Blog
Comments Off

I recently compiled an accessibility report for a corporate website. I’m sure anyone reading this who is at all interested in digital accessibility is used to seeing it nailed on to a project after the event rather than integrated into the whole process, even from large organisations that should really know better.

However, what surprised me was how thoroughly everything on this site checked out. The HTML validated with no errors; the design was nice and clean, with good contrast; they had even followed best practice in terms of intelligent presentation of skip links, something that even the best sites sometimes fall down on. In short, I was impressed. Care and intelligence had been exercised in ensuring the site could be made as accessible as possible.

Then I turned my attention to the content.

Oh dear.

The editorial content was well written, managing to make potentially dry subject matter engaging and authoritative. Unfortunately, the way it was implemented didn’t just dent the accessibility rating, it managed to completely destroy it.  For example:

  • alt text was present, but it was used to hold image copyright data
  • hub pages held half a dozen article extracts, all followed with links that simply said ‘more information’
  • some links downloaded PDFs but looked just like normal page links
  • embedded flash video started automatically, with no on-screen controls or transcripts

and so on.

I’m not going to hammer website editors in this post. I actually had a lot of sympathy for the organisation in question, and said so in my report. Fixing these problems wouldn’t  incur any expense beyond staff time, and could be reasonably prioritised. So why did it happen? What caused such a potentially excellent site to fail so catastrophically? It was the perfect example of something I’ve been considering a lot recently: the insidious development of exclusive accessibility.

How does accessibility become exclusive?

The reason this happens should be plain to anyone who has spent time ploughing through any of the W3C WAI guidance.  They give the impression of having been written by technical staff for technical staff. And when you are considering areas like developing accessible browsers, such an approach is appropriate and reasonable.  But not all the guidance is aimed at technical staff. It includes information it is essential for everyone involved in website production to know, with material that is relevant to project managers, to website managers and to content producers.

It is this last group that I think is so often overlooked and where the most damage is done, certainly in the site I was evaluting. With the widespread use of content management systems and the credo that ‘content is king’, it has been some time since the people actually writing need to have much technical knowledge: in fact, to reach the widest audience, it may be preferable that they have very little at all. Yet the guidelines are written in such a way to put off anyone without this very knowledge.

Pity the editor

Let’s take an example. A content editor wants to know how WCAG 2.0 is relevant to their job. Let’s ignore the fact that the first thing you get to is an abstract followed by a jargon-laden statement about the document status: I’m assuming there are good legal reasons that these need to be here.

The content editor scans down the menu until they get to an area that seems relevant. Let’s try 3.1: ‘Make content readable and understandable’. Click on the link and the first two guidelines are unambiguously technical in nature. But then the editor gets to

3.1.5 When text requires reading ability more advanced than the lower secondary education level after removal of proper names and titles, supplemental content, or a version that does not require reading ability more advanced than the lower secondary education level, is available. (Level AAA)

This strikes a chord, since they already know about writing to age-appropriate levels. But click on ‘how to meet 3.1.5′ and they are back in the realm of technical papers. There is useful (albeit dry) guidance for editors in there (e.g. “Us[e] sentences that do not contain complex words or phrases that could be replaced with more commonly used words without changing the meaning of the sentence”) but it is sandwiched between comments about correctly using RDF and ISO AfA.

In fairness, the ‘Understanding 3.1.5′ supplementary document is much more relevant and useful to the general editor, but the supplementary information cannot be compiled and customised in the same way as the ‘how to meet…’ information, so the inquisitive editor is left with a lot of work to do themselves.

Inclusive understanding

So what is the solution?

There are three main audiences that I feel need to be targeted about the danger of exclusive accessibility.

  1. Senior managers. The people responsible for commissioning digital resources do not need to be experts, but they do need to understand how accessibility works. The senior manager may feel that this is unnecessary, but it is the responsibility of the digital communications manager to ensure this happens. It can be as simple as a ten minute chat explaining the ongoing nature of digital maintenance. Without this basic overview accessibility is all to easily reduced to a one-off check-list.
  2. Content editors. Of all the introduction to accessibility courses I have been involved in, very few purely editorial or general communications staff have attended. Instead organisations tend to send or self-select the technical staff, which can lead to a sense of preaching to the converted.  They are not inclusive.
  3. Accessibility professionals. The irony of the previous point isn’t lost on me. Courses tend to be run by (what are perceived to be) technical agencies, so the use of even the most basic jargon in the course publicity can indicate to people that the course is Not For Them. There needs to be a continuing attempt to promote inclusion across basic digital accessibility courses. Where is the ‘Digital accessibility for writers’ courses? Why doesn’t W3C produce a separate supplement specifically aimed at non-technical staff involved in digital communications? Or even allow WCAG to be browsed along ‘technical’ and ‘editorial’ criteria?

I think increasing understanding of accessibility presents some of the most pressing challenges in developing truly accessible digital technology. It’s important, but it cannot be delivered simply by specialists.  It’s the responsibility of everyone involved in digital development to promote and sell accessibility. Without it accessibility will grow ever more exclusive.

But what do you think?

Comments are closed.

Random Testimonial

  • ~ Colin Burgess, Consultant WebTV Producer

    "Simon is a real champion of inclusive and accessible content across Government - his technical and policy guidance was crucial when we developed the Accessible Media Player on the ODI site - Simon has been instrumental in driving change for the quality of disabled audiences."

  • Read more testimonials »
  • @mattbadham the sequel sounds even awesomer! It's the DW/B7/Gangsters crossover I always dreamed of... 2012-06-12
  • @fionacoach rain and more rain. Forcing me to actually get down to the many things I've been putting off lately tho! 2012-06-12
  • Seems to be far too many people who think the intarwebs is run by magic pixies who will promote your site if you only wish hard enough... 2012-06-12
  • More updates...

Posting tweet...