The Doom of the old Accessibility Veterans
In my perspective, the mood in the accessibility scene has become negative in recent years. The latent aggressiveness that we otherwise find in society has also spread in this area.
Toxic communication style
I don't mean all professionals. I have read mostly constructive contributions from many people. One example is Eric Eggert, who I find to be very objective, even if I don't share most of his assessments and perhaps he has the same opinion on my views. I can disagree without personally attacking anyone.
I certainly recognize the achievements of these people and do not want to appear disrespectful. Nevertheless, I believe that the point has been passed where everything should be allowed to pass without comment. The communication of these people also harms accessibility. Since it is predominantly these people who speak at conferences and are publicly associated with the topic, they have a great responsibility. They no longer behave responsible.
- They falsify and narrow the discourse by misrepresenting or distorting the arguments of critical people.
- They scare off people who don't like this style of discussion or who don't dare to take a critical stance on it.
- They scare people away from the topic of digital accessibility. Why should you get involved with new, innovative ideas when the oldbies think everything is stupid anyway except the WCAG?
- They promote general discontent through their negativity. The statement that everything will get worse or that politicians are doing nothing is generalizing and factually largely incorrect, but it has a demotivating effect on people who work in this area.
Unfortunately, aggressive and negative postings have more reach: they are shared more, flushed up by the algorithms, spread even more, and so on. Anyone who doesn't complain but is constructive doesn't appear in the timelines.
It's true that I also swear a lot or make fun of certain things. However, I always try to be constructive. Nor do I attack individuals or attempt to question their integrity. You don't have to put a person down because you disagree with them. I would also like to exclude the criticism from disabled people: It is often frustrating when you encounter barriers. Here too, one should criticize an institution, not individuals, and one should always try to remain objective.
I know that a lot of this isn't noticed in this country or outside the accessibility bubble, so let me give you three examples from the last few months:
- Mike Paciello, founder of the Paciello Group, has moved to Audio Eye. Audio Eye is one of the accessibility overlay providers and has therefore been criticized a lot, as has Paciello for his decision to start there. Now I don't know him personally and don't want to judge his motives. But it's safe to say he's committed to accessibility. We don't know what he will do at Audio Eye, but you shouldn't attack him personally, as you have seen on many social media channels.
- In general, the overlay providers: Yes, many of them have a questionable strategy and the legal action against their critics doesn't reflect well on them either. But it makes no sense to lump them all together. Some of them seem genuinely interested in accessibility. To call them “scamming scammers,” as Paul Adam did on Facebook, is not very constructive. Whenever a representative of such a provider writes something, he or she is often personally attacked, regardless of the content. The overlay providers offer enough points of attack for objective criticism.
- Last but not least there is the discussion on Jakob Nielsen, which I have presented a little here. Adrian Roseli writes "Jakob has jumped the shark". In the article, further attacks on Nielsen are made, so he is brought close to the right because he publishes on Substack. Steve Frenzel titled his contribution “Shut up Jakob”. Is this the style of discourse we want? Very few reviews were actually related to the content of Nielsen's post, but rather focused on Nielsen's person and the title of his post. For the sober reader it is clear who has obviously passed his peak here. A self-confident scene doesn't need such tones.
The sound makes the music
Of course, everyone can criticize anything and the criticism doesn't always have to make sense. But it should be factual and constructive. Now, of course, everyone is free to express unobjective and even offensive criticism, as long as it remains within the legal framework. What surprises me, however, is that such posts are shared so excessively, probably by people who have only read headlines. But even that should be enough to become critical. After all, we are dealing with educated and qualified people who probably also maintain a polite tone in their private lives.
The Swedish physician Hans Rosling, who has unfortunately already passed away, summarized the motives well. People believe they are morally right. This is illustrated by the example of the Last Generation: If you believe that you are the last bastion before the climate apocalypse, every means seems justified, including coercion and questioning democratic processes. The opponents of these groups do the same thing: because they believe they are morally right, insults and physical attacks appear justified in their eyes. If you're right, everything is allowed. The margin between morally right and self-righteous is very narrow. The same phenomenon can also be seen among some accessibility professionals, which may be why they have such a wide reach. Anyone who wants something good and is loud must somehow be right, true?
For lack of other terms, the second motive could be described as “offended liver sausage syndrome”. For decades, the WCAG nerds have set the tone for the accessibility discussion. Disabled people were occasionally tolerated as keyword givers, but these cheeky overlay providers, AI fuzzies and then Nielsen, who seems to question everything they have done in the last 25 years - that was probably too much. Nielsen alone probably has more reach than all A11Y professionals combined.
But I also see flawless paternalism towards disabled people among some people. Karl Marx loved the workers and loathed the worker as an individual. Many BF professionals love accessibility and believe they have to defend disabled people who they believe cannot defend themselves. In many of them, especially in Germany, but also globally, I sense this slight condescension that is also shown towards small children. As I said, these are by no means all of them, but unfortunately there are a few well-known names that are often heard speaking at events. They are often not aware of it, but you can tell by their expressions and attitude. But they would reject it indignantly if you asked them about it. It can be seen, for example, that hardly any German agency employs a disabled person or works regularly with them. Disabled people are almost always viewed as those affected and very rarely treated as experts. That's why I rarely comment on online forums anymore.
Many also believe that excessive polemics can reinforce or replace arguments, as seen in the criticism of Nielsen. Nielsen's core thesis that disabled people have a poor user experience despite digital accessibility has not been taken up by any of his critics. This is probably due, among other things, to the fact that most of them do not have any disabilities. Most disabled people will at least agree with Nielsen's statement. Whether his conclusions are correct is another matter.
The final motivation comes from the followers: They share such posts because it shows that they are on the right side, probably out of a guilty conscience because they themselves do nothing for accessibility or disabled people. From experience, they didn't read the posts and didn't understand the discussion at all. Just followers. A like here, a share there and you've refilled your karma account.
The next generation is already at the start
The word generation, as it is meant here, has nothing to do with age, there is no clear connection, young people can have a tendency towards catastrophism like the last generation and older people are often very progressive and constructive. By generation I mean the group that currently dominates communication, especially on social media, and who are allowed to speak a lot at conferences. When I talk to other people who aren't in the spotlight so much, they often agree with me. Many people are critical of the old veterans harsh tone, the noisiness, the paternalism, the hostility to innovation or the WCAG-centeredness.
But the general social trend of diversification can also be seen here. For example, it was only on LinkedIn that I noticed how many people of Indian origin are active in the topic. There are also well over half women working on the issue, but we prefer to listen to non-disabled male Westerners as if we were trapped in the 80s.
When I look at the articles that we have distributed via the newsletter in recent years, hardly any of the A11Y veterans appear there, simply because I haven't read anything from them in a long time, somehow would be helpful or worth considering.
As I have said many times, the era of male and non-disabled dominance at the forefront of accessibility is over. My little needle pricks are intended to help this process move faster. And you can also help by demanding or implementing more participation by disabled people and more diversity in teams and at events, if this is within your power.
Do you have a different opinion than me? That is okay as long as you don't attack me personally.