About
Activity
4K followers
-
Steven Faulkner shared thisAKA Résumé in lieu of a professional accessibility qualification
-
Steven Faulkner shared this“Cosmetic rebrands do not remove bias. They just wrap the bias in a prettier envelope.”Steven Faulkner shared thisEvery six months or so, a post will cross my feed where someone is proposing to change the language around assistive technology. Wheelchair is bad, Personal Mobility Device is good. Prosthetic is bad, Smart Limb Technology is good. I was astonished by the last one I saw, where several very well-known accessibility leaders commented positively on the post. Here is why I think rebranding is a terrible idea. These proposals almost never come from disabled people. They come from people who think the vocabulary around disability needs to be glossier to sound more modern and less harsh to the non-disabled ear. These people often assert that disabled people are responsible for the lack of development funding due to non-disabled investors' discomfort investing because of the vocabulary. The people proposing these changes are doing nothing more than comfort management for the audience with power instead of centering the people who live the experience. Disabled people own this language. The function and meaning belong to us. Renaming our tools without us repeats the same pattern that gave the world “differently abled” and "special needs." Those phrases did not improve anything. It just hid disability behind soft wording so that non-disabled people did not have to say the "D" word. Cosmetic rebrands do not remove bias. They just wrap the bias in a prettier envelope. Pretending the device is something else does not reduce stigma. It does not make curb cuts appear in front of entryways or magically fix elevators, to paraphrase Stella Young. It just makes the non-disabled speaker feel better while everything around the person using the technology stays the same. If a group that actually uses the device wants a new word, that is different. Agency matters. What is not acceptable is outsiders doing linguistic cleanup to avoid their own discomfort. Disability bias is not solved by renaming our equipment. The answer is to solve the root cause of the bias, which is to ask and answer the question of why non-disabled people flinch when they hear the original words. #Bias #Inclusion #Disability #Language
-
Steven Faulkner shared thisIn Grok we don’t trust: academics assess Elon Musk’s AI-powered encyclopediaIn Grok we don’t trust: academics assess Elon Musk’s AI-powered encyclopedia
-
Steven Faulkner reposted thisSteven Faulkner reposted thisThe below is not legal advice, but having done this for as long as I have, it constantly astonishes me how little people on accessibility teams understand about the innards of litigation. Once a lawsuit is filed, there is a process called "discovery" where the opposing party can request documents on various topics. What is required to be produced during the discovery phase of accessibility disputes does not stop at formal audits. If the information is not protected by attorney client or work product privilege and it contains relevant facts about accessibility knowledge or decisions, the company (or its employees!) can be compelled to turn it over. Items that can be ordered to be produced include: 1) AI queries to Claude, ChatGPT, Bard or any other generative AI about accessibility defects or remediation 2) Prompts and output from code generators that created or “fixed” inaccessible code 3) Free accessibility scans, even if your organization said it did not rely on the results 4) Slack and Teams threads discussing accessibility defects, waivers, or “workarounds” 5) Email threads about deferring or accepting accessibility risk 6) Spreadsheets that tracked accessibility issues outside of the official backlog 7) User research notes showing accessibility barriers were known and accepted 8) Meeting minutes and slide decks that mention accessibility 9) Training records showing that employees did (or didn't) complete accessibility training related to their role. 10) Procurement files disclosing known accessibility risk in vendor and product analysis and the decision to proceed 11) Customer support calls and transcripts that show disabled users reported barriers that were not addressed 12) Zoom, Teams, or Meet recordings where accessibility risk was acknowledged or deferred. 13) Private messages on personal phones when used for work-related accessibility discussions. People constantly misjudge what is discoverable in US litigation because they think draft status or the fact that a communication was personal, individual, or unofficial means the documents are "out of scope." Courts care about content and relevance, not the app it was associated with or the device it is contained on. If you do not want something related to accessibility at your organization discoverable, the only lawful path is to work through counsel under privilege and follow their advice. Calling something a draft or putting it on a personal phone does not make it safe. This is just one of the reasons accessibility litigation is so high-risk. Imagine having to turn over your personal phone for months (or longer - the Domino's case took 6 years to resolve) because you had a kvetch-fest with a friend about a bad accessibility issue at work. #Accessibility #Disability #Litigation
-
Steven Faulkner shared thisNote: this is not me negging professional qualifications for accessibility. Although from some of the comments people have taken it to be
-
Steven Faulkner reposted thisSteven Faulkner reposted thisJAWS 2026 now requires login to streamline sending user data to OpenAI. By choosing cloud AI, Vispero seems to have taken on-device AI off the table. Where does privacy fit? JAWS 2026’s new Page Explorer feature looks like a fantastic innovation. It gives screen reader users instant AI-powered summaries of web page layouts, main content, and navigation tips. This solves real problems. Complex web pages are hard to understand element-by-element, and Page Explorer could transform that experience. But here's what troubles me: Vispero isn't even hosting their own models. According to their AI Privacy Statement, they're acting as a "pass-through" to OpenAI and Anthropic. Every page you analyze with Page Explorer, every image you process with PictureSmart, every question you ask FSCompanion goes from Vispero to OpenAI. By making the Vispero account mandatory and tying core functionality to cloud AI, they're making a bet about the future. They're saying: on-device AI won't solve these problems. Users either share their data with us and our partners, or they continue to have the same inaccessible experience they have today. The sad thing is, I think there’s a much better potential future here. One where on-device AI models, purpose-built for accessibility, could provide page summaries, image descriptions, and navigation assistance without sending anything to the cloud. Where the most privacy-sensitive assistive technology could also be the most innovative. That future requires investment. R&D. Belief that it's possible. Vispero's decision suggests they don't believe in that path, or don't want to invest in it. Cloud AI is cheaper to build, easier to update, and creates ongoing service revenue. I understand why that's attractive from a business perspective. But for users who have no real alternatives to JAWS, who are paying $1,000+ for the software, and who are now being asked to pipe their digital lives to cloud AI services, is this right for them? I think we’re at a crossroads in AI accessibility. On-device models can do these things; maybe not as well as the big cloud-based ones, but often close enough. I don’t know what Vispero is cooking up internally, but I seriously hope it isn’t all cloud-based AI. https://lnkd.in/ehSqHQVx https://lnkd.in/ed5mdGiw
-
Steven Faulkner liked thisSteven Faulkner liked thisCelebrating 26 years of accessibility innovation with Steven Faulkner! Few people have shaped the modern web’s accessibility standards and tools as much as Steve. From his early days developing the Web Accessibility Toolbar and Colour Contrast Analyser to co-editing key W3C specifications, Steve’s influence runs deep through the foundations of digital accessibility. Across nearly three decades, Steve has: • Defined standards: co-edited HTML5, HTML Accessibility API Mappings (AAM), and ARIA in HTML, helping to embed accessibility into the core of web technology • Built essential tools: developed the Web Accessibility Toolbar, the original Colour Contrast Analyser, and the Screen Reader HTML Support Lookup • Advocated through research and writing: authored seminal articles for TPGi, HTML5 Doctor, HTML Accessibility, and now the TetraLogical blog • Led by example: represented the industry within W3C working groups and helped ensure accessibility specifications reflect implementation reality. Today, as a Director at TetraLogical, Steve leads our accessibility assessment service, helping customers understand how their products meet accessibility standards and where practical improvements can make the biggest difference. He continues to influence accessibility practice and policy while sharing his deep expertise with customers, colleagues, and the wider community. You can read Steve’s full professional history here: https://lnkd.in/ePUu9tUK
-
Steven Faulkner liked thisSteven Faulkner liked thisThe below is not legal advice, but having done this for as long as I have, it constantly astonishes me how little people on accessibility teams understand about the innards of litigation. Once a lawsuit is filed, there is a process called "discovery" where the opposing party can request documents on various topics. What is required to be produced during the discovery phase of accessibility disputes does not stop at formal audits. If the information is not protected by attorney client or work product privilege and it contains relevant facts about accessibility knowledge or decisions, the company (or its employees!) can be compelled to turn it over. Items that can be ordered to be produced include: 1) AI queries to Claude, ChatGPT, Bard or any other generative AI about accessibility defects or remediation 2) Prompts and output from code generators that created or “fixed” inaccessible code 3) Free accessibility scans, even if your organization said it did not rely on the results 4) Slack and Teams threads discussing accessibility defects, waivers, or “workarounds” 5) Email threads about deferring or accepting accessibility risk 6) Spreadsheets that tracked accessibility issues outside of the official backlog 7) User research notes showing accessibility barriers were known and accepted 8) Meeting minutes and slide decks that mention accessibility 9) Training records showing that employees did (or didn't) complete accessibility training related to their role. 10) Procurement files disclosing known accessibility risk in vendor and product analysis and the decision to proceed 11) Customer support calls and transcripts that show disabled users reported barriers that were not addressed 12) Zoom, Teams, or Meet recordings where accessibility risk was acknowledged or deferred. 13) Private messages on personal phones when used for work-related accessibility discussions. People constantly misjudge what is discoverable in US litigation because they think draft status or the fact that a communication was personal, individual, or unofficial means the documents are "out of scope." Courts care about content and relevance, not the app it was associated with or the device it is contained on. If you do not want something related to accessibility at your organization discoverable, the only lawful path is to work through counsel under privilege and follow their advice. Calling something a draft or putting it on a personal phone does not make it safe. This is just one of the reasons accessibility litigation is so high-risk. Imagine having to turn over your personal phone for months (or longer - the Domino's case took 6 years to resolve) because you had a kvetch-fest with a friend about a bad accessibility issue at work. #Accessibility #Disability #Litigation
-
Steven Faulkner liked thisSteven Faulkner liked thisEntrepreneur receives offers from all judges on BBC showEntrepreneur receives offers from all judges on BBC show
-
Steven Faulkner reacted on thisSteven Faulkner, Sophie Drouvroy, Audrey Maniez, ✅ Implemented in a new Accessibility Param: Images and Videos : "Remplace by text" feature... My Jedi Kittens send you love to you all. 🫶 Now English version: ignition Count-down starts... 😅 got already the accronym of JEDI: Juvenile Entrepreneur Digging the Immersive. HahahaSteven Faulkner reacted on thisHello Steven Faulkner, Audrey Maniez I hope you are well. ☺️ I am appealing to your wisdom: I have redesigned the website dedicated to my micro-business in immersive technologies and accessibility. https://ilargia.eu (English version is on the way) There are three Easter eggs in it (videos of Jedi kittens with lightsabers). Do not ask me why but Easter eggs like Cats for the web are very very important in the world of virtual reality for anyone who has seen the movie “Ready Player One.” However, I am wondering about their accessibility. Should I provide a description of these videos for SR? Because, according to the mantra of my late mentor Jean-Pierre Villain, "Everyone should have access to the same bullshit." #a11y #vr #xr
Experience & Education
-
W3C
View Steven’s full experience
See their title, tenure and more.
or
Publications
-
Notes on Using ARIA in HTML
W3C
This document is intended as a practical guide for developers. It suggests what ARIA attributes to use on HTML elements. Suggestions are based on implementation realities.
Other authors -
-
ARIA in HTML
W3C
See publicationThis specification defines the web developer rules (author conformance requirements) for the use of [wai-aria-1.1] attributes on [HTML51] elements. It also defines requirements for Conformance Checking tools.
-
HTML Accessibility API Mappings 1.0
W3C
See publicationHTML Accessibility API Mappings defines how user agents map HTML 5.1 elements and attributes to platform accessibility application programming interfaces (APIs). It leverages and extends the Core Accessibility API Mappings 1.1 and the Accessible Name and Description: Computation and API Mappings 1.1 for use with the HTML 5.1 host language. Documenting these mappings promotes interoperable exposure of roles, states, properties, and events implemented by accessibility APIs and helps to ensure…
HTML Accessibility API Mappings defines how user agents map HTML 5.1 elements and attributes to platform accessibility application programming interfaces (APIs). It leverages and extends the Core Accessibility API Mappings 1.1 and the Accessible Name and Description: Computation and API Mappings 1.1 for use with the HTML 5.1 host language. Documenting these mappings promotes interoperable exposure of roles, states, properties, and events implemented by accessibility APIs and helps to ensure that this information appears in a manner consistent with author intent.
-
HTML5 A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML
W3C
This specification defines the 5th major revision of the core language of the World Wide Web: the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML). In this version, new features are introduced to help Web application authors, new elements are introduced based on research into prevailing authoring practices, and special attention has been given to defining clear conformance criteria for user agents in an effort to improve interoperability.
Other authors -
-
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives
W3C
See publicationThis document contains best practice guidance for authors of HTML [HTML5] documents on providing text alternatives for images.
-
5 HTML5 & ARIA design patterns
Netmag
With HTML5 and ARIA now in regular use across the web, several design patterns are emerging that solve common scenarios. This article takes five HTML5
and ARIA design patterns and explains why they make good design choices.
Other authors -
-
The main element - An HTML5 extension specification
See publicationThis specification is an extension to the HTML5 specification. It defines an element to be used for the identification of the main content area of a document. All normative content in the HTML5 specification, unless specifically overridden by this specification, is intended to be the basis for this specification.
The main element formalises the common practice of identification of the main content section of a document using the id values such as 'content' and 'main'. It also defines an…This specification is an extension to the HTML5 specification. It defines an element to be used for the identification of the main content area of a document. All normative content in the HTML5 specification, unless specifically overridden by this specification, is intended to be the basis for this specification.
The main element formalises the common practice of identification of the main content section of a document using the id values such as 'content' and 'main'. It also defines an HTML element that embodies the semantics and function of the WAI-ARIA landmark role=main.
Recommendations received
5 people have recommended Steven
Join now to viewOther similar profiles
Explore collaborative articles
We’re unlocking community knowledge in a new way. Experts add insights directly into each article, started with the help of AI.
Explore MoreOthers named Steven Faulkner in United Kingdom
-
Steven Faulkner
An experienced senior executive, building and managing securities and payments infrastructure globally.
-
Steven Faulkner
Retired former soldier, engineer & business leader
-
Steven Faulkner
Business Development Manager at Allan Liddle Steel
-
Steven Faulkner
Advanced Chief Engineer at Openreach
132 others named Steven Faulkner in United Kingdom are on LinkedIn
See others named Steven Faulkner