

Ce que ce document veut montrer : L’accessibilité est au centre de la conception web car elle touche à la manière avec laquelle dont on considère les besoins d’un utilisateur.

L’accessibilité du web signifie que les personnes handicapées peuvent l’utiliser. Plus spécifiquement, elle signifie que ces gens peuvent percevoir, comprendre, naviguer, interagir avec le web, et y contribuer. L’accessibilité du web bénéficie également à d’autres, notamment les personnes âgées ayant des capacités diminuées dues au vieillissement.

C’est un droit universel, selon l’article 9 de la Convention relative aux droits des personnes handicapées adoptée en 2006 par l’Organisation des Nations unies.

État de l’art

Il est difficile de dire si une page web ou un site web est accessible. Les difficultés pour interagir avec le web peuvent provenir de plusieurs facteurs. La mesure de l’accessibilité s’attache à des critères objectifs (qualité du code), à des critères subjectifs (pertinences d’intitulés) ; mais ne prend pas en compte des critères connexes, par exemple : une problématique de configuration serveur.

Néanmoins, savoir tester en détail des interfaces permet de mieux connaître les parcours et de pouvoir recenser les diverses blocages possibles auxquels sont confrontés les utilisateurs.

Études

Lire :

• https://webaim.org/projects/million/#intro
• https://observatoire.numerique.gouv.fr/observatoire/

Ce qui faut retenir :

97,4% des pages d’accueil présentent des échecs WCAG 2 ! Alors que le taux de conformité WCAG est très faible, 21,9 % des pages avaient 5 erreurs détectées ou moins et 29,9 % en avaient 10 ou moins.

WCAG et RGAA

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines et Référentiel Général d’Amélioration de l’Accessibilité.

• Perceptile: Les utilisateurs doivent pouvoir le percevoir d’une manière ou d’une autre, en utilisant un ou plusieurs de leurs sens.
• Opérable: Les utilisateurs doivent pouvoir contrôler les éléments de l’interface utilisateur (par exemple, les boutons doivent être cliquables d’une manière ou d’une autre - souris, clavier, commande vocale, etc.).
• Compréhensible: Le contenu doit être compréhensible pour ses utilisateurs.
• Robuste: Le contenu doit être développé à l’aide de normes Web bien adoptées qui fonctionneront sur différents navigateurs, maintenant et à l’avenir.

Les WCAG sont des recommandations internationales éditées par la Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) . Il s’agit d’un ensemble de tests individuels sur les interfaces (obtenir : A, AA, AAA). Les WCAG n’ont pas de valeur normative : les “techniques WCAG2” sont indicatives. Elles ne tiennent pas compte des choix technologiques propres à chaque projet Web.

Le RGAA définit une méthode technique et propose un cadre opérationnel de vérification de la conformité aux exigences d’accessibilité (obtenir 100%). Le RGAA est orienté explicitement vers des sites dont la base technologique est (X)HTML, même s’il est applicable plus largement.

Lire :

• https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibilité_du_web
• https://design.numerique.gouv.fr/accessibilite-numerique/rgaa/
• https://forum.alsacreations.com/topic-6-41989-1-Rapport-entre-W3C-WCAG-RGAA-et-AccessiWeb.html
• https://koena.net/app/uploads/2019/08/pyramide_wcag_2-1-964x1024.png
• https://koena.net/rgaa-4-1-derive-administrative/
• https://blog.ipedis.com/rgaa-savoir-referentiel-national

Ce qui faut retenir :

Il existe beaucoup de documentations différentes concernant l’accessibilité. Les WCAG sont des normes internationales, le RGAA est une méthode qui s’appliquent aux sites français principalement. Le respect du RGAA permet d’améliorer le niveau d’accessibilité d’un service numérique et d’être conforme à la loi si nécessaire.

Tester l’accessibilité

Référentiel

Un référentiel est une liste de critères à vérifier pour savoir si un site est conforme. Le RGAA est en version 4. Les questions d‘accessibilité évoluent au cours du temps avec le web.

Pour le RGAA, on vérifie si un critère est : conforme (C), non conforme (NC), non applicable (NA).

Lire :

• https://www.numerique.gouv.fr/publications/rgaa-accessibilite/documentation-rgaa/methodologie-test/#contenu
• https://bertrandkeller.github.io/conference-osxp-outil-accessibilite-open-source-etat/

Ce qui faut retenir :

Un audit RGAA comporte des points de tests majoritairement manuels (non automatisables). Il est possible de réaliser certains tests avec une connaissance faible en accessibilité. Suivre le RGAA est un bon moyen de progresser sur le sujet.

Pour réaliser un audit complet (106 critères) seul un auditeur expérimenté peut garantir le résultat.

Le RGAA est une méthode qui demande à chaque partie prenante de prendre en compte l’accessibilité : design, développement, assistance téléphonique, embauches… Chacun doit apporter sa participation.

Ressources

Voici une liste de ressources qui montrent comment aborder l’accessibilité

Lire :

• https://www.marcozehe.de/the-web-accessibility-basics/
• https://www.a11yproject.com/checklist/
• https://moderncss.dev/modern-css-upgrades-to-improve-accessibility/
• https://css-tricks.com/html-inputs-and-labels-a-love-story/
• https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2021/06/complete-guide-accessibility-tooling/
• https://a11y-tools.com/bookmarklets/
• https://choblab.com/gestion-projets/produire-du-contenu-web-accessible-20-regles-faciles-a-appliquer-13389.html
• https://www.accede-web.com/notices/
• http://pauljadam.github.io/a11y-standards/index.html

Exemples

Télécharger :

• https://github.com/lowdit/frago/blob/master/static/grille-criteres-rgaa.csv
• https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/assistant-rgaa/cgpmofepeeiaaljkcclfldhaalfpcand?hl=fr
• https://lowdit.github.io/frago/

Ressources :

• https://www.getstark.co/blog/accessible-contrast-ratios-and-a-levels-explained
• https://html5accessibility.com/stuff/2022/01/10/alt-tag-emptiness/
• https://slides.com/doc_roms/accessibility-a11y/fullscreen

Consulter :

• https://www.htmhell.dev/
• https://design.numerique.gouv.fr/demo/mauvais-exemple/
• https://css-irl.info/dont-forget-the-lang-attribute/
• http://useragentman.com/enable/carousel.php
• https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTqm2yVMMUKWTr9XWdW5hJ9tk512Ow0SE
• https://css-tricks.com/interaction-media-features-and-their-potential-for-incorrect-assumptions/

Conception centrée utilisateurs (UX design)

Méthode

L’accessibilité est une compétence générale à une équipe chargée de développer un service numérique. Attention, rendre un site accessible est plus une question de posture que de compétence technique. Le plus dur est de dépasser la question de biais cognitifs personnels pour s’intéresser concrètement aux freins que rencontrent les personnes les plus en difficulté.

Lire :

• https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/involving-users/fr
• https://www.24joursdeweb.fr/2021/en-gestion-de-projet-on-ne-laisse-pas-laccessibilite-dans-un-coin/
• https://bertrandkeller.info/2021/11/18/industrialisation-massive-numerique/

Design

L’accessibilité concerne souvent particulièrement la validée du code HTML ; les ressources design existent mais ne sont pas forcément fréquentes. Pourtant, c’est bien en amont que les sujets d’accessibilité se décident. L’accessibilité doit être intégré au processus de design d’un service web. C’est une compétence qui se forge avec l’expérience.

Lire :

• https://design-accessible.fr/
• https://fr.slides.access42.net/uxrennes2017/ - https://fr.slides.access42.net/uxrennes2017/slides/
• https://newflux.fr/2016/11/05/les-bonnes-pratiques-pour-concevoir-pour-laccessibilite/
• https://stephaniewalter.design/fr/blog/accessibilite-et-couleurs-outils-et-ressources-pour-concevoir-des-produits-accessible/
• https://apf-conseil.com/good-design-playbook/
• https://www.pierrelaine.fr/articles-ux-ui-design/design-inclusif-definition-principes.html
• https://design-accessible.fr/checklist