Webstandards, Accessibility and Usability at Penn State

Some Accessibility Gotchas

Seminar Page 6

There has been a lot of discussion of accessibility over the years and some implementation myths have sprung up.

1. There's only a small audience for accessibility

Myth - Accessibility compliance only benefits users registered with the Office of Disability Services.

Reality - At some point almost all of us will be in a situation where 1) the image link is broken, 2) the colors are not distinguishable, 3) the text is too small 4) the audio is not working, 5) we cannot see the whole screen or 6) we cannot move the mouse properly.

2. Accessibility = Captioning

Myth - If we caption all our video and audio recordings, we are accessible.

Reality - Accessibility also includes accomodations for users who are visually impaired, mobility impaired, and many other users with slighter impairments or lower-quality technology options.

Note - In the past accessibility was equated to just implementing image ALT tags. The rise of podcasting and video brought awareness of captioning needs to the surface.

3. If it's Audio, then a Screen Reader can access it

Myth - If content is delivered by audio, then by default a visually impaired user can access it.

Reality - The navigation to the audio (including the login) may not be accessible.

4. CSS Styling will Guarantee Accessibility

Myth - If I use CSS stylesheets, I will guarantee that my site will be accessible.

Reality - Although CSS stylesheets can improve accessibility, you can also create additional accessibility issues if you use the markup incorrectly. Similarly you can create sites which are standards compliant but still inaccessible. Section 508 does not require CSS, but Section 508 does require sites to be usable without CSS stylesheets.

The same statement applies to other standards such as XHTML, XML, MathML, Unicode and other standards. These standards facilitate data exchange and are easier for accessibility tools to work with, but do not guarantee accessibility.

5. Text Only is a good accessibility option

Myth - Creating a parallel text-only site while maintaining an inaccessible site as is the best solution for accessibility.

Reality - Most users prefer that accessibility options be incorporated into a single Web site, saving text only transcripts for multimedia and plug-ins as needed. The reasons include.

1. Many people with disabilities feel that text-only sites are exclusionary. A single site with appropriate accessibility is perceived as more inclusive to the entire Internet community.
2. It's much more difficult to maintain a second site. Once it's out of date, you are out of compliance because equivalent information is not available to everyone.
3. Modern screen readers can actually process accessible HTML better than a text-only site.
4. Text-only sites may address some accessibility issues specific to screen readers, but not all accessibility issues.
5. Accessibility goes beyond "text only," so the original site must be reviewed in any case.

Note - Using CSS style sheets to present alternate views of content may be a valuable toolin some situations.

6. Accessibility Requires EM and STRONG

Myth - You must replace the B (bold face) and I (italics) tags with STRONG and EM tags to be compliant.

Reality - The STRONG and EM tags are functionally different from B and I in that screen readers change reading styles to highlight important information. However many uses of bold face and italics are for visual formatting only and may be irrelevant to screen readers. Use of STRONG and EM is not required by Section 508.

7. Accessibility Means No More Tables, JavaScript, Flash, Image Maps or Frames

Myth - All HTML tables, JavaScript, image maps, multimedia and frames must be removed to be compliant.

Reality - None of this is required by Section 508. What is required is that that these tools be implemented with sufficient information for a screen reader to use. In most cases, this only requires the addition of specific attributes. Even JavaScript programmers have developed techniques to create accessible code, especially in terms of ARIA.

8. Accessible Design is Plain

Myth - An accessible Web site is a plain Web site.

Reality - More complex designs can be accomplished and still be accessible. They key is to incorporate elements which do not interfere with readability, motion impairment or screen reader access. See the Web sites for Access P.S.U. and the Office of Disability Services for examples. Not to mention WebAim, Jim Thatcher Accessibility Tutorials, Accessify Com and many others.

9. Minimum 508 Compliance is Perfect

Myth - If you meet the minimum for Section 508 compliance, you will never have to worry about accessibility issues again.

Reality - Not all accessibility issues are covered in Section 508 regulations. Further, advances in Internet options will inevitably create additional accessibility issues. This page and this site will no doubt need to be redesigned in the coming years, although hopefully not too drastically.

10. Waiting for problems is just as easy as doing it now

Myth - You don't need to worry about implementing accessibility until a user requests accommodation.

Reality - If "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," then one minute of implementing an extra tag or adding more descriptions is worth one hour of finding each problem and figuring out how to fix it. Retrofitting a site for accessibility is far more time consuming than implementing it from scratch.