Web Accessibility for the Hearing-Impaired and Vision-Impaired
SUMMARY
Humans around the world rely on the internet for entertainment, education, and essential services. Unfortunately, much of the internet is inaccessible to users with hearing impairments or vision impairments. Inaccessibility affects millions of people: 26 percent of Americans are disabled according to the CDC. Among disabled Americans, 5.8 percent are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing and 4.6 percent have a vision impairment (CDC). Fortunately, software engineers can take steps to maximize websites’ accessibility. By adhering to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), engineers can develop websites that are accessible to disabled users.
Engineering organizations are ethically responsible for ensuring accessibility. Often, organizations neglect accessibility to save time and money. However, prioritizing accessibility actually benefits organizations in the long run. Organizations that proactively allocate resources to accessibility build inclusive, successful products while avoiding costly litigation.
INTRODUCTION
The internet is a constantly growing piece of society. Billions of humans rely on the internet for entertainment, information, and social interaction. Unfortunately, people with vision or hearing impairments are often unable to consume visual internet content such as images and videos. Videos without subtitles, for example, tend to exclude hearing-impaired users. By embracing accessible website design, engineers can build a more inclusive internet. An inclusive internet requires websites, tools, and technologies that are designed and developed so that people with disabilities can use them (World Wide Web Consortium). Developing accessible websites often incurs additional costs, posing an ethical dilemma: are software engineers obligated to spend additional time and money to ensure their products are accessible to disabled users? Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, argues for inclusive design. In a landmark press release, Berners-Lee stated: “The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect” (World Wide Web Consortium, 2005).
COSTS OF INACCESSIBLE DESIGN
Engineering inaccessible software imposes significant social costs to disabled consumers. Additionally, engineering inaccessible software creates ethical and legal costs for the engineers’ organizations.
Costs to Individual Users
Hearing-impaired and vision-impaired users bear the burden of inaccessible design. In 2020, 26 percent of American adults live with a disability (CDC). 5.8 percent of disabled Americans are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing (CDC). 4.6 percent of disabled Americans have a vision impairment (CDC). People with hearing or vision impairments are particularly affected by inaccessible websites. For example, deaf people are unable to comprehend videos without subtitles and color blind internet users have difficulty interpreting images without alternate text.
According to BBC, internet accessibility isn’t a luxury; it’s a necessity. Disabled users aren’t just missing out on the latest memes and facebook posts; they’re often unable to utilize online banking services, read news publications, or apply to jobs (BBC). Chris Danielson, a representative for the National Federation of the Blind, highlights the internet accessibility’s critical role in the 21st century:
“People are doing everything online nowadays, so it’s about blind people being able to access the likes of online banking, applying for employment and doing the necessary online tests, accessing cloud-based tools in the workplace, and all the rest.” — Chris Danielson, National Federation of the Blind (BBC)
Costs to Organizations
Organizations that engineer inaccessible products also face significant costs. Neglecting accessibility is always unethical and often illegal. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 prohibits discrimination based on disability. The ADA is responsible for ensuring the availability of handicapped parking, for example. As a result of Title III of the ADA, websites that do business in the United States are legally required to provide equal accessibility to all people. Businesses with non-ADA-compliant websites are at risk to litigation. According to a leading legal firm, 11,053 ADA Title III lawsuits were filed in federal court in 2019- 8.8% more than were filed in 2018.
Fortunately, organizations can avoid the legal and ethical issues costs of inaccessible design by following the criteria for accessible design specified in the WCAG (World Wide Web Consortium, 2020).
ASPECTS OF ACCESSIBLE DESIGN
In August 2020, version 2.2 of the The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) was published. The updated document includes specific guidelines for designing websites accessible to disabled users. Specifically, the updated document includes detailed guidelines addressing the needs of users with visual, auditory, physical, speech, cognitive, language, learning, and neurological impairments. According to the WCAG, engineers should strive to develop software that is perceivable and operable.
Perceivable
Users need to perceive the content they access on the internet. Users with visual or hearing impairments perceive information in various ways.
Blind users rely on text-to-speech technology to perceive web content. The World Wide Web consortium recommends providing text alternatives for any non-text content like images and videos. If engineers provide text alternatives to all non-text content, websites can be compatible with text-to-speech technology and braille translation services (World Wide Web Consortium, 2020).
Hearing-impaired users struggle to perceive audible content. Audible content refers to audio-video content such as movies or TV shows as well as audio-only content such as podcasts. To maximize accessibility, the WCAG outlines strict criteria for closed caption accessibility. Specifically, the WCAG requires that “captions are provided for all pre recorded audio content in synchronized media” (World Wide Web Consortium, 2020).
Operable
Users need to operate, or interact with, interactive internet content. Operating websites includes actions such as navigating between a website’s various screens, filling out online forms, or uploading internet content.
Vision-impaired users typically rely on a keyboard to interact with websites. Touchscreens and mouses require users to visually locate internet content. Keyboard shortcuts, on the other hand, don’t entirely depend on the user’s sight. The WCAG asks engineers to design websites where all content is operable through a keyboard interface. Furthermore, the keyboard interaction shouldn’t require specific timings for individual keystrokes (World Wide Web Consortium, 2020).
Impaired users often take longer to interact with websites than unimpaired users. Using text-to-speech technology, comprehending closed captions, or relying on keyboard actions can increase the time it takes for users to interact with websites. To minimize the consequences of reduced rates of interaction, engineers should limit the use of timed features. Timed features include auto-updating pages, auto-scrolling text passages, user inactivity timeouts, and other features that pressure users to interpret content within a limited time frame.
COSTS OF ACCESSIBLE DESIGN
Unfortunately, complying with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines is neither easy nor free. Atilus, a consulting firm that specializes in web accessibility, charges hefty fees to evaluate and improve websites’ accessibility. Atilus typically charges tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees for evaluating and mending a site’s accessibility shortcomings (Atilus). Small organizations with limited engineering budgets may feel forced to neglect accessibility in order to save time and money. Organizations should avoid the urge to deprioritize or neglect accessibility. Although the cost of engineering accessible websites is high, the long-term cost of neglecting accessibility is often higher.
IMPROVING ACCESSIBILITY: CASE STUDIES
To maximize accessibility, engineering organizations should prioritize the development of accessible software as early as possible. By proactively allocating resources to accessible design, organizations will reap ethical and economical benefits in the long run. Apple and Google, two of the largest technology companies in the world, exhibit the benefits of prioritizing accessible design.
Apple
Apple is a company that consistently benefits from the prioritization of accessible software design. Specifically, two of Apple’s products exemplify accessibility: iTunes U and VoiceOver.
In 2007, Apple released iTunes U. iTunes U was a section of the iTunes Store used to host courses and other digital content from top US colleges. Although popular, iTunes U was flawed: the California State University system was initially unable to use iTunes U because the application was not fully accessible to blind students. Apple devoted resources to the problem and quickly resolved the dispute. By acting proactively, Apple solved the issue with innovation, not litigation. California State Universities were soon able to use the program widely (World Wide Web Consortium, 2018).
During the development of the original iPhone, Apple began to analyze the implications that a touchscreen device would have on vision-impaired users (World Wide Web Consortium, 2018). To ensure accessibility, Apple engineers designed VoiceOver, the world’s first gesture-based screen reader. VoiceOver was released in 2010 and promptly received praise from the National Federation for the Blind (Danielsen, C).
Much of Google’s success can be traced back to engineering for accessibility. Auto-complete, a time-saving feature implemented across Google’s suite of products, was originally designed to enable disabled users to type faster. Today, billions of users around the world depend on auto-complete to type accurately and quickly.
Google was one of the first companies to institute contrast minimums. Contrast minimums are rules dictating the contrast between adjacent colors on web content. Contrast minimums were originally intended to improve vision-impaired users’ content perception. Contrast minimums proved to be popular among impaired users as well as unimpaired users. As a result of contrast minimums, unimpaired users reported better content perception when in high-glare scenarios. Today, users around the world unanimously benefit from contrast minimums (World Wide Web Consortium, 2018).
REFERENCES
Atilus. How Much Does ADA Compliance Cost? (2019). Retrieved from https://www.atilus.com/ada-website-compliance-cost/
BBC. Why much of the internet is closed off to blind people. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49694453
CDC. Disability Impacts All of Us. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/infographic-disability-impacts-all.html
Danielsen, C. National Federation of the Blind Commends Apple for Including VoiceOver on iPad. (2010). Retrieved from https://www.nfb.org/index.php/about-us/press-room/national-federation-blind-commends-apple-including-voiceover-ipad
Seyfarth Shaw LLP. 2019 Was Another Record-Breaking Year for Federal ADA Title III Lawsuits. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.adatitleiii.com/2020/02/2019-was-another-record-breaking-year-for-federal-ada-title-iii-lawsuits/
W3Techs. Usage statistics of content languages for websites. (2020). Retrieved from https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_language
World Wide Web Consortium. Financial Factors in Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/WAI/business-case/archive/fin
World Wide Web Consortium. The Business Case for Digital Accessibility. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/WAI/business-case/
World Wide Web Consortium. Introduction to Web Accessibility. (2005). Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-intro/
World Wide Web Consortium. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
World Wide Web Consortium. World Wide Web Consortium Launches International Program Office for Web Accessibility Initiative [Press Release]. (1997). Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/Press/IPO-announce
