Article: The myths about accessibility by Adrian Rayfield
Last edited: 25.02.2007
Don't believe the hype
The aim of this article is to dispel the most common myths about accessibility and Web sites. The myths listed below are just some of the reasons people give for not incorporating accessibility into their designs.
Myth: Accessibility means creating unexciting, dull and uninspired designs.
False. Web sites can be as creative and innovative as the designer likes, there is no restriction on creativity just because a site is accessible. The only thing restricting a design is the designer's imagination. New technologies can be used, rich text, colour and images are all acceptable on an accessible site, and all that is required is some thought about how it is used. For example for every non-textual element such as an image there should be an alternative, in the case of an image the alt tag is used.
For some elements that can't be made accessible such as older versions of Flash an alternative version may be required. This may be possible using HTML or a text version for this element, but not for the entire site.
Myth: I have to create two versions of a site to be accessible.
False. Any site can be made accessible without creating two versions of the same site; in fact creating two sites is to be discouraged. Some elements, as mentioned above, may need an alternative but the entire site doesn't need to be ‘text-only’. If the time, effort and cost of creating a second site were to be put into making the main site accessible it would be far better, and easier for future development as only one site would need to be changed rather than two.
Using standard W3C HTML code and following accessibility guidelines should make any site accessible but that isn't the end of it, testing plays a major part as well.
Myth: A text-only version is an equal or equivalent and makes my site accessible.
False. A text-only version is not an equal or equivalent of a graphical site and should never be considered to be. If a site uses graphical navigation for example a text version is not an equivalent whereas using an alternative to the image, i.e. the alt tag, is an equal. This also has benefits for other users; people who have turned off images, plug-ins and JavaScript will see the alternative, and of course assistive devices such as screen readers will ‘read’ the tag in this case the alt tag and say it out loud. Assistive technologies have improved over the years and can cope with most things on a page so no visual alterations are required to be accessible as most of the work done to make a site accessible is within the code itself although there are some exceptions to this, for example good contrast between background and text.
Myth: Accessibility costs too much.
False. Why does it cost too much? A few extra tags are all that are required in the HTML code in most cases. Some do require specialised skills such as closed captioning on videos, but not every site uses video, and alternatives could be provided, such as using a transcript. Many sites use global templates and CSS files, so a change in either one of these files will update an entire site at a click of a button, how much easier do you want it?
Many developers spend huge amounts of money on design elements such as Flash, or on creating ‘cool’ graphics, just for people to disable these features in their browsers; but are not willing to spend money wisely initially by creating an accessible site. How many developers here have browser detection on their site and send different browsers either to a different version or send them alternative CSS files? Developing an accessible site using non-browser specific code would be a far better bet than wasting time and effort on churning out several versions of the same site to different browsers, this practice is out dated.
Accessibility should become second nature and simply be added as the site is built by using alt tags etc, this will not add to the cost. However having to go back 6 months or a year down the line and having to make a site accessible will take far longer and cost more money, as you take time working out how you coded it originally. This will not look good on you as a developer and will not please your client who has received a complaint that their site isn't accessible so they have to pay you to do what could have been done first time round. Are they likely to use you again?
Myth: Sites should look the same in all browsers and user agents.
False. This cannot be true, people nowadays access Web sites using a variety of devices from PDA 's, Web TV and different types of browsers using different operating systems, each one of these will render a site in a slightly different way for various reasons such as size of screen etc. Browsers may be graphical such as Internet Explorer and Opera or may be a text browser such as Lynx. In any of these cases including accessibility will not only help disabled users but also increase usability to all non-disabled users on more user agents.
Myth: Accessibility is just for disabled people.
False. Making a site accessible also increases usability for all visitors of your site. This in turn will encourage return visits and therefore could lead to further increased sales. This can only be a good thing for all involved. Search engines are effectively ‘blind’ and by including alternatives such as alt tags on images will help search engines ‘read’ your site and could increase your rankings. Accessible sites separate content from presentation by using CSS , some sites are now using CSS positioning over table layout, this has further benefits, it reduces download times so those of us without broadband will be pleasantly surprised when a page loads in 5 seconds or so compared to the usual 20-30.
Using clear plain writing and breaking the text into manageable natural sections will help everyone. People scan text rather than read every word, so by splitting this text into manageable paragraphs it makes this easier and more likely people will read more of your site.
Myth: Online testing tools are all I need to solve my accessibility problems.
False. Online testing tools such as the popular Web XACT online accessibility-testing tool from Watchfire go some way in aiding a developer to make a site accessible but cannot be relied on 100%. Web XACT and other testing tools can only check the HTML code and check for missing elements, such as alt tags on images etc. When you test a page using Web XACT a report is returned and even though you could have ‘passed’ its test it doesn't mean your site is accessible. If you look further down the report there will be undoubtedly a list of ‘user checks’. This means you have to go through each and everyone and satisfy yourself that you meet the requirements. Even once you have done these tests it isn't the end of it, user testing is the only true way of knowing your site is accessible. This means getting real people to go over your site and test it. User testing using disabled people is invaluable. You could conduct your own user testing using volunteers, friends or colleagues, but it should be a standard part of any development process.
Myth: It's doesn't concern me as I have no disabled visitors to my site.
False. Firstly how do you know? Disability covers a very wide spectrum of ailments and most people at some point in their life will suffer from a disability whether it's as temporary as a broken arm or as permanent as sight loss, to simply old age and the problems that it can cause. The following statistics have been produced for the UK:
“There are 12 million people aged 60 or over -- some 21% of the UK population” (source: UK government)
“Two million UK residents have a sight problem -- that's 4% of the population” (source: RNIB)
“There are around 10 million disabled people in Britain. Disabled people have an annual spending power of £80 billion a year” (source: DRC)
“One in 12 men, and one in 200 women, has some form of colour blindness, totaling 9% of the UK population” (source: Institution of Electrical Engineers)
Added together this could potentially represent 48% of the UK population as having some form of disability, a percentage that cannot be ignored. These statistics are only for the UK , this figure could be higher if other countries were taken into account. Still not convinced? it does concern you.
Myth: It isn't the law.
False. It is and always has been illegal to discriminate against people. A quote from a recent Disability Rights Commission press briefing after an investigation of 1000 UK Web sites said,
“Businesses and organisations that provide a service through the Web already have duties under the Disability Discrimination Act. Their duty is to make reasonable adjustments to avoid less favourable treatment of disabled people who find it difficult to use a service.”
And it went on to say,
“Our findings show that many businesses are not conforming to accessibility guidelines, which means that many service providers are now vulnerable to legal challenge.”
The DRC checked 1000 UK Web sites and found a staggering 81% of sites tested did not even meet the basic level of accessibility! If a disabled user finds a site inaccessible they can bring legal action.
Obviously not everyone is going to be sued, but the point I want to make is this, it is a very real possibility, an individual may not take action but such bodies as the RNIB or DRC could.
Fact: Accessibility is an issue that should be taken seriously.
True. Clients and developers alike should take accessibility seriously and not ignore it for any longer. It makes good business sense and could win you an all important contract simply because you produce accessible sites. It could save your clients from legal action now or in the future because their site is accessible. The Web is meant for everyone, don't shut people out.
Some useful links: -
- W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
- W3C - Business Benefits of Accessible Web Design
- RNIB - Royal National Institute for the Blind
- DRC - Disability Rights Commission
- DDA - Disability Discrimination Act
- Web XACT - Watchfire® WebXACT™ online testing tool
- HiSoftware® Cynthia Say™ Portal
- WAI - Web Accessibility Initiative
- WCAG 1.0 - Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
Article written and copyright held by Adrian Rayfield of Rayfields Accessibility © 2007.
Did you find this article / tutorial useful, please give us your comments.
For more information on Rayfields Accessibility Consultancy and Web Development Services please contact us by telephone on 0845 0037 508 or email : accessibility@rayfields.co.uk.
