And, naturally, it always fails. Something goes wrong in the system; gross negligence of maintenance causes a malfunction; or some unanticipated exception allows the hero to escape.

This is an important thing to keep in mind when designing or building a web site, in every aspect. When you think you’re adding fabulous new functionality or greater accessibility, you should always be thinking about whether you’re ultimately supporting your visitor’s needs — or just making your system needlessly more complex.

Jared Smith, from Web AIM, recently published an article on web accessibility preferences expounding on the notion that in most cases, providing tools for your disabled users to change their experience usually means that you haven’t done your job right in the first place. Perhaps, rather than adding a tool to enable people to adjust your site, you should simply fix the site. Jared makes the very good point that in most cases, the people who need text enlargement have already taken care of it through their browser settings or operating system; and those who need extreme enlargement can’t be helped by a common accessibility widget — they need software support.

So, given this case, what do you actually accomplish by adding accessibility widgets to a web site?

If you’ve added them to a global element, to make them available throughout the site, you’ve made your site more complex: there’s more information on every page which needs to be sorted through or skipped over. You’ve added an additional technical element which needs to be supported and maintained — as browsers change, you’ll need to be rechecking not just your default settings, but all of the various combinations you’re providing, as well.

If you’ve added the same options to a page dedicated to these accessibility options, you’ve pretty well avoided the problem of having a globally more complicated interface. However, you need to ask yourself whether the problems your accessibility options fix will prevent the users who need them from finding the options! Take this example: you’ve chosen a relatively low-contrast (but attractive) text color for your footer and secondary header navigation. Since this color is below the WCAG 2 color contrast requirements, you’re providing a link to a page where the user can select a high-contrast option.

Unfortunately, since the link is in your footer, that user who needs a high-contrast page can’t actually find the page where they can make the change.

Problems with site complexity don’t only effect web accessibility, however. Any additional function to your web site needs to be carefully considered before implementation: is it worth while to add an audio player with auto start to your home page? What are the consequences of making this change? You may think that it’s a great opportunity to immediately promote your band’s music to those who want to hear it; but you’re making the gross assumption that those visitors want to hear it right now. They may not. And if they’re in a sensitive situation — checking you out from their quiet office cubicle, for example — then their first reaction is likely to be “How do I turn this off!”

Assuming you have decided to add this audio player to your web site — you may not realize that the most important control you need to have is a prominent STOP button. Otherwise, the most natural way to stop the music is to leave your site.

Any piece of new functionality adds complexity to a site. It may create an undesirable reaction, it may create user confusion — or it may be a brilliant idea which turns your home business into a multi-million dollar corporation. You shouldn’t avoid adding functionality on the grounds that anything complicated is going to be a problem; but you should certainly take a very close look at every new feature and decide whether it will add to the user experience. When making that decision, the points to consider are not limited to the value of that feature alone. You need to also consider all the other features which will be simultaneously available; you may want to add a new feature, but move an existing one. It’s usually not any given feature which causes problems; it’s having too many paths to follow which may confuse your visitors.

When More is Less
Copyright 2004 – 2010 Joseph C Dolson, Accessible Web Design

Thanks to the power of internet criticism, the code discussed in this blog post has since been fixed! Sometimes just making a complaint is all it takes to get something fixed. I was highly critical of the code authors for this low-quality code; but they truly did care, and made changes. Thank you.

Authoring forms is an important part of keeping the web fully accessible — not just providing access to information, but allowing users to fully interact with the web in all it’s glory. Interactivity is what makes the web powerful and persuasive.

As such, I can’t help but be frustrated when I run across basic form construction which is simply well below the standards I’ve come to expect. A form like this one, for example, is incredibly irritating to my sense of what the web should be:

  <form action="/store/add_event_to_cart/53" autocomplete="off" method="post">    <table>
  <tr>
    <td nowrap><span class="required">First Name:</span></td>
    <td><input id="attendee_first_name" name="attendee[first_name]" size="40" type="text" value="" /></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td nowrap><span class="required">Last Name:</span></td>
 
    <td><input id="attendee_last_name" name="attendee[last_name]" size="40" type="text" value="" /></td>
  </tr>
 
...[numerous similar fields deleted to avoid boring the hell out of you]...
 
  <tr>
    <td colspan="2">&nbsp;</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="2">
 
      <input name="attendee[sponsor_email]" type="hidden" value="0" /><input checked="checked" id="attendee_sponsor_email" name="attendee[sponsor_email]" style="vertical-align: top;" type="checkbox" value="1" />
      <p style="display: inline-block; width: 360px;">Please sign me up to get occasional information from select sponsors, partners, and other fun people.</p>
    </td>
  </tr>
    <tr>
    <td colspan="2">Discount code (if applicable): <input autocomplete="off" id="attendee_discount_code" name="attendee[discount_code]" size="10" type="text" /></td>
  </tr>
    </table>
 
    <input name="commit" type="submit" value="Add Attendee" />
  </form>

But in this case, it’s not just the nature of the form itself. There’s a lot wrong here — the use of table for layout is a big problem, but even if you’re accepting the table as logical (and there is a particular logic which would except tables for forms,) the lack of a summary or headings in that table and the use of empty table cells to provide spacing is a big problem. Then we look at the form itself — not a label element in sight; instead we have plain text using a span and class to indicate if a field is required. There’s no coded indication that a field is required; it’s a purely visual indicator.

My sense of accessibility hurts.

And do you want to know where this code came from? Here it is.

Here are a few good articles on high quality form construction – but don’t bother reading them. After all, they didn’t.

• Sensible Forms
• Pretty Accessible Forms
• Making Compact Forms more Accessible

This is something that pisses me off; but you can find it everywhere. Large organizations responsible for web publishing don’t always maintain the standards they talk about. Is it just talk, then? Does the fact that An Event Apart does what A List Apart condemns mean following standards and implementing accessibility doesn’t mean anything?

Thankfully, no. It does mean that web sites aren’t perfect; and the people doing the labor are frequently not the people who know best how it should be done. But it is a problem — as much as we can evangelize best practices, it doesn’t mean that they’ll be used.

There’s a lot of pressure in the web industry to produce fast results. Sometimes this means people take shortcuts; sometimes it means hiring people who may not be as fully trained or qualified as you really wish you had; and sometimes it means things just go wrong.

But I’m left with a definite feeling of frustration to find that a leading web standards event like An Event Apart should exhibit this kind of HTML on their web site.

How can this be avoided?

Ooh, that’s a tough one. Work processes, new employees, insufficient testing — all of these can allow inferior code onto a site. As a freelance designer, it’s positively rare that I have sole control over new content or template changes after the initial launch. As a member of a team, I can only imagine that it’s even more difficult — anybody with sufficient permissions to commit a change can change the overall level of competency exhibited on the site.

Application of a tool like Marco Battilani’s Big Red Angry Text technique can help, but it’s a little scary to put into a published site if you know that the editing won’t always be done by knowledgeable people. It may demonstrate mistakes, but can sometimes serve to do nothing more than piss off or frustrate your client or staff. It depends on the control and education you’ve been able to impose.

1. Educate. Teach the people who will be doing work on the site as much as you can – the what and the why.
2. Review the site. Review the work that’s been done; a 30 second glance at the code is likely to result in fixing at least some errors, and will hopefully prevent future errors of the same type.
3. Provide tools for self-checking. Not a first choice, since all automated tools are flawed by their very nature, but they can still be of use.

It’s not always practical; but if following these steps is at all an option, it’s really worthwhile.

When the right hand doesn’t listen to the left.
Copyright 2004 – 2010 Joseph C Dolson, Accessible Web Design

First, sources:

Americans with Disabilities: 2005

The primary source for statistics in the Practical eCommerce article was a report called Americans with Disabilites: 2005, produced by the United States Census Bureau. The data dates to 2005, but the report was released in December of 2008, so it’s not far from the most current information available which is based on truly extensive research.

This report was released from data gathered in the Survey of Income and Program Participation in 2005, updating the information from a 2002 report of the same name. The report is limited to the civilian, non-institutionalized population of the nation, and estimates that the overall percentage of the population demonstrating disabilities would rise to 15.7 percent from 15.1 percent if that population was included, referencing information from the 2006 American Communities Survey.

The American Communities Survey

The ACS is a continuous data collection effort by the U.S. Census Bureau used to produce annual estimates at the national, state and local level on the characteristics of the United States population. In 2005, the ACS collected information from approximately 3 million addresses in the United States and 36,000 addresses in Puerto Rico. In 2006, it will also include 2.5 percent of the population living in group quarters, (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003).

Given the rapid pace of technological development, access to ongoing current statistics is of inordinate value to internet-based businesses, although the data is not currently detailed enough to be fully appreciable in web accessibility.

There is a more recent report, from the 2006 American Communities Survey, but the data collection is organized differently, so I elected not to mix the two to avoid introducing errors caused by relating data sets which are not a definite match. Regardless, both sets of data include valuable information, and are well worth consulting.

The primary flaw in this period of American Communities Survey data is that it does not break out separate types of sensory disabilities; blindness and deafness are collapsed into a single category. Although both of these issues have a bearing on web accessibility, the response to the issues is so radically different that this is a major flaw in the data when it comes to web accessibility analysis.

More recent American Communities Surveys have broken this information down further. As of the 2008 questionnaire (downloadable from the Census website), sensory disabilities are separated between blindness/low vision and deaf/hard of hearing.

Cornell University: Disability Statistics

A third fabulous source for disability statistics (with easily the best interface of the group) is the Disability Statistics project at Cornell University. The data is sourced from the American Communities Surveys and the 2000 United States Census, along with a few additional sources, so the base data is the same, but a greater variety of perspectives are available.

The Cornell database requires an account to access statistics, but they do provide free access using a public “guest” account. The email and password entered for the guest account are both “guest.”

Issues with the Data

It was necessary, of course, to summarize the data used for the report. However, each of those numbers should be viewed in context, as well. All of the data referenced is accessible as a Excel download from the U.S. Census Bureau (linked above).

The data is excellent for gaining an overview of the disabled population of the United States, but is not specific enough to give a clear sense of whether these disabilities will impact your web site. The statistics from the American with Disabilities report clearly state, for example, that 3.4% of individuals over 15 years of age have difficulty seeing; a total nearing 8 million people. However, exactly what is included in the data is hard to specify. The information was gathered by asking a series of questions, gathering whether the person had difficulty reading newsprint, etc. It doesn’t specify anything about the nature of the problem.

In general, my assumption is that the data may include some individuals who struggle with reading due to dyslexia, dependent on the exact phrasing of the questions, but not all, and presumably includes no or very few individuals with color blindness.

Download the reports (all in PDF format):

• Americans with Disabilities: 2005
• Disability Status and the Characteristics of People in Group Quarters
• 2006 ACS Content Test Evaluation Report Covering Disability

United States disability statistics: Measurement and sources.
Copyright 2004 – 2010 Joseph C Dolson, Accessible Web Design

Today, the good folks at SEOmoz published an extensive article documenting their statistical findings on web site ranking factors, as gathered from the data in their LinkScape analysis tool. It’s a good article, and demonstrates some interesting results they’ve garnered from the data available in the extensive LinkScape database.

One of their major takeaways in the article was a little disturbing to me.

“Alt attributes of images are probably pretty important places to use your keywords[.]” Explaining (Some of) Google’s Algorithm with Pretty Charts & Math Stuff, October 22nd, 2009

I’m not in anyway disputing their results; their data indicates that placing keywords in alt attributes is of benefit to search engine rankings. Whether that’s true or not is irrelevant to me; I simply want to discuss how this information should be best used.

SEOmoz, of course, is a company dedicated to the study and practice of search engine optimization and marketing. Their goal is to learn what they need to know in order to best put into practice the promotion of web sites. That’s great. My goal, however, is to make sure that users with disabilities are able to use and access web sites successfully without having to jump through unnecessary or unhelpful hoops along their way.

This is a particular case where the SEO method must be used cautiously and selectively if at all. What I want to convey in this article is the fact that while using keywords in alt attributes may help your web site rank, it can also result in a significantly less accessible web site, if applied poorly.

What’s the problem with alt attributes?

While sighted users will never even be aware of an alt attribute value in normal web browsing, screen reader users depend on them. Excess verbiage can render an image-based menu unusable, as I observed in a recent site review at Practical eCommerce. The same unnecessary use of keyword terminology in contextual images can easily confuse or distract a user; and the use of keywords with spacer or ornamental images can cause a web site to be completely unnavigable.

It’s all a question of information overload: practically speaking, if a web site uses images to convey information, a screen reader user can’t disable them without rendering the web site unusable. If the site also fills other images with extra text, the same user may be overwhelmed by an unnecessary volume of keyword phrases.

The SEOmoz report does continue to remark that “Keyword stuffing may be holding you back,” and the overuse of keywords in alt attributes can certainly qualify as keyword stuffing.

You shouldn’t take away from this article that using a keyword in an image alt attribute is totally unacceptable. That’s really not the case: just be selective. I wouldn’t condemn you for using the text “About ProductName” instead of “About” for a navigational image, or using a sensible alt attribute for a contextual image, such as “Woman using our ProductName.” Just remember that keyword stuffing is keyword stuffing, wherever you put the words.

And never place any value in the alt attribute for a purely decorational or spacing image. Please. Just an empty attribute.

Best practices: keywords in alt attributes
Copyright 2004 – 2010 Joseph C Dolson, Accessible Web Design

Read my review of of Pets Contained at Practical eCommerce.

It’s always interesting to see what I’ve written after the editors have had their way with it…

New Accessibility Review at Practical eCommerce
Copyright 2004 – 2010 Joseph C Dolson, Accessible Web Design

The goal of this article isn’t to tear down the hard work web site owners have done, so I’m not as harsh as I might be in another context — it’s also not a paid consulting review, so I’m not as thorough as I could be.

The purpose of these reviews is to provide an overview of some accessibility problems on every site reviewed; it’s superficial, but it will hopefully help make ecommerce web site owners more conscious of the issues they face with users with disabilities.

The first review is available today: Accessibility Review: Lori’s Wigsite.

I know perfectly well that this review, and the ones to come, will be leaving issues out. This is unavoidable. However, I’m interested in comments concerning these missing issues — if you are passionately concerned about elements left out, covered too superficially, or dismissed too quickly, let me know about it! I can’t cover everything, but I do want to know your thoughts.

Accessibility Review at Practical eCommerce
Copyright 2004 – 2010 Joseph C Dolson, Accessible Web Design

Granted, I was on vacation for a big chunk of the last four weeks, so we’ll call that an excuse.

The new column is Accessibility and the Checkout Process, summarizing a few of the key issues to be aware of when you’re trying to make sure that people with disabilities can get through your store — and succeed with your ultimate ecommerce goal.

New Column at Practical eCommerce: Checkout Process
Copyright 2004 – 2010 Joseph C Dolson, Accessible Web Design

Although I’m not a lawyer, I do pay some attention to the nature of legal issues surrounding web accessibility. They’re murky, but this article attempts to shed some light on how the law covers accessibility issues on the internet.

Hope you’re able to get some value out of the article!

New Column at Practical eCommerce: Accessibility and the Law
Copyright 2004 – 2010 Joseph C Dolson, Accessible Web Design

It does, however, intimate one of my pet peeves in documents promoting web accessibility:

Hey good lookin’

“But accessibility always compromises the design, doesn’t it?”

Wrong. Your site can still look beautiful.

This doesn’t precisely say that compromise is not required for accessibility; but it’s certainly implied by the language chosen.

To suggest that compromise is not required is simply a mis-representation of the truth about accessible web design: you do have to make compromises. Whether they’re compromises concerning how information is presented, the color contrast between elements, the specific uses of language or technology, you have to make compromises.

The perception seems to be that making compromises for accessibility means that you create an unattractive web site or otherwise decrease the aesthetic value of your web creation. This is not true: but it’s inaccurate to say that you don’t make compromises.

Truth: Effective accessible design has requirements which will require compromise in many areas.

It’s important to educate all participants in a web design project on accessibility before any serious work is done, to help prevent problems. If the designer knows to check contrast levels before proposing a design, they’ll start by creating an aesthetically elegant design with the color palette available. If they aren’t aware of these problems, you’ll end up making compromises on colors — and, without extensive modifications, it is entirely possible that these compromises could have a damaging effect on the aesthetics of the site.

Compromise shouldn’t damage aesthetics or accessibility: but poor planning almost certainly will.

Making compromises for accessibility
Copyright 2004 – 2010 Joseph C Dolson, Accessible Web Design

Wouldn’t have thought I had that much to say on the subject of being robust, but there you have it. Enjoy!

Installment No. 4 at Practical eCommerce: Robust Websites
Copyright 2004 – 2010 Joseph C Dolson, Accessible Web Design