How Invalid Assumptions Lead To Inaccessibility

You can customise the text size, layout, and contrast, on the settings page.

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.