Anikto LLC

Killing the Web Accessibility Stereotype

In the UK this week, two technology firms announced a partnership intended to help entrepreneurs with disabilities establish an online presence. One of the firms creates accessible e-commerce software, the other is a consultancy to companies looking to make their sites more accessible.

This is an encouraging development because it speaks to the idea of Universal Design for all experiences, particularly online shopping. Providing safe and barrier-free access to digital means of commerce makes good business sense, and no one could argue with the altruistic intent of the participants involved.

A comment that stuck out, however, was one that mentioned the possible dichotomy between websites that are attractive but also accessible. Even with the understanding that this is merely a blip on a news feed, quotes such as this give the impression that adding accessibility features to a site will cause it to default to a less desirable product:

Internet Business Solutions managing director Neil Erlam said: “To comply with disability discrimination legislation, websites have to be written in such a way that screen reading software can understand them. This often makes sites look unattractive and difficult to navigate.”

Why this idea continues to propagate across the digital enterprise is a mystery. It is no more accurate to say that accessibility “often” ruins the visual appeal of sites than to insist that Flash “often” makes a site more attractive. Visual designers (such as these fine folks) have been creating beautiful, accessible sites for the better part of the past decade, and the XHTML/CSS/JS toolkit has substantially elevated these executions.

Accessibility done right also makes sites easier to navigate, not more difficult. Doing so allows more users to access content from a larger array of devices. Navigation is rendered as clearly readable text that can be skipped over if desired. Proper markup provides the appropriate header and blockquoting context, so that users can better glean the author’s intention.

It is even possible to provide virtual experiences using video and 3D spatialization within an accessible construct. Information is rendered with such features as closed-captioning, textual equivalency, key-input tab order and haptic interface inputs. Hopefully there will be more prototype exploration surrounding these developments in the near future.

The intention here is not to castigate the authors of this news feed or the companies mentioned, as this partnership appears to be designed to address the false comprehensions outlined above. It is hoped that collaborations such as this will continue to evaporate the assumption that accessibility efforts cheapen the experience for nondisabled users. Those who have the means to appreciate a more sensorial or tactile experience can certainly find value in a barrier-free Web; that is what Universal Design is all about.