How Accessibility Standards Enable Poor User Interfaces
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001144.html
I've been spending a lot of time recently on issues related to the
accessibility of websites. This continues to be at or near the the top
of queries I get regarding the Internet in general, and of Google in
particular (because most queries on all Internet topics I receive tend
to relate to Google, one way or another).
I've attempted to give some flavor of the frustrations people send me on
these topics, including in some of my relatively recent postings,
including among others:
UI Fail: How Our User Interfaces Help to Ruin Lives
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001112.html
The Three Letter Cure for Web Accessibility and Discrimination Problems
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001136.html
The observant reader might wonder ... how can this situation persist?
Why aren't there accessibility standards for websites?
In fact, there are such standards.
But the irony is that by encouraging a "one size fits all" view of user
interfaces -- typically with few or no user control options, such
standards can provide an excuse for not making interfaces more
customizable, more targeted to users with particular needs, and overall
better than what the standards provide for.
So, to take one case, we have low font contrast -- you know, the dim
gray letters on a gray background problem (at least when viewed with
aging or otherwise imperfect eyes). This is one of the issues most
commonly mentioned to me regarding Google products, e.g. in the new
Google+ (where some text is distinctly dimmer and harder to read than in
legacy G+).
Is Google just pulling these fonts and backgrounds out of a hat?
No, they're not.
In fact, when you discuss this issue with Google directly (and Google
has reached out to me for such discussions on accessibility issues --
many thanks!) you will be told that the fonts and backgrounds in
question all pass WCAG 2.0 guidelines.
Odds are you've never heard of WCAG -- the W3C Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines.
They come in three compliance levels, reminiscent of battery sizes:
A, AA, and AAA.
Google asserts that (for example) the new G+ passes the compliance
checkpoints for W3C WCAG 2.0 AA -- pretty much the end of the story from
their standpoint.
And I have no reason to doubt that they do pass those compliance tests.
But is WCAG magical? A gift from the heavens? The last word in creating
excellent user interfaces that play well with users of widely varying
needs?
Of course not.
In fact, W3C WCAG is something of a Godzilla of standards, that hardly
anybody really likes.
It's relatively big and complicated. Accessibility advocates often
complain that it doesn't go far enough and doesn't provide for adequate
customization by users.
Web services complain that it's unyielding and difficult to implement
correctly.
And they're all correct.
It's a classic example of design by committee, resulting in a complex
mess that doesn't serve anybody particularly well.
I'm just one guy sitting here alone in L.A. I can listen to frustrated
users, I can compile their concerns, I can make suggestions.
But I can't fix any of this stuff by myself.
Yet we damned well better find a way to find and deploy realistic fixes.
And soon. Because (among other things) an aging population
demographically means ever more users with accessibility needs that are
often not being met by today's user interfaces.
And as frustration turns to anger, the probabilities increase of
government getting more directly involved in this area, with bureaucrats
calling the shots. Oh goody.
We need to deal with this now, ourselves -- or government is going to
address this complicated area with their usual delicate finesse, that
is, the "bull in a china shop" approach.
Guess who will have to pick up the pieces afterwards?
Yeah, all of us.
And that's the truth.
Be seeing you.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein ([email protected]): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://google.com/+LaurenWeinstein
Twitter: http://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
I have consulted to Google, but I am not currently
doing so -- my opinions expressed here are mine alone.
_______________________________________________
pfir mailing list
http://lists.pfir.org/mailman/listinfo/pfir
