Internicene accessibility struggles.

October 27, 2006

And you thought red-state, blue-state was bad; the swamp that is currently the web accessibility debate is just about enough to make me want to give it _all_ up and code in Flash. “Yer honor, I _woulda_ complied with the ADA but everyone was too busy calling each other names to explain how.”

Recently, Roger Johansson and Tommy Olsson wrote an article describing a debate between two camps of accessibility, which I’ll go into after the jump:

bq. Recently, the old debate about the definition of “Web accessibility� has flared up again, despite attempts to make peace. There are two camps in this debate: Camp 1 saying that “accessibility� means “possible to access� and Camp 2 saying that it means “possible to access for people with disabilities�. [ ??"Barrier -free Web design":http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200610/barrierfree_web_design_aka_web_accessibility_20/ ?? ]

Olsson and Johansson go on to explain that _they_ talk about content being “universally accessible” rather than accessible to people with disabilities because it helps sell the effort required to the client.

bq. We, as accessibility proponents and Web developers, have to somehow “sell� the concept of accessibility to our clients and employers. That can be relatively easy for government sites, where legislation often prohibits discrimination, but it is often a real challenge for commercial sites. What is the ROI of accessibility? How does it affect our bottom line? How will it help our next quarterly report?

This seems a reasonable strategy to me; by making content universally accessible, you’re not only helping people with disabilities who use assistive technologies but _also_ people who have other limitations — from slight biological faults like poor-but-not-quite-low vision to technological faults, like being forced to use dialup.

But the suggestion causes blogger and accessible application developer Isolani to flip out:

bq. This is a surprise - an admission that people find the topic of disabled people uncomfortable. So, instead of telling it like it is, this ‘evangelist’ has decided to redefine accessibility into something a prospective client (or audience) will find palatable.

bq. Playing to audience whims does not bolster the credibility of universality, nor tackles the vital need for web accessibility. [ ??"Accessibility in Trouble 6:Misrepresentation":http://www.isolani.co.uk/blog/access/AccessibilityInTrouble6Misrepresentation?? ]

and then Isolani _really_ flips out:

bq. Either way, it’s a slap in the face for the rights of disabled people. Their rights are being pushed aside because its not palatable to Johansson’s clients. The ends do not justify the means. We have enough problems with accessibility charlatans - Johannson being its newest member.

bq. As an “approved” way of encouraging web accessibility, it is littered with deceit, disrespect and dishonesty. Its unethical and not conducive to protecting the rights of others. I know I won’t be able sleep well at night standing by such strategies - even in silent disagreement. It goes against the very fabric of being a respectful society.

Isolani’s argument seems to be two-fold: on the one hand, Isolani believes it’s unethical for Johannson to sell “extra” services to make sites universally accessible when all you need is to take care of people who use assistive technologies. More than anything else, though, Isolani appears to be incensed by the notion that _anyone_ would argue for accessibility on anything other than civil rights grounds.

Personally — and, as I think “WCAG2(Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) demonstrates”:http://alistapart.com/articles/tohellwithwcag2/ — the issue of preparing web sites for disabled persons is far more complex and confusing than just adding ALT tags to images. There are many different kinds of people with many different kinds of limitations. So you have the blind people covered because a screen reader works nicely, but what about low vision? And what about deaf folks? Color-vision problems? Dyslexia? Scotopic sensitivity syndrome? Attention deficit disorder? “Autism”:http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=145?

If you start targeting your content and strategies to specific tools, you end up with a fractured and complex accessibility strategy. The only feasible way *I* can see to meet the needs of everyone is from a universal-access rather than disabled-access approach, developing with “progressive enhancement”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Enhancement#Criticism_and_responses to provide numerous fall-back positions. And if we have to talk ROI(Return on Investment) to do it, that suits me just fine. We’ll get faster results that way than we will waiting until we’ve converted business people into civil-rights activists.

Posted in Politics, Technology