One of the most famously cliched spy movie themes is the absurdly complex method (and accompanying explanation) in which the villain intends to kill the hero. Layer upon layer of killer sharks, laser beams, poisonous gases, and robot assassins employed with the sole intention of killing one fundamentally normal person (albeit a very suave person, of course.)
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 (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) 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.
Joe Dolson
Thanks for your comments, Noel!
Noel Proulx
I just came across this and I have to say you hit the nail on the head. I appreciate sites that give you the most with the simplest, cleanest solutions. I like video clips, mp3 players, etc on a site, but loathe when they all get loaded on a main content page (reminds me of a Myspace page). Give me a thumbnail and a link and let me get to it as I explore your site, don’t bombard me.
casol
Yep. Simple is better.
Joe Dolson
Thanks, Dennis – or, if it does “need” accessibility features added, maybe there are better ways of spending the time – like changing the defaults!
Web Axe
Excellent ‘villian’ analogy. And I agree, if I site is built well, it doesn’t need the redundant, supposed accessibility features.
Ryan Michael
This is a great example of the benefits of keeping it simple. In such a case as this, usability testing by disabled users or those who are familiar with common practices by disabled users. You nailed it when you said, “rather than adding a tool to enable people to adjust your site, you should simply fix the site.” Great advice, great post!