Image © Copyright Sonia DYETT. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission.
Image © Copyright Sonia DYETT. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission.
Consider, for example, a wheelchair ramp. Most people will agree that the accessibility of public locations, by wheelchairs, is beneficial. Certainly, it is beneficial for those who need to use a wheelchair! But it is also beneficial to others that you perhaps didn’t consider at first:
Truly accessible designs are well‐thought‐out solutions that often benefit all kinds of people, rather than a narrow set of people with a specific requirement. Importantly, also, they do not make things harder for most other people.
It’s the same with web accessibility. Features such as text alternatives, access keys, and semantic structure, all make websites easier to use for all sorts of people. It is most important that accessibility features make it possible for those who would otherwise be unable to use the page at all, to do so. But it is also important that they, at least, do not make websites harder for any other large number of users to use. And, wherever possible, they are designed to make websites easier to use for most people, regardless of how easily they could use the website before.
Unfortunately, sometimes, people don’t really think about how they can improve accessibility: they’re just interested in complying for the benefit of meeting some legal or community standard.
Consider, again, a wheelchair ramp. If a wheelchair ramp is too steep, it is not accessible at all. At best it’s a hazard. More commonly, though, it’s just a taunt; a dismissive gesture that blatantly shows how the builders knew about accessibility, but didn’t care enough to make sure that they achieved it properly. They bothered as much as they did, for some other reason — maybe to win public support, or to meet some regulatory requirement. Either way, people who need that access know that they are not welcome.
And it’s never good enough to say: “But we met our accessibility requirements!” if the end result is not accessible. No‐one who defines or regulates accessibility requirements has ever accepted that argument.
Just like a wheelchair ramp, website accessibility requirements have to practically achieve their accessibility aim, if they are to be considered accessible. And, if accessibility features are included, but they do not contribute to, or if they hinder, accessibility, then they show just as much contempt for users who need those accessibility features.
What is required, is to consider the problem from the point of view of a user who needs a certain accessibility feature. Only this will reveal to you if your solution actually helps. And if you can’t understand the problem, then you must get help from someone who can. Because otherwise, you don’t have much chance of achieving anything other than, literally, adding insult to injury for those people who most need for you to do it right.