Accessibility

March 6th, 2009

I was recently admitted to the Guild of Accessible Web Designers. This is a big deal for me, since accessibility has been a focus of mine from my earliest days learning web design. I was accepted after a review of my site, so I’m feeling rather proud of myself! This is just another step to demonstrate my commitment to accessibility.

Accessibility is a term that throws a lot of people at first. Even people who make websites, but may not be professional designers, don’t always realize what it is or the importance of it. Individuals at businesses and non-profits in charge of getting a site built are often surprised by the concept once they discover what it is.

So what is it?

Accessibility in web design is just like accessibility for the building you work in: your website must provide access to all, regardless of ability or disability.

I’ve seen some people be surprised by this. It doesn’t occur to most sighted people that blind people use the Internet too! Blind web surfers have software that reads the page for them. These screen readers provide an audio interpretation of what is written on a site. In other words: blind surfers have software that read a page out loud to them.

The challenge in creating a website is ensuring that not only is it visually attractive, but pages are read out loud correctly, that all of it can be read, and the site is easy for both sighted and blind to navigate. This is one reason why I still prefer non-Flash sites: screen readers can not read what the seeing visitors see. That code is inaccessible to a screen reader, and therefore, your blind visitors.

Think this doesn’t matter for you?

Target Stores lost a lawsuit to the National Federation for the Blind. The lawsuit began because Target refused to take some very simple steps to make information accessible. This sets a precedent. I, and many other designers in the United States, try and design around Section 508 Guidelines, which are requirements for government websites and organizations doing business with the government. Web designers in other countries will use similar guidelines, if not those. While those guidelines are not law for all other non-government related sites, it is a good place to start to ensure an accessible website. The World Wide Web Consortium, a non-profit that sets web standards, also has accessibility guidelines.

There is more to creating an accessible site than limiting use of Flash or creating an HTML version of a Flash site. How we write out code, on a variety of subjects, determines how accessible a site is.

Even color choice for a site is important, as you will have visitors with some form of color blindness. Don’t forget your deaf visitors too. Got audio or a video on your site? Then have transcripts available.

Remember: just like the building you work in, your website should allow access for everyone.

Interested in more details? Here are a few checklists:

Bookmark and Share

This entry was posted on Friday, March 6th, 2009 at 6:59 pm and is filed under Accessibility, Images, Marketing, Project Management, Web Design. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

«Previous Story:
Next Story: »
  • David D.
    A point of clarification.

    Federal government web sites, and those sites paid for with federal tax dollars, are subject to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. This is is not a set of guidelines as you state. It is LAW. The use of the word "guidelines" has an air of being voluntary. Section 508 is not voluntary; it's mandatory.

    The recent Target lawsuit was filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as well as two state laws within California.

    It is very important to address electronic accessibility correctly with respect to ADA and Section 508. The Target case used a very narrow interpretation of ADA, with some advocates considering the capitulation by Target as not really settling the issue. A stronger case was made with the two California state laws. However, the plaintiff took the easy way out and settled out of court. Many consider this to be a hollow victory.

    Had this been a case brought under Section 508 with respect to a federal government web site, it would have been slam dunk.

    We can only address web accessibility properly when the correct laws are cited and ambiguity as to the issues at hand are very, very clear. True disability is often in the mind and until that is overcome, more accessibility lawsuits to force the issue out in the open should be encouraged.
  • janice
    Thank you David for chiming in.

    A few points for you and other readers.

    First, the actual documents outlining ADA building codes refers to them as guidelines. You can see some of it in the documents here: http://www.ada.gov/stdspdf.htm I apply that same verbiage with regard to websites.

    And there is a lot of ambiguity in the law. Judicial rulings have not resulted in clear, codified laws regarding websites. Judicial rulings are interpretations of a law and can set precedent in how the next court cases may go. But that doesn’t codify a vague law.

    Section 508 does not apply to private sector websites. But you are correct; it is law for federal agencies and organizations that work with those agencies.

    http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=...

    As for ADA, it applies to a specific list of places which must be accessible. The law still has yet to be modified to specifically address the web. Thus, there is still room for interpretation of the law and a lot of debate on the subject. This leads to the spirit of the law vs. letter of the law discussions. By pure letter of the law, there is nothing specifically outlining private sector websites and how they must be handled, as opposed to the very extensive and specific private sector building codes that the ADA outlines. Further, there is also nothing in the ADA that says Section 508 must be applied to private sector websites.

    I would add that I and many other accessible designers take steps beyond even Section 508. It’s a good starting off point, but it could be better.

    I think that if the law was that clear cut, accessible designers would be much more in demand. Considering the litigious nature of people in this country, we would see many more lawsuits. I suspect it’s safe to say that most websites, including most major corporations with deep pockets, are not very accessible, if at all.

    That said its still good practice to design with Section 508 in mind. For those who like to think they don't need an accessible site, National Federation for the Blind v Target Inc. has set quite a precedent that other organizations would do well to keep in mind. When another organization goes to court over this, lawyers and judges will look to that ruling for precedent. But there is no guarantee that a judge will follow that ruling. It is only a precedent, not a law.
  • janice
  • As a fellow member of GAWDS, I would say it is definitely something to be proud of. I am constantly surprised by the number of people who when you mention accessibility say, oh it's OK, my site is already search engine optimised. There is still a distinct lack of awareness of the subject and yet it is so easy to show that accessible website provide many benefits and are not just a legal obligation.
    Even with the law in the UK (the Disability Discrimination Act) being stronger than section 508 (because it applies to all organisations who provide services used by members of the public), there is a great reluctance to put any time or money into ensuring sites are designed with accessibility built in.
  • janice
    Thank you. Great points! I'd add that there are people that think an accessible site is an ugly site. Or that it has to cost them extra too, but that's not the case when a designer has the proper knowledge and can build it that way as they go.
blog comments powered by Disqus