Web Accessibility Myths

Developed by Alice Anderson, Technology Accessibility Program, and Blaire Bundy, Technology Consultant, Division of Information Technology, University of Wisconsin Madison. For additional web accessibility myths, see Web Accessibility Myths blog posts Part I and Part II from Hassell Inclusion.

Blind and people with vision impairments cannot and do not use the Web.

Information online provides many benefits not available in printed formats: it is easy for people with poor eyesight to increase the font size, and text-to-speech conversion for blind users works much better for online text than for print.

The target audience of our Web site is not blind users, so we don't need to worry about developing our Web site for that population.

Web site accessibility design benefits more than populations who are blind. The aging population, also the fastest growing group of new Internet users is finding it increasingly difficult to read small fonts. People using older browsers and computers, or have a slow connection and/or disable their graphics/images, and people who use the internet in environments where it is difficult to read a computer screen and use voice output are just a few examples of others who will benefit.

My site isn't used by people with disabilities.

Even if you believe that people with disabilities don't use your pages directly, they might need the information in their role as a colleague or relative of someone who does, or to carry out research work. The pages should not exclude anyone who might have even a peripheral interest in the content. For example, parents of prospective students might not directly use the information on some pages, but they might want to be able to access them to share in their student's campus living. As another example, someone might not directly use the information on a webpage that contains instructions for operating an instrument, but they might use the information as part of their research on a related topic, or share it with someone else.

Making an accessible Web site is expensive.

Not necessarily--taking the time to think about whom the audience is and how broad it is at the design stage and doing some simple testing can save lots of money later when you have to go back and make fixes because you want to increase your audience, or comply with government accessibility regulations.

The benefits of an accessible Web site aren't great enough to take the time to learn how to create them.

You'll be a better Web designer by learning Web accessibility techniques, increasing the client base for your services. Updating and maintenance are easier, and you won't have to completely redo your Web site when technology changes.

Making an inaccessible Web site accessible is too expensive and difficult.

You don't need to incorporate all the changes at once. You can do simple easy fixes (like adding alt tags or text equivalents), or fixes that impact the most people first, and incorporate more fixes as time and resources allow.

Accessible Web pages are dull and boring text-only pages.

You can design an accessible Web site that has all the glitz and glitter you want, you'll just have to design it so people can use it the way they want. What's more, Universal design strategies and accessibility techniques are not about creating flat, text-only Web pages. In fact, text only is not the best way to deliver accessible information.

It won't matter if I don't make an accessible site, because there are not that many people who will be affected.

Inaccessible sites negatively affect more than people with disabilities. Some people turn off their graphics so the pages will load faster. If graphic intensive sites do not label their images, (provide a text equivalent) information will be lost. Search engines may not find your site if your images don't have a text equivalent. Search engines are robots looking for text matches. Also, PDA's and cell phones are being used to access information off the Web. Web users wanting to access information using small screen devices need to be considered. Last, the growth of voice technology (having Web pages read to the user) means the site will have to have text that can be read to make sense for the user.

I'll have to provide text-only version of all Web pages.

The W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines "strongly discourage the use of text-only pages for accessibility." However, when there is a need for text-only pages, current authoring tools (including PowerPoint) give the option of a text only feature.

I'll have to tear down all my existing pages and redo them.

Some Web pages will have to be redone to make them accessible, however, many Web developers and authors go through their Web pages periodically with a plan to revise them. When a page/site is scheduled for revision it is an opportune time to address accessibility issues.

Web pages that are required to be accessible will put small and medium-sized e-businesses out of business.

The benefits that extend beyond people with disabilities are an incentive to make pages accessible. If, however one just considers the large portion of the wired world that has a disability this alone is a market of consumers that shouldn't be ignored.

Captioning video for the Web seems to be an expensive proposition without many benefits.

Captioned video serves not just people who are deaf or hard of hearing, but also those accessing the video in a noisy environment, those with English as a second language or have limited language skills. When technology audio fails, the captions will provide the viewer with text. Also, with a text caption, if digitized, the text can be searched.

I'm going to focus on usability, so won't need to worry about accessibility.

Usability focuses on how intuitive and easy it is for all people to use. Usable designs are consistent and simple to learn to use. Usability and accessibility often are complimentary. Accessibility is determined by how barrier free the technology is. Accessibility problems are those that make it more difficult for persons with disabilities to use an application or service than for a non-disabled person. It's possible for a site to be accessible and not usable, and visa versa—a site could be usable but not accessible (Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center).

Isn't everyone like me?

The current trend in Web site design is to assume that the Web site will be accessed via a typical home or work computer with high resolution full color display, keyboard, sound and pointing devise. This scenario will be challenged as new technologies are increasingly adopted to access the World Wide Web.

Debunking Myths

Another aspect of being enlightened about web accessibility is learning enough to separate the myths from reality, as covered in this section In Chapter 13, we debunk some legal myths of web accessibility.

Reprinted with permission from:
Constructing Accessible Web Sites
Authors: Jim Thatcher, Paul Bohman, Michael Burks,Shawn Lawton Hentry, Bob Regan, Sarah Swierenga, Mark D. Urban, Cynthia Waddell
Glasshaus Ltd Publishers, 2002, www.glasshaus.com ISBN 1-904151-00-0

With Special Thanks to: Shawn Lawton Henry, www.uiaccess.com

Accessible Pages Have To Be Plain

Many people have the misconception that to make a web sit accessible, you have to take out images and color, make it boring, or "dumb it down" in terms of design sophistication. That is not true. We do not want to limit designs for accessibility, and taking away visual appeal does not serve the best interests of the overall audience. In fact, part of the accessibility-usability synthesis is making the web site usable, aesthetically pleasing and commercially viable to all users. It is pointless to design web sites that are accessible, but cannot succeed in the market.

In fact, using images and color often increases usability for some people with cognitive disabilities, while also benefiting people who are cognitively average. WCAG checkpoint 14.2 specifically mandates this "Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the page. [Priority 3]." An example of using color to increase usability is in navigation areas of web pages. When navigation links are on a light-colored background and content is on a white background, as in the example web page opposite, it is easier cognitively to distinguish between the navigation area and content area. Furthermore, integrating corporate colors in such a design can increase branding and visual appeal.

Accessibility Resource List, Constructing Accessible Web Sites chapter

D

Myth: Just Add a Text-Only Version

A common approach to providing accessible web pages is to design a site, and then make a separate accessible site, that is, text-only version. The issue of text-only versions crosses into the idea of separate versus inclusive design. In today's environment, providing separately developed sites is rarely the best approach for accessibility, or for business. (However, providing truly equivalent information that can be accessed graphically or textually from the same content source is advantageous.

In the past, common assistive technologies were not able to handle complex web page designs. For example, screen readers read across the screen, so multi-column newspaper-style layouts were not usable. It was nearly impossible at one time to provide visually appealing, complex, dynamic web sites that were also accessible. Therefore, designers were faced with the choice of either significant constraints on their design or providing a text-only version. Now, technologies let you develop visually appealing, complex, dynamic web sites that are also accessible. Stylesheets offer more presentation functionality, assistive technologies can handle layout tables, and browsers provide text resizing. Many recent technologies from the W3C such as Scaleable Vector Graphics (SVG) actually provide more flexibility for presentation as well as accessibility support.

There are several problems with providing a separate accessible site:

1. Separate versions are rarely equal. When there are two versions of the site, invariably, the text-only version does not get updated as frequently as the main version. Even when organizations and individuals have the best intentions of keeping two sites synchronized, the realities of deadlines and limited resources interfere. As discussed overleaf, emerging technologies and methodologies are minimizing this problem.
2. The primary version often lacks even the most basic accessibility. Commonly, developers of alternative accessible test-only sites spend little effort in making the primary site accessible. The alternative site is often optimized for screen readers, with all information provided linearly and without graphics and color. However, some people would be better off using an accessible primary site.

Some new tools generate both a primary site and a text-only site from a single source of content, supposedly eliminating the first problem mentioned, that of separate sites not being synchronized. In one such implementation that I reviewed, the text-only site was fairly close in content to the primary site. However, the alternative site was missing promotional material. Therefore, users of the text-only version missed out on special offers offered through the web site. Clearly this was discriminatory.

Certainly technologies and development efforts are beginning to provide the tools and methodologies needed to ensure that truly equivalent multiple versions of a site can be provided. For example, using XSLT to transform XML documents into other markup more suited for specific configurations or ASP to dynamically generate pages from database or XML files. Organizations such as SmartForce are creating multiple versions from a single content source. This is a promising development.

Myth: Assistive Technologies Take Care of Web Access

Successful web accessibility implementation requires cooperation among diverse areas. Disability groups, standards organizations, government regulators, attorneys, vendors of web development tools, developers of browsers and other user agents, assistive technology developers, and content providers all have roles to play in designing for accessibility. When one of these groups acts unilaterally, or fails to fulfill its responsibilities, it lowers the prospects for a Web that is universally accessible.

Timing of technology advancements also figures in the equation. Some technology advancements provide opportunities to increase accessibility. However, for content providers to take advantage of the new technologies, customers must use them. Some organizations have technology change management systems that impede their rapid adoption of the latest browsers and browser plug-ins. Similar reasons of cost and compatibility, especially with assistive technologies, also make some individuals reluctant to upgrade.

Browser and tool developers are supporting accessibility to a greater extent in new versions of the products, making it easier for content developers to implement accessibility in their web sites. Judy Brewer, Director of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International Program Office at the W3C, commented as follows:

“Implementations of either of the web software guidelines (the latter two guidelines) (Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines and User Agent Accessibility Guidelines) make it easier for web designers to implement the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. For instance, as browsers develop more capabilities to support accessibility, web site designers need to do less to make their pages accessible. Likewise, as authoring tools automate more of the production of accessible web content, site designers will be able to produce accessible web sites with little effort."
Quote taken from
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju65010.000/hju65010_0f.htm

Despite this trend, implementing accessibility in a web site still requires careful attention by the content developers. While it will get easier in the future, content developers will always have a role in accessibility implementation, regardless of technology advancements. The alt text example that opened this chapter illustrates the continuing responsibility of content developers. Standards can define the alt attribute in HTML, user agents (browsers and assistive technologies) can properly provide alt text to users, development tools can encourage or even require you to assign them, and testing tools can validate that they are included - yet only content developers can ensure that the text is equivalent, meaningful, and useful. Therein lies the responsibility and opportunity for all involved.