I’m working on a large government accessibility project, and it is one of the most eye-opening and challenging projects I’ve been on. Not so much because of the work involved, but because of the attitudes and the attempt to totally comprehensive in meeting accessibility standards.
First, the attitudes. If I hear one more time that “we only have to make this accessible for less than 1% of people,” I’m going to go insane. No matter how many times it is explained, or reasons expressed. The motivating factor for being accessible seems to be, simply – not to get sued.
Second – for an extensive system to be used by citizens and employees, this is a huge project that has nuances throughout. I am really looking forward to being able to consult on the testing of the system and get my hands on some of the awesome assistive technology that is being used for access.
Down to business
What amazes me the most if the ground that has to be covered in creating a comprehensive accessibility plan. The very moment you dismiss something as being “irrelevant”, or “a small percentage,” you’ve missed the entire point of the project.
Accessibility is a matter of allowing people to access information in a method that is understandable and usable. The difficulty intrinsic to the project is the variance among assistive technology and the access methods. This is where I wish I could come up with some kind of chart that explains why this is such a difficult proposition.
Accessibility is not linear
Accessibility is not a horizontal approach where one single technique is used on a sliding scale to meet the needs of a group of people. The higher you move the slider, the more people you give access to – unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. What does exist is an amazing testament to the human will to overcome. I wish I could come up with some sort of chart to explain the process, I am working on it, but it’s taking some time to think through the many variations.
Here are some examples:
Vision
To look at it as a continuum; we can start with low vision as a starting point, as that is the beginning stages of assistive technology. Usually low vision can be overcome with screen magnifiers, or at minimum, increased text size within a browser. Both also benefit from high-contrast settings.
On the other side of low vision is no vision. Users are then split between screen readers, Braille displays or a combination of the two. However it does show an interesting point that is commonly overlooked - not all blind users know Braille. To interface back to a website or system there are a few assistive technology devices, but many types within the market; Braille keyboards and speech-to-text programs.
Congitive
However, screen readers are not just used in the assistive vision realm. Many people with dyslexia, which falls into the Cognitive Disorder category, use screen readers to assist in the reading and interpretation of the content. These users rely on the design, colors and overall presentation of the site as cues, but the reality is that most of these users have excellent vision, but still use a screen reader.
This is important to note, as many programmers would simply dump anyone using a screen reader into a text-only version of an application or website. However, knowing that not all screen reader can be lumped into the vision category interrupts this line of thinking.
Physical
Perhaps the most amazing category of assistive technology devices is in the physical category. I am always amazed to see the amount of creativity in this area. From large-key keyboards and speech to text programs, both of which are also used by low-vision users, to laser pointer keyboards, headset pointers, and an amazing array of similar devices.
There is so much cross-over in the types of access, that to lump accessibility into a small percentage of specific users is to ignore the bigger picture. To put it simply, anyone who complains that the text is too small can use assistive technology. Anyone who has arthritis or other physical limitation to typing or using a mouse can benefit from assistive technology.
Many times it is a small change in the big scheme of things, but the variety of technology is so large, and the benefits so huge, that a simple linear view of this issue is the most limiting factor.
Wow, that sounds like an exciting project. Unfortunately, I can’t say I’m too surprised by the attitude problems. I’ve heard enough stories about that kind of thing by this point to pretty much chronically expect it.
It’s really interesting to hear that they’re really attempting to be massively thorough - it seems like a chronic issue that some population another is dismissed - for budget reasons, decision that the population is insignificant, or whatever.
Of course, there are likely to always be situations that just weren’t considered, but the attempt in itself is fascinating!
Comment by Joe Dolson — June 29, 2006 @ 4:04 pm