Web Accessibility: Myths and Misconceptions
In this last of the four-part blog series on fundamentals of Web Accessibility; let us consider some prevailing misconceptionss about web Accessibility.
In the early part of Web evolution, the available technologies did not adequately support Web accessibility. It was nearly impossible to develop visually appealing, complex, dynamic websites that were also adequately accessible. But things have changed since those early days. Technologies spanning all the interconnected components - web technologies (XHTML and CSS), browsers and assistive technologies have evolved. Style sheets offer more presentation functionality. Browsers provide text resizing and assistive technologies can handle complex tables.
· Myth One: Accessibility makes sites look bland and boring
The reasons for prevalence of this perception are historic. As already mentioned, technology did restrict the implementation of accessibility in early days of Web evolution. But even as things started to improve, many organizations providing these sites could not upgrade the quality of design because they were short on design skills. Another problem that prevailed was the inability to explore opportunities for creativity within the confines of accessibility requirements. People misinterpreted WCAG 1.0 guidelines to mean that one cannot use JavaScript and cannot open new browser windows in accessible web sites. If a web page can ensure that a job can be done using an alternative way to the scripting, use of scripts per say is not prevented by accessibility standards. The same thing applies to the opening of new windows. The WCAG checkpoint 10.1 does not say don’t do it; it just says that if you do it, inform the user that you are doing it. Another important contributor to the ‘accessibility is boring’ perception in early days of Web was the lack of accessibility support in the then brand new ‘Flash’ user interface development technology.
· Myth Two: Accessibility it expensive and hard
When organizations get started with accessibility, much of the cost is up-front knowledge and skills acquisition. A few aspects of accessibility such as captions for multimedia are costly but it is possible to control the overall accessibility related expenses by starting accessibility implementation at the very beginning of the project, understanding and minimizing the costs across each interdependent component and involving people with disabilities throughout. Finally, given that accessibility is essential for equal opportunity for people and is required by law in many cases, the accessibility related expenses fall in its own category and accessibility cannot be sacrificed for cost cutting.
· Myth Three: Accessibility is the sole responsibility of Web developers
As explained in the earlier blog post, a lot of pieces of technology need to work together to deliver the overall accessibility experience. Web developers need to follow the guidelines and requirements, but authoring tools and accessibility technologies could make it lot easy for web developers to implement sites that adhere to the accessibility requirements.
· Myth Four: Accessibility is for people who are blind
Much of the efforts in implementing accessibility requirements (like WCAG standards) are directed towards helping blind people. A lot or research publications and expert reviews have also focused on blind subjects thereby promoting this misconception that accessibility support is mainly for blind people. But as explained in the first posting, web accessibility needs to accommodate a wide array of disabilities. Authoring tools, assistive technologies as well as testing tools are available to ensure that all these disabilities are accommodated.
· Myth Five: Evaluation tools can determine accessibility and conformance to standards
Web accessibility evaluation tools are software programs and online services that help determine if a website meets accessibility guidelines. Evaluation tools are very helpful and reduce the time and effort necessary for testing. But no tool in itself can completely determine the accessibility of a web site. An expert assessment is necessary because some of the accessibility requirements and checkpoints are not objective enough to allow complete automation of the accessibility testing process.
