The Disability Rights Commission have finally got their report out of the door, and the conclusion, unsurprisingly, is that the majority of websites do very little to assist disabled audiences in their use of the internet. The fact that so many failed terribly is not surprising (not a single site in the 1,000 tested achieved an automated AAA rating - and that's just half the story).
What is surprising is that this report still fails to get to the heart of the problem: site owners view the need to create an accessible site as a hindrance: a restraint from delivering their brand powerfully to their majority audiences. They believe that increasing accessibility demands a reduction in brand personality.
Who can blame them? One look at the DRC's own website is enough to frighten anyone: it's a classic example of what the world at large perceives an accessible site to be like. Surely, the organisation that is trying to promote broader accessibility should be putting more effort into showing how well supporting disabled audiences can blend with addressing everyone else.
The truth is, it's time to start thinking differently about accessible design. The moral and legal arguments have been made, and site owners will either do the right thing or get away with it for as long as they can. It's up to them to decide whether they want to be good internet citizens now. That's the way it always is with arguments like these.
We need to start addressing this issue in a very different way if we really want to make progress. This is an issue about effective design for everyone, not about defensive design for a (relative) few.
Today, every new site should be accessible to everyone, by default rather than by great effort. Making a site available to disabled audiences is only one aspect of creating a fully accessible site: there are other 'minority' audiences who have been overlooked, and the end result is websites that are serving everyone less well than they should.
As advisors and designers, our job is to create websites that are a rewarding experience for both customer and site owner, albeit in different ways. We strive to make every site we create as good as it can be: delivering what our clients need in a way that their customers will be happy with. All of their customers, that is, not just the obvious majority.
We mean those who are new to the internet; those who lack confidence; those who use Macintosh or Linux; those who do not use Internet Explorer; those on slow connections; those using handheld devices; those who are old; those who are young; and so on. As well as those who are disabled in any way. In short, anyone who falls outside of the average age/computer/habits mainstream of customers.
Suddenly, these minorities seem rather significant. Ignoring their needs seems a little foolish, to say the least.
And then there's the mainstream who, it turns out, want many of the same things as the minority groups. They want sites that are fast, clear and easy to use. They want them to work, flawlessly. And they want them to keep working when they next change or upgrade their computer (take note, high street banks).
So the challenge for any site owner is still, as it has always been, to deliver a compelling experience to everyone, not just to satisfy the requirements of minority groups. That problem can only be solved by creating a site that embraces modern design and development standards and uses them to deliver a compelling brand experience.
As the DRC site shows only too well, failing to embody your brand will lead to a site that can act as an effective (and technically accessible) resource, but not a compelling communications channel. This is a site that employs standards to achieve technical compliance, but at the expense of a brand experience that might influence the people it is trying to encourage to adopt its recommendations.
If you think this article will be of use to someone else, fill in their details below and we will email a link to them.
Each time we create a new Viewpoint article, we can notify you by email.