Accessibility: Panning for Gold

I've been meaning to write more about my current thoughts on accessibility for a while now. In the last week I received (among many) some interesting emails on the subject and this has spurred me into writing. Now I'm not usually in the habit of making public any private correspondance, but these messages made me think about what I have been calling privately, a mature approach to accessibility.

One email was from a designer whose progress I have watched with admiration over the last few years. It read,

Hi Andy, just a quick email to say how much I like the new site. A few questions if I may? I see the Malarkey website does not pass the Online Bobby AAA test and that you do not mention the Web Accessibility Initiative and Bobby AAA accessibility rating at the footer. I'm just curious, is this for a reason or has it slipped the net so to speak?

This email made me consider the issues he raised carefully, and although there are two questions, he makes three points relating to Bobby and ratings.

Tools not standards

We have many conversations with potential clients about accessibility and many requests for proposals where Bobby compliance is required. While I am genuinely happy that accessibility is being raised, I often find myself correcting the misconception that Bobby and similar tools are standards. Like Photoshop, Dreamweaver or Visual Studio, these tools are simply developed to be part of a web design tool-kit, they are not standards.

Accessibility, a part of the process

I hope that it is well known by now my view that web accessibility should not be an issue, but should be a fundamental part of the design process, equal to, but no greater in importance than usability, good copy writing or visual appeal. Designing and developing any product should be a careful balancing act, and tackling any project with a holistic approach should balance the needs of all concerned. Including,

• A client who is looking for a return on investment
• A wide user base including both able-bodied people and people with disabilities
• A designer or developer who is looking to demonstrate their skills
• And others too

I also believe that a mature approach to accessibility is about the decisions which we make within the context in which we make them. Sometimes these decisions are more straight-forward (what are appropriate alt attributes or should we use empty alt strings (alt="")?). Other times these decisions are more complicated. Often what is misunderstood is that in accessibility there are few absolutes. Disability is relative and therefore by definition, accessibility is also relative. What matters are the judgements that we make within the context of balancing the needs of all concerned.

What concerned me about the email was that this person equated accessibility with Bobby and with ratings, rather than seeing accessibility as an integral part of a whole process. I am finding that this is not an uncommon view.

Another site from a local firm proudly proclaims,

We are developing websites with full Bobby (Watchfire) compliance.

And an unsolicited email offered me a free online Bobby check ;) accompanied by,

To see if your site is up to the current accessibility standards, type in the URL of your site into the box below and submit it to the Watchfire analyzer.

Panning for gold

I am concerned here about two issues. The first is that I am seeing a trend where designers see accessibility as a matter for compliance rather than as a series of judgements to be taken in the spirit of providing all parties with the best possible solution. I fear that this may promote a negative view of accessibility where it becomes seen as a limitation rather than an opportunity.

Secondly I fear that compliance (particularly in relation to the misguided view that Bobby is a standard, ) is becoming a dubious sales tool for those panning for gold in the Accessibility Klondike.

Back to the original question

So back to the original questions posed in the email.

...I see the Malarkey website does not pass the Online Bobby AAA test and that you do not mention the Web Accessibility Initiative and Bobby AAA accessibility rating at the footer...

We used Bobby to help us spot issues that might otherwise have been overlooked during a reasonably fast build. Do I care that about Bobby's rating of the site? No. I care about the needs of my customers and others visiting the site, and of course I care about my business.

Did I forget to mention WAI, Bobby or AAA? No. People with disabilities know when a site is better accessible by using it, they don't need telling. I have written before about badges and I don't need any more to pin on my parka ;)

But my real issue here is not simply whether or not to display badges, I've been there before. My problem is with the way that compliance is now often both perceived and used. And here I don't yet have a simple answer.

Contributed by Andy Clarke, Stuff & Nonsense. Article originally published December 2004.