Is it time for separate optimised websites for disabilties?
12th July 2008 by David North
That “text only” link you see on some websites winds me up. It really makes me see red. To me it shows lack of understanding and laziness when it comes to accessibility. It goes against the accessibility initiative.
This type of ”alternative” site is providing a second class service for those who would benefit from accessibility enhancements. Some sites I’ve seen actually run these as completely separate sites generally of lower priority which leads to out of date or inaccurate content in comparison to the main website!
As I’ve been banging on about for ages there are easy ways to makes sure the main website is available to everybody without the need for a text only version - if web best practices are used you’d be surprised how many ticks you’ll already have in your accessibility boxes.
However an article that has made me think a little more about this subject is one about accessibility being in a post-guideline age. The basic premise being that following the guidelines is not enough to ensure good website accessibility and user testing is key. This of course is correct although I feel not always realistic in every case - I’ll come back to this later.
The thing that jumped out in this article is the mention that maybe “alternative” versions of a website are now acceptable. Not in the same scheme of things as the text only cop-outs I mentioned earlier but in the respect that everyone is receiving tailored content for the individual so why not use this to enhance the site for everyone? Perhaps this tailored content could actually mean that, for example, people using screen readers could have a particularly optimised experience to fit them?
My personal opinion is this should only be an extension of existing accessibility functions on the site but certainly has potential. Different users have different needs and therefore some techniques can boost their experience - possibly even making other user’s experience not as good.
User testing would be imperative to ensure every personalisation made the best for a particular group but this is where I come back to my earlier point about not being realistic in every case.
User testing isn’t cheap and there is an iterative process involved which too can increase development costs for a website. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done but not all companies can afford to spend the extra doing this. The situation currently still has accessibility proponents having to convince some companies to look at accessibility at all.
Accessibility standards I believe are becoming mature and with the British Standard in the future I can only see more and more companies seeing this as essential. I don’t believe the web development community is yet in a position to support this across the board although knowledge is spreading and maybe the nay sayers are beginning to have their heads turned by the convincing arguments of the accessibility community.
It’s still a process that is going to take time - larger companies (or those very reliant on being inclusive to all) will set the standard and user testing for accessibility will become the norm. In the meantime the guidelines are of exceptional importance and the accessibility community must be supportive to companies that make unintentional mistakes.
What you mention here Dave can only be a good thing in my opinion. If used correctly and within the structure laid out by good accessibility standards. I have looked into providing a richer experience for screen reader visitors to my site in the past by using the audio queues within style sheets only to hit a wall of non-compliance and fuzzy adoption by all browsers. I am going to remain pessimistic about this new introduction to accessibility yet hopeful. It is sorely needed.