Re: My Thoughts on User content, 3rd party content and conformance

Hi Allastair

Good questions as always Alastair.

My responses to your questions are inline so they make more sense


Hi Gregg,
 
On this point:
user entered data is not part of page - and is not covered by WCAG.   
I’m not sure what mechanism in WCAG would allow you to differentiate that?

I was suggesting we do it with the two rules provided in the email.  With the distinguishing bit being "is contribution a work for hire".   You listed my #1 — the answer is actually in #2 

 2)  Third party provided parts of a page created by any contractors the author hired to are part of the page   and are covered by WCAG.   
These are considered as part of the page whether created by an employee of the company, a contract employee, or an outside contractor of the company (anyone paid by the company to create content for their site)
For example — I have someone design my home page for me,    I have a second company create the site map for me,  and I have a third company do my search function and a 4th do my check out page.       All of those need to be accessible for me to claim accessibility of my site.   And since all are functions of the use of the site - I can't claim the other parts as accessible if these are not since these are part of the process of using the other pages in the site

 (I assume you mean in WCAG 2.x?)

Not sure what you mean here.  This was a contribution to the discussions about what we should do in WCAG 3. I thought it was clear that these were just my thoughts on where we should be going  from here on WCAG  ie  WCAG 3
from the subject line
"My Thoughts on User content,  3rd party content and conformance"
And my intro to the email   
"I can’t make the conformance call due to conflicts but here are my thoughts if they are useful in the discussion/"
And my closing 
"I of course - reserve the right to change my mind an any and all of the above - based on input from, and arguments of, others as we go forward. But these are my thoughts at this juncture in the discussion." 

I’d agree that whilst the user is inputting the content, that wouldn’t be covered.a
However, once saved and part of the page (for that user and other users), why isn’t that covered?

Because, for one - that would mean that all email providers would have to read your email and make it accessible before delivering it to your recipient. 
For example  -  An email company offers a web app for email —  they are not responsible for what a person types into an email
The same company displays that email to the receiver of the email via their app - they still are not responsible for the accessibility of that email 

I was trying to differentiate someone who is just passing information along - from someone who paid you for your content and is now reselling it.  Hence my #2  (above)

If there is a way of differentiating in WCAG 3 and putting the responsibility on policy makers, that could be useful (done carefully).

Yes I think so.  3 bullets
If it deals with what makes something accessible - and whether it is technically feasible/practical and being done today as best practice  - it goes in WCAG 
(we don’t want to require things we don’t know how to do,  or would not do / are not doing ourselves on our sites - or at least are not being done on the best sites because they are too hard to do.  For example we would not require that every video on the internet have a sign language interpreter in the corner to be accessible - not because some people wouldn’t need it but because there are not enough interpreters in the world to do this with a tiny fraction of the video online — or posted online every minute
If it is not done or practical today - but will be practical in the future — then we can list it as a note or recommendation ( or level AAA as was done for sign language in WCAG 2) 
And then we add it to the WCAG when it becomes practical  (which sign language will be in a decade or so - when auto speech to sign language will become practical. But in that case - the real should probably be that all audio should be "programmatically decipherable" so that users can choose the sign language interpretation the choose with the verbosity they chose  (similar to screen readers access to visual content today). 
If it has to do with 
WHO needs to make something accessible — or 
WHAT has to be made accessible (e.g. new, old, archive content) - or 
HOW FAST something needs to be accessible  (when created, when acquired, when posted) etc. 
THEN - it is policy -not WCAG
That is WCAG is the ruler — but not the rule.  WCAG creates the measure of accessibility but POLICY says who needs to follow it where and when. 

Also, this whole area is a bit of a continuum. 

Totally agree

For example, you can get a 3rd party service that provides user-reviews. (E.g, on this page <https://www.booking.com/hotel/gb/exhipoole.en-gb.html?aid=304142&label=gen173nr-1FCAEoggI46AdIM1gEaFCIAQGYAQm4AQfIAQ_YAQHoAQH4AQyIAgGoAgO4Ao7PrKMGwAIB0gIkMDlkNDVjZGUtMzcyMS00Y2ExLWI0MGQtYzc0OWZkYzMwNDk12AIG4AIB&sid=34aa4e969f3e5910ee318e15b7326e53&all_sr_blocks=22076905_94352111_2_33_0;checkin=2023-06-17;checkout=2023-06-25;dest_id=1098;dest_type=region;dist=0;group_adults=2;group_children=0;hapos=1;highlighted_blocks=22076905_94352111_2_33_0;hpos=1;matching_block_id=22076905_94352111_2_33_0;no_rooms=1;req_adults=2;req_children=0;room1=A%2CA;sb_price_type=total;sr_order=popularity;sr_pri_blocks=22076905_94352111_2_33_0__133918;srepoch=1684744094;srpvid=aefd3b8e6a000038;type=total;ucfs=1&#tab-reviews> select “Guest reviews”). 
So that is both delivered by a 3rd party and based on what users have entered. In that example the user-content is simple text, but I’m sure there are others which include more structured text and non-text content.

To your last point - I don’t think whether it is plain text or not should matter ( and it looks like you don’t either?)

But to your main question
I think the question here is — did they pay for those or are they just passing them on
HOWEVER — you hit directly on what I think is a gray area here.  And I don’t know what to do with it.  Hope our discussions give us a path
What if they don’t pay for the reviews but they SELL THEM.   However they don’t SELL them to the viewers — the sell the viewers  eyeballs to an advertiser.  
That is — I run a review site.  I don’t pay for the reviews - and I don’t charge the viewers to look at the reviews.  BUT I AM PAID by advertisers, based on the number of people who visit my page.    So I am selling that content.   Does it need to be accessible?
The question is 
Is this a case of me just passing user content on?
Or is this a case of me providing a service I am paid for with add revenue.
The content isnt work for hire
But the content IS a site that I created to do business - the the reviews are my business
There is also the question about whether I have the right to change a review to make it into "plain language" or to even provide a "plain language’ interpretation of what someone wrote.   This is a related problem we will have. 


Cheers,
-Alastair

So that is where I am at right now.   If we stay away from the gray area — we are fine.  But I don’t yet see a path or logic path through the gray area.  Hoping someone else does.

(The gray areas are always what gets us ( and all standards writers)

Thanks  
gregg

———————————
 

> On May 22, 2023, at 1:51 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Gregg,
>  
> On this point:
> user entered data is not part of page - and is not covered by WCAG.   
> I’m not sure what mechanism in WCAG would allow you to differentiate that? (I assume you mean in WCAG 2.x?)
> 
> I’d agree that whilst the user is inputting the content, that wouldn’t be covered.
> 
> However, once saved and part of the page (for that user and other users), why isn’t that covered?
> 
> If there is a way of differentiating in WCAG 3 and putting the responsibility on policy makers, that could be useful (done carefully).
> 
> Also, this whole area is a bit of a continuum. For example, you can get a 3rd party service that provides user-reviews. (E.g, on this page <https://www.booking.com/hotel/gb/exhipoole.en-gb.html?aid=304142&label=gen173nr-1FCAEoggI46AdIM1gEaFCIAQGYAQm4AQfIAQ_YAQHoAQH4AQyIAgGoAgO4Ao7PrKMGwAIB0gIkMDlkNDVjZGUtMzcyMS00Y2ExLWI0MGQtYzc0OWZkYzMwNDk12AIG4AIB&sid=34aa4e969f3e5910ee318e15b7326e53&all_sr_blocks=22076905_94352111_2_33_0;checkin=2023-06-17;checkout=2023-06-25;dest_id=1098;dest_type=region;dist=0;group_adults=2;group_children=0;hapos=1;highlighted_blocks=22076905_94352111_2_33_0;hpos=1;matching_block_id=22076905_94352111_2_33_0;no_rooms=1;req_adults=2;req_children=0;room1=A%2CA;sb_price_type=total;sr_order=popularity;sr_pri_blocks=22076905_94352111_2_33_0__133918;srepoch=1684744094;srpvid=aefd3b8e6a000038;type=total;ucfs=1&#tab-reviews> select “Guest reviews”). 
> 
> So that is both delivered by a 3rd party and based on what users have entered. In that example the user-content is simple text, but I’m sure there are others which include more structured text and non-text content.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -Alastair
>