Communications of the ACM
Why Is Accessibility So Hard?
I sometimes think that, of all the disciplines, ours ought to be the most effective at adapting to the varied needs of users, including those that are challenged to interact with computing systems in one way or another. From low to no vision, deafness or hearing loss to carpal tunnel syndrome and various other physical limitations, we really should be able to configure our software to adapt. And in many cases, some very useful, clever, and general-purpose software adaptations have been achieved. But the problem persists, and it is still not the case that one can hold high expectations of accessible adaptation for a random application that happens to become necessary or, at least, of high interest.
I think I understand some of the problem, but this column is an attempt to begin a dialogue about improving the state of accessibility in our field. This is not only important from the purely ethical perspective, but it is also pragmatic given the demographics of our society and the increasing incidence of need for accessible applications. We are an aging society and we are welcoming home many wounded warriors with the need for assistive response, to mention only two obvious beneficiary groups. One reason this seems to be so hard is that software has unlimited variations and interfaces to applications can take virtually any form. Moreover, we are extending the modalities of interaction to include speech, gestures, mice, touchscreens, other "pointers," keyboards, and so on. We have Web-based applications that take advantage of a wide range of presentation and interaction choices. Not all applications take into account the need to offer distinct and configurable user interfaces and even when some or many such adaptations are offered, some work a lot better than others. The other side of this equation is that the users also manifest unlimited variations in their abilities and it seems unlikely that programmers can be fully cognizant of the nuances of each.
Another theme is the proliferation of platforms through which we may interact with computer-based services and applications. It becomes increasingly difficult to design in detail every mode of interaction, including accessibility variations, for every platform and application imaginable. And even if our imaginations were that good, someone is bound to invent a new application requiring assistive responses that we have not thought about before.
One popular tactic has been to try to create general-purpose tools such as screen readers to assist blind users or automatic captions to help deaf users. Another tactic is to "parameterize" the interfaces so users can pick and choose the variations best suited to their needs. In my experience, the range of parameters devised is fairly large and it is easy to get lost in selecting configurations or even anticipating how well they will fit user needs. Still, these tactics seem important for practitioners to apply when appropriate. The challenges strike me as fundamental, given the range of needs and potential interface designs.
This is by no means a new problem. There cannot be much debate that programmers and user interface (UI) and experience (UX) experts need to think fairly broadly and deeply about potential use cases before settling on an interface design. While the use of libraries intended to confer "accessibility" on arbitrary applications may be helpful, it seems to me that no amount of automatic adapting will make a poorly designed interface accessible. For some of the same reasons that security ought to be "built in" to the initial design, so should accessibility. If UI designers had to try their designs while blindfolded or use their applications with the sound off, they might gain insights into the nuanced demands that accessibility places on good design.
One feature of good interface design is anticipating what the user is likely to need to do next and to prepare for that. A similar notion might inform thinking about accessibility. One is struck by the seemingly impossible challenge faced by blind users and UI designers for them. In the Web-based world, two-dimensional displays, touchscreens, popup windows, drop-down menus, color highlighting, and other signals seem utterly out of reach. One must think how a user interface will behave when it is serialized for audible presentation. In addition, consistency of format and audio feedback from screen to screen also seems like a helpful philosophy.
I would like very much to hear from ACM members, SIGs interested in this space, UX design experts, as well as users of accessibility features about their experiences and their ideas.a Somehow we must find ways to approach this problem with a richer combination of design principles, pragmatic tactics, and artful implementations than we have in hand today.
©2012 ACM 0001-0782/11/01 $15.00
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page. Copyright for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or fee. Request permission to publish from [email protected] or fax (212) 869-0481.
The Digital Library is published by the Association for Computing Machinery. Copyright © 2012 ACM, Inc.
Comments
Anonymous
Hello,
This is definitely a point that has been discussed multiple times across the web, however this is the first such occurence I have found that goes into this much detail, almost scientifically so. I am of the opinion this is a good thing, therefore let me chip in with my somewhat plebeian thoughts.
I am a Dutch fully blind computer science student who has been using assistive technologies to interact with computer systems since I was a 10-year-old kid, about 10 years ago.
Since then I have seen some rather big shifts when it comes to accessibility. The commercial screenreader vendors (examples of these are Freedom Scientific, GW micro, Dolphin access LTD. etc) have developped their screenreading solutions from crutches into full-fledged assistive technologies with scripting support, multiple ways of reporting screen content et cetera.
The other side of the story however shows that the commercial vendors are starting to lose their monopoly on the screenreader market. This is sad in a number of ways, good in others.
I will detail my reasons for this last statement below.
A sad consequence of the commercial screenreader vendors is that the competition seems to have taken a turn for the worse. The competition between the vendors of screenreading technologies led to the inclusion of more and more features, due to one vendor trying to outdo the other. This competition appears to have stagnated, which in turn leads to a decline in the amount of new features contained in these products. Of course, the inclusion of fancy gizmo's to make life easier is not a requirement. However, new emerging technologies take longer to be supported, which can lead to a decline in productivity for professional computer users in the field.
One of the reasons this competition is so low is the emergence of screenreaders that are , in a way, free of charge. The open-source screenreader NVDA developped by NV access comes to mind, but also the inclusion of VoiceOver in mainstream Apple products fits this category.
These take away from the profits monopoly companies like Freedom Scientific would make, considering that a fully working macintosh computer costs about as much as one of their products.
Open-source efforts like NVDA, with enough backing, could revolutionise this market due to their faster response time when new technologies enter the field. Things like the new Metro interface in Windows 8 come to mind.
Now let us go back to the topic of accessibility and its implementation.
Often these days, the toolkits that are most often used in the construction of UI's have some sort of accessibility framework in place. Java Swing (even though this needs the java access bridge), WX, UIKit, WPF, .net, all of them have methods on their standard objects to set the strings screenreaders need.
Those who look into accessibility know this, but those who don't will likely not even know what it all means and disregard it.
A conversation I had with an Italian developer of iOS apps comes to mind. Nettuno is what they called themselves. When I approached them about making their guitar app accessible, I got the digital equivalent of a blank stare back. 'Accessibility? You mean like in voice control or something?"
Most developers don't know what a screenreader is, how it functions, what it is used for, how to develop in a way that takes advantage of its capabilities.
If we go higher up, we come to the OS-level support of accessibility technologies. Take Google's Android operating system, for example. Before ICS came out, the APIs developers had available to them regarding accessibility were very limited. So much so that most didn't bother even looking into them. I do not know how much ICS and JB has leveled the playing field in this regard, I must admit my Android research has ben shotty at best because most blind people currently do not see it as a viable option quite yet. The accessibility of iOS is currently superior in a number of ways, leading most of the visually impaired users to the safer environment Apple offers.
This is not a jab at Google nor at its accessibility efforts. I myself believe Google has come quite far since their initial release of accessibility efforts. Professional technology users however cannot see an Android device boosting their productivity just yet.
All in all I think a lot can be done to aid in the spreading of accessibility in the developer cycle by advocating it more to mainstream media. Apple has done this once, during a keynote where the late Steve Jobs shows off a new voice they have perfected. This generated quite a bit of media coverage in its wake, but it was not enough. Still, most developers do not know what a screenreader is. If we want accessibility to become a mainstream requirement, I think we need to start by educating developers more about the options available to them. Not just for visual impairments, but also for other disabilities. Of course, a developer cannot program failsafes for every contingency, but it will enable them to respond faster to questions about accessibility. Often, only a small change in the existing code can make a huge difference. Most developers do not know this and have to research what accessibility even means. I think this is the first problem that needs to be addressed.
Regards,
Florian Beijers
[email protected]
Anonymous
Sir,
Web content can be designed, developed and tested in accordance with established accessibility guidelines and principles (WCAG 2) so that "those that are challenged to interact with computing systems" can do so as effectively and efficiently as those who do not have any functional limitations.
1. Right at the outset, what is required as the realization that "accessibility" is a core requirement of the Web page or Web application.
Just like any functional requirement or usability or security requirement is written into the requirements specifications, accessibility requirements too should be part of this doc.
Then it will be designed, developed and tested at the unit level and through the rest of the SDLC.
An e-retail application will not get launched if it fails to calculate the invoice total because it is a core functional requirement, right?
An e-retail application is generally tested to prevent a hacker to get into the application and harvest credit card numbers or other personal information for security reasons, right?
If the page design is not visually pleasing, it will never get launched, right?
Accessibility too should be considered a core requirement. And this should happen top-down i.e. the management should realize that it is a core requirement to be met without which the website or application will never be launched.
This requires commitment, a budget, skills and time.
2. The other point as Bryan made, applying accessibility techniques incorrectly or applying a technique in a situation where it is not needed introduces accessibility problems too.
For instance, time and again I have encountered situations where my screen reader voices over content repetitively because of the above.
When I point this out to developers, they believe this is not a serious issue. Well will a Web page be launched if the same piece of text appears visually three times next to a form control? If not, why should a blind user listen to it three times?
3. Users with disabilities who are knowledgeable about Web technology, assistive technology and testing should be part of the design, development and testing teams. Not many individuals without disabilities can wield a piece of assistive technology like real users.
4. And of course you make a very important point about multiplicity of platforms, browsers, and technology. This certainly complicates things.
But just as one writes browser-specific code, sometimes one may have to do that for accessibility too ... until browsers learn to do things uniformly in standard ways recommended by user agent accessibility guidelines (UAG)
Thanks,
Sailesh Panchang
www.deque.com
[email protected]
Paul Schantz
As others have pointed out, education is important and should be required in formal CS programs. However, a very large proportion of web designers and web application developers are completely self-taught. The only time many of them are exposed to web accessibility is when they take a government job where they are legally bound to provide an accessible solution, or when they are bidding on a job where accessibility is a required part of the contract.
I'm not blind, and I have no mobility or cognitive disabilities. And yet, I've often wondered what I would do if I ever lost my vision or the use of my handsthe primary "tools" I use to make a living. If you're like me, what would you do? I suppose there are a thousand ways to motivate people to bake accessibility into their workusability, recognition, profit, the law, and so on. However, at the end of the day, it's simply the right thing to do.
Sincerely,
Paul Schantz
Director of Web and Technology Services
CSUN
Anonymous
I would argue that assistive technology should be built into the browser (or web application), or better still into the operating system. This does seem to be happening in some areas for example voiceover and iOS.
One of the issues that I see is that the browser is treated as being separate from the operating system. Why isn't it integrated (putting aside anti competitive laws which I think are somewhat spurious here, after all no-one is arguing that the graphical interface should be separated from the rest of the operating system to allow users more end choice). Why do we still have this odd idea that on a Windows desktop you double click an item to open it, but in a browser you single click it. How can we hope to make things easier for all users if these odd quirks still remain.
Why are browsers so inconsistent with how they work with things like HTML5, CSS3 etc. I know that technology changes but surely as a computing community can agree on what is valid/invalid/experimental.
Anonymous
Mr Cerf rightly says that
'it seems to me that no amount of automatic adapting will make a poorly designed interface accessible.'
In my personal experience, however, you just need a COMPLETE REDESIGN. No less, and often more, because 'the handicapped' or 'the old folks' or 'the cognitively impaired people' are FAR from homogenous.
Google is one of the few firms that might make a difference. I hope they will!
Joris Verrips [email protected]
Jason Jacob
Posted on behalf of Preety Kumar ([email protected]), CEO of Deque Systems.
The single biggest barrier to accessibility is a lack of awareness within the development community. Where there is a basic level of comprehension, it can many times be limited. For example, if a developer has any knowledge of accessibility, the developer will tend to think that blindness is the only disability that needs to be addressed in their coding. It took me a couple of years of participating in the accessibility industry before I gained a robust understanding of the range of disabilities and how these affect interaction with software and computers. Comprehensive, mandatory training as part of design and computer science programs would go a long way towards solving this problem, or at least giving graduating developers a more robust understanding of the issues.
The second biggest problem is one of a lack of empathy. When I tell people what I do and the fact that a lot of the investment in accessibility is being driven either by regulations like by Section 508 or lawsuits against companies, a surprisingly large number of them react negatively. Some people feel that government and the courts are overstepping their bounds and placing unfair burdens on companies. When I receive this reaction, I explain to people that these laws are simply the equivalent of online wheelchair ramps. Online services are no longer a luxury, but rather a necessity. Banking, health care and government services are all essential for every individual to be able to access, without barrier. I find that when I frame this issue in this manner, people's attitudes change. A critical piece of the solution needs to be campaigns whose aim is to make developersand the organizations that employ them--aware of the immense benefits that their efforts have in the lives of computer users who are disabled.
The third largest problem is that accessibility has become more complex and expensive. Part of the solution to making more accessible applications is making accessibility less expensive. Accessibility technology (AT), browser creators, and platform vendors often have incompatibilities with each other. Add to this the fact that it is currently not possible to detect the existence of a particular AT because of the fear of discrimination based on discovery of this technology, and it becomes clear that the creation of a single application that supports all available ATs is expensive at best and impossible at worst. The solution here is to have all the platform vendors and AT suppliers put aside their differences and come together in good faith to try to create standards that are truly standards. For example, Apple needs to give up its adherence to the doctrine that the headers attribute for table markup is not required, and Freedom Scientific must give up its non-standard interpretation of the application role. If simple web application inconsistencies like this cannot be resolved, then there is no hope for standards for accessible motion detection or brain wave interaction systems.
Finally, large, successful technology leaders like Google, Twitter and Facebook need to show leadership. Leading by example through creating complex, accessible applications that are used by millions and respected by developers allows the techniques and technologies to become more widely known and available. When the developers at the leading organizations routinely and consistently create amazing accessible applications, then developers who don't create accessible applications will be viewed as sub-par.
These are the reasons, in my view, that accessibility is so hard. However, there is reason for hope. Accessibility is becoming more widely discussed, debated, and, ultimately embraced. New technology, as well as a growing commitments to become accessible within companies, government and education are making a difference. And every web site that goes from being a barrier to being accessible makes a difference. Working together, we can continue to push forward and remove the roadblocks on the web.
Keith Instone
My favorite reference on thinking bigger than just accessibility is http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=332843 - Shneiderman, Ben (2000). Universal usability. Communications of the ACM, 43(5), 84-91.
Richard Ladner
I am contributing these comments by Susan Gerhart who was able to do so herself.
Why is accessibility so hard? Glad you asked!
Dear President of ACM Vint Cerf:
In your article Why is Accessibility so hard? , you invited comments and received many valuable references and opinions from other non-members of ACM. However, anonymous comments like mine seem not to be appearing since submitted for review after November 8. I worked hard on this little piece and have some constructive suggestions along the lines of an important ACM computing themes, namely computational thinking. As a former member of ACM, thoroughly disgusted by the un usability of the ACM Digital Library and haphazard HTMl of acm.org, I was hoping to find a genuine thread of change. So, not knowing if my submitted comment below is stifled or just dropped off your radar of comment reviewing, heres my advice anyway.
Analyzing the computing field accessibility deficit
Thanks for asking. My As Your World Changes blog has myriad suggestions for overdue change to accessibility practices within computing:
>>Will computing meetaccessibility in 2011? (Nope, how about 2013?)
>>Grafting accessibility onto computer science education
>>Retired CAPTCHA style thinking, please!
My favorite resources great reading
As a late life vision loser,and ex-ACM member, I hope the previously commented resources expand your frames of reference. Please add my favorites:(1 Wendy Chisholm and Matt May, Universal Design for Web Applications book; (2) WebAim.org screen reader user survey, WAVE accessibility checker, and pages of excellent practical advice; (3) the accessibility virtual water cooler linked by #a11y and #accessibility on Twitter; (4) the iBlinkRadio Android and IOS app portal to podcast and communities for visually impaired tech users; (5) a personable informative Rochester-based Viewpoints radio/podcast on products and daily living tips for vision loss. at http://viewpointsplus.net
Quintessential challenges: computational thinking and omitted requirement accelerating costs
Why do some think accessibility is hard? The good news is that we have at hand the quintessential computational thinking situation and mental tools for tackling much of accessibility. The bad news is another quintessential situation: the software economics of increasing cost of re mediating a missing requirement. Furthermore, attitudes are exacerbated by ignoring maturing web standards and disengagement from high performing professionals with disabilities in the assistive technology industry. ACM has also fostered an image of social exclusiveness through its misguided touting of the wonders of the NO BLIND ALLOWED symbol CAPTCHA (as if these magically warded off intruders other than us). How much of the difficulty is social rather than technological?
Remediation opportunity: learn by fixing your own website
Luckily the remediation opportunities for learning through and fixing accessibility flaws are readily available. Start with typing your institution, personal, or favorite web page into http://wave.webaim.org. This free and instantly usable analyzer will highlight the semantic structure of the page meaningful to screen reader users like me. Its highly likely youll also expose accessibility deviations from standards. Common zits are: unlabeled form elements leaving me wondering what to enter in the edit box; non informative link like click here that require reading the context; missing or mis-ordered headings that obscure the page outline, forcing me into tabbing among HTML elements linearly without a comprehensive outline for discovery and navigation; or graphics without descriptions as to purpose and content. Does your experimental analysis make you wonder why web developers didnt follow even these simple rules of accessibility? If youre accountable for the page, like this very one from acm, then how should you change your process, contractors, or attitudes if better accessibility is really a goal?
Remediation Opportunity: Establish CSEdWeek challenges
Heres another experiment Ive performed myself (see blog posts). Computer Science Education Week is a big publicity deal for prestige and recruitment into a presumably non-discriminatory profession. Are there at least minimal standards for accessibility of partner web sites? Is the language inclusive, at least recognizing that pedagogical tools like Alice are problematic and that CAPTCHAs on the contact page are offensive? A little bit of shame and accountability can be shared by all if we no longer act like accessibility is always hard but rather start fixing simple problems, learning along the way.
Remediation Opportunity: Listen to people who daily conquer accessibility challenges
One more opportunity is to cross the disability social engagement boundary and actually sit down with somebody who uses the wondrous technology available. You can familiarize yourself for freeze by installing the world class NVDA Windows screen reader, turning on VoiceOver on a Mac or IOS device (triple click home). Heres a computational thinking experiment: can you gain the same information sighted or blind folded? Why not? what do you have to learn to communicate, hold in memory, sequence differently, or give up on? How do you feel when offered an unlabeled button? Where do you go to learn new Techniques and good practices (hint: applevis.com and iBlinkRadio app)? Really, visually impaired folks can talk, explain, and share their joy using technology as well as constructive frustrations. Just ask!.
The Remaining Challenge after Remediation: absorbing complex information
Ok,there is one class of challenging problem beyond myriad simple accessibility rules and negligent process instances mentioned. Complex data structures like tables are memory taxing without vision and graphs and charts and animations require alternative sensory representations. Again, this is computational thinking as in concrete or multiple representations of the underlying information and semantics. Why doesnt ACM offer a prize for advances here, which also might help everybody better consume visual information?
Take heart, all you future vision losers, as resources abound
Finally, to the many of you who will be losing vision in late career or retirement? Take heart, theres never been a better time! You must locate whatever vision rehabilitation services are available locally, like Lighthouse or Independent Living but dont let the strange web of state and charity helpers limit you. Macular degenerates can find a veritable wikipedia of practical and emotional sustenance at http://mdsupport.org. The podcasted media of Main Menu ACBRadio, Seratech perspectives (iBlinkRadio), and the TechDoctor can ease you into product assessment and sharing the joys of now abundant mainstream products. An iPod Touch is a great gateway drug into this world if you havent already been bitten by the Apple bug. Becoming print disabled isnt all bad, because you are now eligible for near free daily newspapers and libraries of thousands of easily downloadable books for synthetic speech reading on devices and apps far better than sighted users buy. Yes, theres a monster learning curve, but we technologists are well positioned for this one more life adjustment. If we can now get our profession into the solution side rather than producing more generations of uneducated students accepting such poor role models as acm.org, then we might even be able to contribute better our valuable experience to a professional society that understands disabilities as computational thinking differences.
summary from my decade of adjustment to vision loss using technology with class:
get cracking on learning about accessibility by fixing simple, obstructive, instructive problems. Listen to accessibility professionals and high performing persons with disabilities who offer their spirited advice through social media. Only then will the goals of ACM style research be brought to fruition and we will identify the intrinsic difficulty of accessibility.
Yours, in respect and hope for change, finally
Susan L. Gerhart, retired visionary computer scientist and myopic macular degenerate
[email protected]
blog on adjusting to vision loss: http://asyourworldchanges.wordpress.com
Anonymous
There are so many aural components (videos and podcasts) that do not have proper captions and transcripts. Many do not even understand that YouTube auto captions is not the "final" product and still need to be cleaned up manually or replaced by quality human-made transcripts. The needs of millions of deaf and hard of hearing users are often overlooked.
For more information, there's a website on www.audio-accessibility.com to increase more awareness about the importance of quality audio transcription.
Anonymous
Mr. Cerf, UI developers using devices, such as screen reader software, can assist with product development, but cannot totally simulate what it is like for people living with disabilities, to use their venues. WeCo employs people who live with disabilities to work as trained user-experience testers. We put these testers to work with designers creating the opportunity for them to better understand that realities of access for those of us who live with sight, motor skill, cognitive and hearing disabilities. We invite you to learn more about and contact us with your questions: theweco.com
Displaying comments 11 - 20 of 22 in total