Rectifying Rumors Regarding Readability
We have been made aware of a small group of individuals obstructing the work toward actual accessibility as it pertains to visual readability. Their underlying motivations may seem unclear, though recent insights have implied motivations that are far from altruistic. The visible-yet-vacuous toxic personalities opposing the subject matter, are posturing to feed off a narcissistic supply at the expense of the community. And the cognitive dissonance they have caused through their manipulation, has created a divisive bitterness in the a11y community.
Some of this has impacted the internal politics of the W3C’s AGWG, inflaming an untenable and ongoing problem. Our proactive response, to maintain momentum and continue the work and development, has been founding the non-profit Inclusive Reading Technologies, Inc. The APC-Readability Criterion is a public working draft, and provides solid and useful guidance for designers to ensure visual accessibility and improved readability for all users. APC-RC guidelines are derived from the decades of peer-reviewed readability research, as detailed in the several bibliographies contained within.
Legislatures should be aware that portions of WCAG 2 are not fit for use in law or regulation; if it were a voluntary guideline, the potential for harm would not be such a concern, but when elevated to statute law, the potential for harm is unacceptable. The unfortunate part here is that the serious problems of WCAG 2’s contrast SCs cast a dark shadow on other important aspects of WCAG 2.
Moreover, the nature of the problems with WCAG 2 SCs 1.4.3 and 1.4.11, if elevated to law, result in the blocking of improved and more accessible visual content guidelines, and this is due to the poorly conceived “backwards compatible” rule of WCAG 2.x, which demands that passing a future version automatically passes a former version—a nonsensical stipulation that literally blocks progress and emerging technologies—not to mention blocking the correction of errors or mistakes, as is the case with the significantly incorrect 1.4.3 & 1.4.11.
These two SCs directly affect the vast majority of visual web content, yet neither is supported by science, nor peer review, nor testing. WCAG 2’s contrast math/methods do not support actual accessibility, and in fact can result in conditions that are worse for those with color vision deficiencies. The understanding docs of WCAG 2.x contain false or misleading information, and the premise lacks scientific support. 1.4.3 and 1.4.11 should not be incorporated into any laws nor regulations. This could be said of a few other SCs, but these two in particular have resulted in the greatest misunderstandings, and the greatest harm to users and readability.
A critical view of a particular group’s actions here and elsewhere, clearly reveal a motivation to obstruct the progress toward correcting these errors in WCAG 2. This cannot be allowed to stand. Fixing the significant problems of web content readability is one we take seriously, as is evidenced by our continued development of free-to-use guidelines and technologies.
Considering that the emergence of the World Wide Web created a content distribution system that effectively replaced traditional print. This fact created an obligation for supporting effective readability of digital content. The importance of this should not be underestimated. Inadaquate or improper standards for visually readable content results in high visual fatigue, inaccessible content, and ultimately reduced reading for a majority of the population.
By some measures, reading has decreased by as much as 40% over the last two decades. A seven word meme does not convey understanding the way a seven hundred or seven thousand word article can. Projecting forward, the societal consequence is dystopian at best. A public that does not read is a public shrouded in ignorance, leading to a public ripe for manipulation—as history has shown us all too often.
Consider this when you ask why certain individuals are opposed to improving visual accessibility and readability of digital content.
Thank you for reading,
Andy
Andrew Somers
Director of Research
Inclusive Reading Technologiues, Inc.
A California Non-Profit Research Organization
For more background on APCA and Readability, you may find these links helpful: