The goal of this session is to give people an introduction to accessibility issues when it comes to the web, both in web features (touching on 508, WCAC, and the ADA) and as a component of a diverse development team. The working title is "Why should we focus on users with disabilities?" (I just started writing a few hours ago so that might change).
My draft so far:
My goal is to give a basic understanding of why including accessible features and
including people with disabilities (PWDs for short) at your agencies is desirable. I
will start with some short remarks to give us all the same basic footing and then open up
the discussion.
What is a disability?
To answer this I need to give a bit of a legal background. The main disability law in
the United States is the Americans with Disabilities Act, also known as the ADA. This was
followed by section 508, which I am sure many, if not all, here are aware of.
Internationally the treaty inspired by the ADA is the Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities, the CRPD. Frustratingly, while the CRPD is based on US law
and many countries have adopted it we have not done so here. While this talk is not
about that suffice it to say that is problematic to say the least.
The final document to cover are the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, aka WCAG.
While not a legal framework it is not uncommon for web site requests to refer to 508,
WCAG, or both. In general it is a good idea to use those two documents as a baseline
though. If a new technology were to come out in the future (and they do all the time) it
would save money and time in the long run.
So now we know the documents. The ADA's definition of disability is pretty broad.
Minus the legal language and any political stuff it is quite simply "a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of an individual.
a record of such an impairment or being regarded as having such an impairment'.
Why include accessible features?
Of course you can just say "because it is in the requirements document" but look
beyond that.
On one level, PWDs are your customers, your clients, and your potential user base.
Given the choice between a site they can use and one they can not they are apt to use
the site that works for them.
On the next remember we all get old. It is not uncommon for disabilities to develop
as that happens, maybe not being able to hear as well. Would you really not want to
be able to use some site one day later in your career?
The numbers are quite large. According to the World Report on Disability by the
World Health Organization 15% of the global population has a disability. The CDC (among
others) has put that number for the United States at 20%. Can you really afford to lose
1/5th of your user base because they can not use your site?
Accessible features lend themselves to good design. For example, who here would not
cringe if I suggested following a header 1 and header 2 tag with a header 6 tag because
it had a nice style?
Quite simply, we include accessible features because it is the right thing to do.
Why include people with disabilities at your agency?
As with any other protected class doing so expands your diversity. You wind up hearing
voices that are not normally part of the conversation. It is particularly of interest
in user interfaces though. Someone with disabilities is more apt to pay attention to
508 and WCAG. Not only that, but you can be sure you will hear from them if they can not
fully access some site they are testing!
An obvious example is with people who are blind and need a screen reader. While
people immediately think of good alt tags in images this also means things like not using
tables to do page layout and making sure you can still navigate your site if you can
not see something to click on.
With people who are Deaf the issue is sound. This means not using audio as your
only way to convey information. A big problem is the captioning of videos. No, automated
captioning will not work by itself. Often you need broadcast quality captions and
automated captions or crowdsourced ones that are not checked can be even worse than
no captions at all. Remember that inaccurate captions are not just a lack of information,
they can actually be dangerous in some situations.
Physical disabilities run the gamut. There are also accessibility technologies out
there too so consider if your design will still work if nonstandard technology is
involved. For example, would it work if using a mouse is not an option?
Color blindness involves multiple versions running the gamut from common to rare.
There are tools out there to simulate the different conditions so you can test how your
design will appear in each.
Many more disabilities exist. For example, I have epilepsy and even though I
probably would not be get a seizure by something flashing you can bet I would not stick
around a page with a flashing element just so I could find out!
How to incorporate accessibility?
The technical parts of your sites are pretty straightforward. Not always easy to
implement, but at least there is a plan by consulting existing rules and guidelines. If
a work order specifically calls out either 508 or WCAG so much the better as you can then
consult those documents and use them to back up design decisions.
A key part is including PWDs in your organisation's disability plan. You can do this
by doing things like advertising in non-standard news sources for open positions. Look
for magazines and websites that specialise in different communities rather than just
industry standbys. Maybe contact career development offices at colleges geared to
different disabilities. Look to expanded networks. For example, people making hiring
decisions may often be contacting the same people but someone else in the organisation
may know people in different communities in the field you want to target.
Hopefully your organisations and agencies have diversity initiatives. If not encourage
the creation of such as eventually the word will get around that it is a diverse workplace
and attractive to PWDs.
I will now open things up for discussion rather than hogging all of our time.