Why Web Accessibility Efforts Fail
According to a recent report published by Federal Computer Week, the accessibility of federal government websites continues to be an area of need. While problems with the newly redesigned Recovery.gov site were expediently addressed, there remains a number of sites that fail to comply with Section 508 standards.
It may seem surprising to learn of any government website that doesn’t meet Web accessibility guidelines, considering that such standards are created by the same body that produces and endorses their implementation. According to accessibility expert Jim Thatcher, however, such sites as WhiteHouse.gov and MakingHomeAffordable.gov reported problems meeting even baseline requirements. When we speak of “standards,” we’re referring to such features as textual equivalency for images and videos, as well as the ability for screen reading software to interpret non-visual content for users with vision impairments.
Part of the problem might be the sheer number of sites whose URL’s contain the .gov suffix. As reported in the article linked above, gathering and analyzing current data would be helpful in evaluating the degree of effort required to sustain compliance. The effort required to do this, however, remains somewhat unclear:
“While I believe that there has been significant progress in federal Web site accessibility, we still often hear of problems with federal Web sites,” Judy Brewer, director of the Web Accessibility Initiative at the World Wide Web Consortium, said. “It would be helpful to have updated and accurate data on the extent of current issues.”
Another area to explore might be in the technological messages delivered to Web designers and developers. According to a review of the An Event Apart (AEA) conference in Chicago recently held last week, there are opportunities to globally disambiguate the connection between XHTML “standards based” designs and its role in providing barrier-free content. Andy Clarke’s comment at the bottom of the post made a very good point:
I too find there’s a misconception that standards-based web design = accessible website, and unfortunately for many designers (encouraged by an almost obsessive desire to get green ticks & no warning/error messages in the validators), assume that once their site validates to the standards, they must also have done the job with accessibility too. Places like An Event Apart are the right stage to get the message across that good accessibility (’real world’ accessibility) goes beyond using web standards and getting sites to validate.
Let me be clear that a Web standards-based approach with compliant XHTML and CSS is always a beneficial tactic towards delivering accessible websites. However, accessibility can be compromised when designers get crazy with div tags and complex float positioning. Although not optimal, it is possible to design accessible web pages using HTML tables. The thought that tableless design automatically makes a Web page accessible, while not entirely false, does create a sort of blanket assumption that the needs of disabled users have been satisfied.
It is also important to remember that mere technical compliance does not automatically result in user-centric accessibility. It’s remarkable when a site whose code validates as technically Section 508 compliant renders poorly during user testing. Section 508 is a broad guideline, one whose compliance does not guarantee that a site will be easily interpreted by a blind user relying on a screen reader. The order and context of content should remain top priority when using assistive technologies to render Web pages.
Finally, there needs to be increased education on behalf of a user base that comprises ten percent of the world’s population. With the average life expectancy increasing past seventy years of age, this ratio is likely to increase over time. As Web technologies become more ubiquitous with the way we live, we must continue to strive towards the creation of digital experiences that allow users equal access to transactional, social, educational and employment opportunity.










4 Comments
Tweets that mention User-Centered Design and Web Accessibility Blog - AniktoBlog » Blog Archive » Why Web Accessibility Efforts Fail -- Topsy.com
October 24, 2009[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by devorahf and Kel Smith, anikto. anikto said: Why web accessibility efforts fail – http://bit.ly/4kCRDJ [...]
Liz Layman
October 29, 2009I think another issue is the ability for each government agency to make it’s own interpretation against the standards.
Why are so many agencies doing their own thing when it could be in one place and served up in multiple based on need? Agree on one interpretation and layout how to meet the criteria.
There are many improvements though and many success stories.
Look at lessons learned – why did something fail and how can it be used to fuel progress the next time around.
Anna Pruett Ellis
October 30, 2009As a Web manager for a .gov site, I appreciate the thoughts and insights offered.
But the statement, “such standards are created by the same body that produces and endorses their implementation,” does seem to gloss over the issue that the collection of .gov sites, even those managed by federal (as opposed to local) government, are a part of a complex collection of sites, all managed in different ways by different people with different technologies available. While we all strive to achieve compliance, working toward the gold standard is a process, an ongoing process, and not just a one time investment of tools or resources.
Kel Smith
October 30, 2009Anna -> thanks for commenting. Your point is understood and agreeable. I’m speaking primarily from the point of view of some users to whom “the government” might appear to be a monolithic entity. Agreed that compliance is a process as well as a guidance standard, although many users wouldn’t have reason to grasp the distinction.