This content originally appeared on marcus.io and was authored by marcus.io
First of all: This text is not about the organisation providing and "running" these certifications, them being gate-keepers or consisting of people with disabilities - or not (this is a whole other article). Nor it is the topic of this text the exact way of verifying the knowledge and if multiple choice is the best or most inclusive way – or not (another article and topic once again). And thirdly, this text is not about the effect of certifications in the system we're living in, and that some organisations use a certification (with all its inherent challenges states above) as a prerequisite for hiring or booking a professional – and it that is good or bad (third article idea!).
Rather it is about certifications in an abstract way as a means of showing to others that you understand the topic you claim to know something about. Seen through this point of view a certification of a certain knowledge is a good idea in my opinion. Let's take drivers' licences for example: While the amount of work and money and prerequisites seem to differ vastly from one country to the next, having one shows others, the police and your country that you have at least the skills to drive a vehicle in theory, that you went through a training of becoming a reasonable motorist at least on paper (or plastic card).
Using this vantage point and this abstract approach, I wholeheartedly agree with the concept of certification in my field of web accessibility. There, things are easy and hard at the same time, do consist of a great deal of empathy, open-mindedness and social awareness (first and foremost) but also a set of standards, laws, techniques and abstract concepts. An ideal certification verifies in my opinion that all these factors are well understood.
This becomes especially important when a situation is created where the skills in question are in high economic demand, creating incentives to claim that you have a certain knowledge of helping organisations navigating through areas henceforth mostly unbeknownst to them. And this situation is currently unfolding with the European Accessibility Act (EAA) this year and the rise in demand of web accessibility specialists. In all this jungle of real professionals but also opportunists it is (in an abstract sense) great to have a "drivers' licence" system in place, helping at least some of the prospective customers to differentiate snake oil and real knowledge in the field to a certain amount.
And therefore I was delighted to work on the latest update of the IAAP Web Accessibility Specialist Body Of Knowledge (PDF) in a consulting role with 14 other Subject Matter Experts from around the world, helping to paint an "expectations horizon" of what Web Accessibility Specialist in 2025 should know (and this includes the European Standard, EN 301 549, which becomes relevant for the EAA).
Critique of this text will be along the lines of "yeah, but you can regard the certification situation not in an abstract way, but see is in the concrete form with IAAP and all". To this I'll say: I stopped being a member of IAAP in the fall of last year, will focus my spare time work on improving the certifications only (if I'm invited as Subject Matter Expert again) and am certainly a fan of another organisation running this endeavour (for example a public body without any ties to economic players and with more staff members with visual perveivable disabilities – although I do not discard people not want to disclose their health situation nor the concept of invisible disabilites, I myself have one).
This content originally appeared on marcus.io and was authored by marcus.io
marcus.io | Sciencx (2025-01-15T00:00:00+00:00) On Certification. Retrieved from https://www.scien.cx/2025/01/15/on-certification/
Please log in to upload a file.
There are no updates yet.
Click the Upload button above to add an update.