Accessibility: Luxury or Neccessity?

Whenever we get a call or e-mail for a site redesign job, we always perform a 5-step analysis of the existing site. We look at 1) technical issues with code, 2) esthetics, 3) usability and organization, 4) domain name registration, and 5) accessibility. Of these the one that usually gets questioned the most is accessibility. “What’s that mean?” we’re asked. “It’s a measure of how accessible your site info would be to a disabled person,” we’ll reply. “What? You mean like blind people? We don’t have any blind customers. I don’t want to pay extra for THAT,” sadly is a typical response.

I’m getting better at responding to this thoughtless reply. In truth, there are a variety of reasons to pursue at least minimal compliance with accessibility guidelines. First there’s a legal precedence; in 1998 Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794d) was modified to include guidelines pertaining to the accessibility of electronic media. As a matter of fact, since 1998 any website funded by federal monies need to “give disabled employees and members of the public access to information that is comparable to the access available to others.” Because this is a federal standard, several lawsuits have been filed on the basis that certain sites do not comply. Second, it’s pretty easy to hit the minimum requirements as outlined by the World Wide Web Consortium’s Web Accessibility Initiative. Simply having a site who’s code validates with the W3C’s validator usually meets the minimum guidelines. Third, it’s the right thing to do. Why not make life a little easier for a less fortunate fellow human being?

“Well sir, actually you DO have at least one blind vistor that comes to your site frequently and is extremely important to your site’s overall success. Google is a blind visitor. It comes to your site being able to do nothing but read the code just as a visually impaired individual would with a screen reader.”