RE: The future of web accessibility

Hi Trenton

I was going to be posting something along the lines of this shortly but you beat me to it!

For a while now I’ve had the uncomfortable feeling that the world of Web 2.0 and the world of accessibility were not the best aligned. Indeed, I fear that the focus on accessibility over the last few years has started to wane and drift.

Why might this be? A few observations:

1. “…for the first time usability and accessibility are coming head-to-head with each other”

Mmmm…this appears to be the unspoken truth. I’m glad you, as an accessibility expert, said this and not me. I don’t know enough about the detail to make this call but certainly my perception is that a lot of what is being considered as evolving best practice in terms of “easy to use” / “fast” / “intuitive” and so on is based on richer, more interactive interfaces using the likes of AJAX. And making these all accessible is really tough.

Earlier in the year, at our What’s New in Online Marketing event, it was great to hear from James Saunders at Serenata Flowers about how they have used AJAX on the Serenata Flowers web site to improve the customer experience and boast conversion rates without compromising the site’s accessibility. Essentially, the AJAX part was an added bonus for those who could use it but the underlying ‘default’ site was very accessible.

However, now I see interfaces, and prototypes, which are designed “AJAX-first” and then there’s the “thorny problem of accessibility” afterwards.

It was the case that usability, accessibility and, indeed, SEO, were neatly lining up to be mutually self-reinforcing activities. Now, cracks are starting to appear – even in the realm of SEO where inbound links are now so important relative to on-page content. I believe it is still possible, and sensible, to do all three well, but it is not easy.

2. “ ..the WCAG 2.0 guidelines are far more vague and open to interpretation than previously…”

I’m glad I don’t have to write these guidelines! You can understand why they have to be technology-neutral, but I am concerned that you, the expert, describe the new guidelines as “more vague and open to interpretation than previously”. I don’t recall them being particularly crystal-clear the first time round?

The danger here, particularly when combined with point 1 above, is that lack of clarity leads to confusion which leads to corporate inaction. Given there is just so much for site developers to focus on (not least all this Web 2.0 stuff), if you give them even the least inkling that something is in any doubt then it will drop down the priority list. That may not be right but it is how it is.

As the focus has swung so sharply recently onto Web 2.0 type initiatives (a lot of them misguided I might add) it is really hard to maintain focus on accessibility which is still seen largely as a burden rather than an opportunity.

Furthermore, if the guidelines are more vague, what does this mean for the legal side of things? Is there any way that a lawyer, or judge or jury, could reasonably be expected to pass judgment based on these guidelines? Are they even expected to form the basis of any judgment? Again, further lack of clarity here only serves to lessen the threat of the legal ‘stick’ which some corporates have used as a justification to invest in accessibility.

3. “User generated content is likely to offer poor accessibility”

I’m not sure I entirely agree with this. Certainly video content, and mobile devices, may well pose accessibility challenges. In these cases I hope that technology will help e.g. automatic transcribing of audio to text.

Most user-generated content is still text. And the very nature of user-generated content demands a simple means of publishing, usually via web forms of some sort. So at least the nature and structure of the content is simple and consistent. You cannot enforce various forms of metadata (e.g. alt tags for pictures) but you do have a structure and content which you should be able to provide intuitive and accessible forms of navigation around.

I expect we will see a rise in “meta-editing” – partly through automated technologies and partly through ‘humanware’ – in order to help give content improved meaning and categorisation to allow machines and humans to interact with it more efficiently. This should help with accessibility.

4. And finally…

Whilst bemoaning the possible retrograde steps in accessibility, it is still the case that no-one I’ve talked in the U.S. (where most of what we all look to in the world of the web still emanates from) has the first notion about accessibility – it really just isn’t on their radar at all.

I was interested that the Best Website award at the BIMAs recently went to the Coca-Cola website. Whilst it is no doubt cutting edge on many fronts, it doesn’t strike me as reeking of accessibility. So it would seem that accessibility is not a fundamental requirement for a site to win a ‘best website’ award.

That seems to me to be a bit of a shame. Certainly it seems to reflect the sad fact that perhaps accessibility isn’t as much of a focus for many as it was?

Ashley Friedlein
CEO
E-consultancy.com