Accessibility - Is it Always Necessary?
I recently received an email from a ‘Jonathan Parker’ from Dabnis stating that I should get a professional web development qualification, and I will instantly be building more accessible websites.
In this, the first of 2 posts, I will be addressing the issues of accessibility, and taking a rather odd approach to the issue. In the second I will be looking at the concept of professional web development qualifications, and whether or not they are critically important.
OK, so accessibility… for those of you who aren’t exactly sure what web accessibility is, let’s start with the basics. Wikipedia has a nice little description of what web accessibility is all about.
Web accessibility refers to the practice of making websites usable by people of all abilities and disabilities. When sites are correctly designed, developed and edited, all users can have equal access to information and functionality.
- Wikipedia
Sounds simple enough right? But is it always necessary?
The story behind this post starts with an email I received a few days ago from a ‘Jonathan Parker’.
Here’s a copy of the original email:
Hi Elliot,
I don’t wish to seem rude or arrogant in any way. However looking through your qualifications, you have never studied web development technologies and the reason for writing this; it shows. Your work is not compliant, breaches EU DDA law (illegal)& a whole bunch of other stuff that stands out like a soar thumb!.Do you not think it would be better for you in the long term to get some ‘professional’ qualifications. Do you not consider your clients? The potential mess that you could land them in when DDA laws are implemented (March 2009)? The fact that Google & others are ready to include accessibility & standards compliance within their ranking algorithms? There is a lot for you learn.
I do admire your apparent enthusiasm, it just needs pointing in the right direction.
I hope that you take this as sound advice and not criticism.Regards.
Jonathan.
Dabnis
Now, I’ll try not to focus on the ‘qualifications’ side of the email, and instead save that for a separate post.
I’m rather unusual for a web developer, in that I work primarily in an environment that has no need nor requirement for accessibility standards. A flash games site with a sweet social twist.
By very nature, the core content of the site is inaccessible. This isn’t because we’re horrible nasty people and we don’t believe in equal access rights. The truth is, to be entirely honest, the core content of the site holds no value to people with extreme sight disabilities.
So, why then should the site be accessible?
For example. Do you think that a blind people ever complain that a paint-balling venue isn’t ‘blind-friendly’? - Probably not. Although this point may seem rather blunt. It’s a valid analogy. If the core content of the product isn’t by nature usable by people with a certain disability, should the whole product be built to cater for them?
My argument, is that it shouldn’t have to be.
Then there’s the issue of my site right here at haughin.com.
I imagine that it probably doesn’t meet all the accessibility guidelines there are. But again, the core content of the site has very little appeal for people with, for example, blindness.
My site is built for web developers. Who, by their very occupation, have reasonable vision.
After arguing that my site doesn’t really ‘need’ to be entirely accessible, Jonathan responded with this:
It’s the work that you are doing for clients that is immoral; personal websites are just that, but when you charge people money, people who know nothing about web technology who have come to you because you promote that you do. Well that is the same as a ‘hobbyist’ motor mechanic offering to fix a persons car and allowing them to believe that they are a qualified mechanic. There is no difference, other than when the car fails someone could be injured or killed.
It’s pretty amazing that Jonathan has managed to find work which I’ve done for clients, considering I work full time for an employer, and don’t do work for ‘clients’. Something tells me his original email may well have been a shot in the dark way of trying to scare me into paying for some kind of service from Dabnis web design.
So, here’s another question. Let’s say that our governments decide to legislate the heck out of the internet… the place where anyone can do pretty much anything…
Will youtube be shut down for not having text based transcripts of every video?
Will last.fm be shut down for not having text based transcripts of all of its tracks?
Of course not, because by nature these sites will not hold any value for people who’s disabilities prevent them from using the core content.
One other statement in Jonathan’s email that interested me a great deal was this:
The fact that Google & others are ready to include accessibility & standards compliance within their ranking algorithms?
I thought this was a very strange thing to say. Currently, accessibility is measured by how well a site is usable by accessibility aides, and isn’t exactly a mathematical calculable thing.
Sure, a spider can see how many alt tags are missing… but it doesn’t know exactly how the site it ’supposed’ to work. This element is entirely down to interpretation.
In regards to Google’s algorithms. Google has always crawled websites with an automated spider, which ‘reads’ the content in the same way as a simple text reader. This process favors sites that have cleaner, more accessible code. This isn’t exactly a new revolution. This has been true of search engines since crawling technology was invented.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t ever follow accessibility guidelines. Quite the opposite. I believe that any site which has a remote need for accessibility should implement it.
I just think that sometimes, there really isn’t a requirement to make a website accessible.
I know that this post may come across as rather frank and controversial. But, I guess that’s just my opinion on the issue.
Thank you to ‘Jonathan Parker’ from:
Dabnis
As always… comment away!
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:58 am
Elliot,
I’m surprised you even replied to this guy, the original email just screams SPAM.
Anyway, how can anyone trust advice on accessibility from someone that says that stuff stands out like a flying thumb, bearing in mind that a deaf person may not know the phonetic similarity between “soar” and “sore” ;o)
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:42 am
Could this be Dabnis as in http://www.dabnis.com, whose site does not pass html validation and does not use the language metatag, contrary to accessibility standards?
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:56 am
hehe, great read
I think one should aspire to the best accessability of course, but immoral? Hardly. heh
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Well, the whole topic just got me interested and ready to write… so I thought I’d send google to here for the keyword ‘dabnis’ while i was at it!
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
You’ve conflated a number of distinct issues here.
1. Should ALL websites be legally required to meet an accessibility standard?
2. Should SOME be?
3. Is there value using practices that are accessible if, for whether reason, the author doesn’t give a fuck about accessibility or web standards?
4. If there is, does this apply to all sites?
Society has decided that it values non-discrimination of those who have been born with, or have acquired, a disability. To that end, thousands of business have been required to spend millions of dollars making their facilities accessible. It is not just a right for those who are disabled, but *all of us*, who might (and a percentage will) become disabled. This includes temporary disabilities from injuries, which happens to us all. Obviously all barriers can’t be removed, but we should remove those we can.
Braille editions of major newspapers is impractical. Accessible websites for the web sites of those newspapers is. Requiring ramps and barrier free access to stores and offices is easy and has a huge payoff. Forcing all youtube videos to have text transcripts is difficult (impossible?) and has a smaller payoff. Like everything, there is a balance to be struck.
Making a website accessible is easy. Your blog is just fine, accessibility-wise. There are a few things you could do to improve it, but, for the most part, it is barrier-free.
Your flash game, as you rightly argued, does not need to be. No legislative body is likely to claim otherwise.
One thing I worry people overlook is that “disabled people” or “blind people” is not a special interest group. They could easily be you, for a month or for the rest of your life. It’s not about the rights of an abstract group, but of all of us. It’s a service to everyone, not just the blind.
And, of course, there are many other benefits. A lot of other useful best-practices overlap many accessibility best practices. (Seperation of content, behaviour, style, good CSS practices, clean semantic markup, graceful degradation, etc). These help me when I’m using an ancient iMac at a campground, people using mobile devices, SEO, those who maintain the site, and, well, yes, the disabled. There’s lots of articles out there about the benefits of being accessible.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
While I agree that there are certainly situations where content can’t be made accessible (flash gaming is a perfect example,) I’d like to point out that their *are* blind people in this world working as web developers. Here’s one: http://northtemple.com/designers/cannona
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:12 pm
I agree that there definitely are times when it isn’t exactly necessary to make a site compliant other than making your job easier with cross-browser compatibility, but there are definitely times when the requirements are there for a reason. Target knows this all too well - http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/08/29/target-settles-accessibility-lawsuit-for-6-million/
I think it is a good habit to get into making all sites accessible though - it doesn’t take much more time once you know all of the priory 1 checkpoints.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:45 am
The bit about ‘immoral’ just gives the whole thing away. I think he’s under the impression that ‘web developer’ implies that you comply with all ’standards’ out there.
It would be quite amusing if you only let CCIEs work on your Cisco gear.. hehe.. or if that isn’t farcical enough, how about only triple CCIEs are qualified enough? The last I heard, there are fewer than 500 such individuals, worldwide.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:19 am
While I’d agree with the first couple of commenters that the Dabnis guy should probably have been ignored, I’d argue that it is not necessarily a defensible position to state that a site for Flash games “has no need to be accessible”.
There are many reasons why someone with a disability - and that doesn’t just mean sight-related, you should also consider hearing, motion-related, and cognitive disabilities - might want to use your [employer's] site. A blind parent might want to check if the content is suitable for their (sighted) child; a deaf gamer might want to play the games but have trouble understanding the language used (not-uncommon where BSL is their first language); players with disabilities affecting their fine motion control might not be able to use games that are too fiddly; and users with cognitive disabilities may require specific interface and language-related features to be implemented.
Writing accessibility off as “blind people won’t play my games” fails to take into account many other groups.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:45 am
This is an interesting argument. But I have always thought that instead of every website implementing some set of rules to follow, shouldn’t google, ms and other large companies just setup some x prize of a few million dollars to develop better accessibility software.
This is going to be a far cheaper than requiring every website to implement some standard and it will end up working better anyway because most sites on the net aren’t commercial in nature and will never be required to follow accessibility rules. So working at this problem from the other end makes far more sense to me and will end up with a better result both for the disabled and saving time of developers to focus on other problems.
I would also argue that adding wheel chair ramps to every building and store is also not the best solution, thats a 20th century solution. Luckily now we are finally at the stage where we can actually increase mobility of disabled people. (look at the recent advances in prosthetics as an example) I think it is only a matter of time before we actually have solutions to most of the real world disability issues. Then maybe we won’t have to spend billions retrofitting buildings to be more accessible.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Sorry, i sent the mail thinking you will improve your skills.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
@Dabnis web design
hmmm…sucks to be you
September 14th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
[...] follow up from my last post on web accessibility, I think it’s time to talk about ‘professional qualifications’ in web [...]
September 21st, 2008 at 1:21 am
I wonder what kind of professional qualifications are we talking about. We can sure get web development qualifications, but how about accessibility? In the U.S. for example, there’s no way to certify a Section 508 compliant web site, and also nobody to certify it. Does this mean we should not practice accessibility?
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:54 am
Hi Elliot,
Before I start the post from ‘Dabnis web design’ is not from me or any of this companies employees.
Elliot, I see that you have selectively included parts of e-mails between us in an attempt to support your opinions. I think it would be better for all who read this post if you posted the e-mails & not just the parts that support your opinion.
To clear up some issues:
When you replied to me stating that you work for a company that uses software to develop sites & that this software produced an output that would inherently fail accessibility compliance etc I asked if your company informed it’s clients that the work they produced would fail accessibility, you replied that your company had had no such issues & that you could not see the point of telling clients such. I then suggested that you / the company you are working for could be seen as being imoral towards its or your clients by not informing them of such issues.
For the rest of you; no the e-mails were not spam, in deed they were an attempt to show a person who I believed had an obvious talent & enthusiasm for the technology & the industry, that if he cared to take up formal studies & gain professional qualifications in the area that he see’s his future then the quality of his work would improve. Nothing more.
I think some of the comments here show the level of ignorance amongst web developers with regards to standards, the law etc. I believe that such only go to support my opinion that if there were more ‘qualified’ web developers as apposed to what I call ‘hobbyist’ developers, then the industry would be in a much better state than it is at present.
Jonathan Parker
October 25th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Hi Jonathan,
Glad you could comment here… it’s been quite some time since this post was originally published.
I still find it quite strange that you really don’t understand what I do for a living. I don’t build websites, or web applications for ‘clients’, we have no ‘clients’!
“I asked if your company informed it’s clients that the work they produced would fail accessibility” — We have no ‘clients’, so it’s really not an issue.
I work for a web application which is a flash based games website. We don’t ‘need’ accessible standards, because the content is by very nature inaccessible.
The very fact that you’ve commented here still without knowing what it is that I do for a living makes me chuckle.
But, thanks for the reply