Interview - Kynn Bartlett

SP: Can you highlight the major constraints that you encounter in your work on a regular basis?

The most obvious accessibility problem on the Web -- to the point that I've identified it as "the poster child for Web accessibility" -- is the lack of alt attributes on images. Without textual alternatives for graphics, users of screenreader software will be told only that an image appears on the page, and won't have any idea what that image represents. Is it a simple illustration, a chart, a navigation menu, or just yet another darned cat picture? Without alternative text, there's no way of knowing. The solution is simple -- give a text equivalent for each image that duplicates the function of the graphic.

The next most common accessibility error relates to the use of JavaScript, Java, Flash, PDF, multimedia presentations, and other languages and formats which aren't supported by assistive technology (AT). Assistive technology is a broad category which includes both hardware and software (such as screenreaders) that allow computer users with special needs to run programs, providing input or output functions, or both. Most ATs are unable to handle complicated Web programming effects and file formats which haven't been designed with accessibility in mind. Solving those problems involves setting up alternate ways to access the same functionality, such as a server-side script paralleling a Java applet or an HTML equivalent for a PDF form.

Color use, as related to Web accessibility, is often misunderstood; the use of color itself does not inherently present accessibility barriers. However, the use of color as the only indication of important content can cause a number of problems for users who can't perceive colors the same way you or I can. For example, let's say that a train schedule indicates that all times marked in green represent A.M., and all marked in red represent P.M. Someone with red-green color blindness might not be able to tell the difference, and would have no idea what time to arrive at the station. To fix this, you wouldn't turn off the colors, you'd simply add "A.M." or "P.M." to each time on the schedule.

You'll notice that in each of these cases I didn't say to take something away, but rather to add something. Web accessibility, when done right, is about expanding your audience by extending your site, not about removing something because it's "bad." Don't tear down the Flash presentation -- just provide the important content with an HTML link. Don't remove your graphics -- add alt text so everyone can use the site.

In fact, graphics themselves can increase the accessibility for a number of users with disabilities, something you may not have heard before. Accessibility isn't simply about blind users; many users have cognitive disabilities which make it harder for them to read large blocks of text. Through illustrations and meaningful icons, you can make your site easier for these users with reading or comprehension difficulties. Clear, simple writing and links to definitions or glossaries can also improve comprehension, which also gives benefits to younger users or international users for whom English isn't their primary language.

SP: People often exchange the terms accessibility and usability as if they were the same thing, what would you say to try and explain the difference?

Accessibility and usability are very much related technologies, but where one stops and the other begins it's hard to say. Both include a focus on the needs of the user and a desire to improve that user's experience; some will claim that accessibility is a subset of usability, while others will claim it's the other way around. Both are important and a vital part of delivering Web services which benefit our audiences.

The way I see it is this -- accessibility is about whether or not someone can get to the content, and usability is about how easy, pleasant, and efficient it is to do so. For example, let's consider a university library. There is a book stored on the 4th floor which Nathan would like to read, but he's in a wheelchair, and there are no elevators. The book's contents are inaccessible to him.

So let's assume he goes to the librarian and talks to them about this. The librarian then says, "Oh, okay, I'll go get it for you." She runs up the stairs, grabs the book, and brings it down to Nathan. Nathan now has access to the content; the book is in his hand and he can read it. However, let's examine the usability -- the librarian has to be available, not busy with someone else, and he has spend time asking for the book and waiting for it to be brought down. What's more, he can't browse through the other books on the same shelf, so he's unable to easily locate other books on the same topic. The usability is much lower than if there were an elevator installed, but no one can deny that he has access to the book.

As Web developers, we have to consider both issues, for our disabled and non-disabled users alike. Are they able to access the content, and if so, is it easy for them to do so?

SP: How would you undertake the enormous task of convincing designers that accessibility IS important, and there is a place for both extraordinary design and a high level of accessibility?

Well, I don't actually believe it's an enormous task. I think it's a simple and straightforward proposition to suggest that everyone -- not just those who are physically perfect -- should be able to use this marvellous tool of the 21st century. Nearly anyone except the coldest of hearts would agree that if you can make something that can be used by more people instead of fewer, you should do it.

The problem here is that somewhere the wrong message got sent. The impression has been made that accessible Web design means boring Web design. Part of that is the fault of Web accessibility proponents, who have a tendency to label anything visually interesting as "worthless bells and whistles" and an emphasis that "content is king" with an unspoken disdain for appealing presentations. Personally, I like visual sites which are attractive and well-done; and as noted before, users with cognitive disabilities can gain much from a solid, well-illustrated site.

Now, you wouldn't be able to tell that I like attractive sites from looking at my own personal site! Not all of us are artists and I include myself in the "not" camp on this one. What's worse, though, than my poorly illustrated site is Jakob Nielsen's defiantly proud text-only site. While Jakob often makes excellent points, his insistence on a pure textual site results in one without illustrations or decent graphical design. Such an attitude is basically a rejection of the large body of knowledge possessed by graphical artists about how visual information is processed by those of us who are fortunate to be able to see. Rather than denying this knowledge, Jakob and others -- myself included -- should embrace it as part of our understanding of how to make audience-centred Websites.

A dynamic visual design isn't at all at odds with an accessible content interface. The two are complementary disciplines, and there's much that the accessibility engineer can learn from the graphic artist, and vice versa.