Comment: Technical Accessibility - a Means, not an End

A common misconception is that so long as a website passes automated tests such as Bobby, then it will be 'accessible', i.e. usable by people with special needs, such as those who are blind. Unfortunately, this idea may lead designers into creating sites that are technically accessible but in reality, unusable. Technical accessibility provides a foundation, without which entry into and progress through a site is impossible. But user needs extend further than this: failing to meet these means that a site may potentially miss users' real requirements.

I therefore argue for a different approach:
· Accessibility should be thought of as a technical requirement that applies to all users. The question of whether a site is accessible therefore becomes: can the browser someone uses – whether it is the latest version of Internet Explorer or an old screen reader – communicate the site clearly to the user?
· Usability should also be seen to be an issue for all people. The question of whether a site is usable therefore becomes: can people, using their preferred browser, use the site to achieve what they want to?

Accessibility as a technical standard
Accessibility is generally seen as the provision of websites that are usable by people with special needs. Without doubt, this provides a valuable political tool by raising awareness of the moral, legal and financial importance of designing sites that everyone can use.

Unfortunately, the idea of websites being usable by people with special needs often gets lost somewhere along the way. Instead the emphasis shifts to one of passing technical, and often automated, tests. Automated testing of sites for accessibility sounds fine in principle, but there are a couple of problems with the idea in practice.

First – and most trivially – 'automated' accessibility checkers such as Bobby still require manual checking of page contents to complete the test. The simplest example of this is a check that alternative text descriptions of images ('ALT text') are appropriate. Automated checkers cannot tell if a picture of a dog is mislabelled as a cat, for example.

Second – and more importantly – it can still be difficult for people to access a site using a screen reader, even if there are no problems in reading the contents. This is because the design of the (so-called) accessible site can fail to meet user requirements.

The problems users face
Users can face many problems with 'accessible' sites. For example, users may be forced to listen to extremely long pages of text being read out in order to find the right section on the right page. While long pages of text may be appropriate for a talking book, this design is tiring and frustrating for people who want to complete a task as quickly as possible. These pages would pass the current standard of accessibility, but by definition, these designs are not usable.
By their nature, technical checklists look at features of the code and the applications such as Flash and Javascript used to present information. While these can be seen as being a strong foundation, the technical aspects of accessibility only go so far. They do not address real user needs. The idea of technical accessibility is misleading because it is centred on the technology, rather than on the person using it.

Real user needs and accessible design
Even if the user can access all the contents of a page, this is not sufficient for it to be thought of as actually usable. For example, one of the main requirements of someone using a screen reader is that output should be easy to access in serial form. Most sites are designed to be scanned, rather than read, often using visual design features so that the user can quickly focus in on elements of interest. No analogous function is possible with a screen reader, so users are forced to listen to the entire page, or skip between sections hoping that they will not miss some vital information.

People using screen readers need to be able to tell, quickly and easily,
· What is on a page,
· What the most important elements are, and
· How to get to these elements.

For such users, feedback – particularly from error messages – also needs to be appropriately designed: hunting for error markers is extremely time consuming for someone who cannot scan the page.

A similar analysis can be conducted for other users. For example, many people have levels of visual impairment that allow them to read text, but require that the text be magnified. Scaleable text is an important (technical) requirement, but a complicated page design with no clear reading path may mean that the users are still unable to find the information they are after.

Unless page designs are tested with appropriate users, the problems that users face will be unlikely to be identified and resolved.

Redefining accessibility
The current position equates accessibility with special needs. It could however be argued that accessibility affects all users: accessibility can be thought of as the provision of content in a format that is readable by a range of technologies, from the most modern version of Internet Explorer to an old screen reader. If the technology cannot communicate a page in a meaningful form, then the page is not accessible by that device.

But asking whether the technology can communicate a page is one question, asking whether this page can then be used is another. Pages need to be designed to be usable by people regardless of the technology they use and the special needs they have.

While expanding the definition of accessibility to encompass all users may weaken the political message, this change allows us to re-emphasize the needs of users. This idea provides a critical shift in emphasis: a truly accessible design is one that is usable, and not just one that passes some arbitrary technical milestones.

Mark Newman
Bunnyfoot.com

'Internet addiction' linked to Depression
Source: BBC, 9 February 2010
 
There is a strong link between heavy internet use and depression, UK psychologists have said.

Could *You* be more Usable?
Source: UN, 8 February 2010
 
Bet you could.

Stowe Boyd on 'Steampunk' thinking about the Future of Computing
Source: Stowe Boyd's blog via Experientia, 6 February 2010
 
Are established metaphors of user experience holding us back from new ways of structuring our interaction through computers?

Nokia's User Experience Programme
Source: UN, 5 February 2010
 
Nokia has put together a rich and informative website covering the key elements of user experience.

Interfaces magazine: latest issue available now
Source: HCI News Service, 4 February 2010
 
The latest issue of Interfaces is now available in pdf format, free from the Interaction Website.

A Lighter Brigade of Chargers
Source: UN, 3 February 2010
 
Lots of gadgets, one charger. At last.

Mobile Touch Screens could soon Feel the Pressure
Source: MIT Technology Review, 2 February 2010
 
A quantum switch could add pressure sensing to mobile screens.

Usability, Usability, Usability: why the iPad will Succeed
Source: Econsultancy, 1 February 2010
 
The tech critics love it, hate it, love it again, shrug it off. What do usability experts say?

British Airways - at last some good news
Source: Loop11, 30 January 2010
 
In a recent website usability study for the world's leading airlines, the British Airways website proved to be the most user friendly, with Malaysia Airlines and Virgin Atlantic having the lowest user experience rating.

Computation of Emotions in Man and Machine
Source: Royal Society, 29 January 2010
 
Advances in computer technology now allow machines to recognise and express emotions, paving the way for improved human-computer and human-human communications.