Accessible web applications: Separate doesn’t mean equal

Guest post by Jill Bobrick Igl, Concept 3D

In today’s digital society, where technology permeates every aspect of life — from education and employment to personal and social interactions — the call for accessible web applications has never been more critical. However, separate versions of digital content persist and fall short of accessibility standards. When organizations opt for separate under the assumption it’s equal, they fail to support true inclusivity. 

The pitfalls of parallel digital realities

Imagine navigating a city where every essential service — from banks to grocery stores — had a separate but unequal version for different groups of people. Or imagine participating in a book club where you’re given a different book from everyone else. Segregation like this is unacceptable in the physical world, yet frequently manifests in the digital space. Creating an alternative version of a website or application leads to a “digital back door” experience for users with disabilities, where the alternative lacks features and the seamless interface of its counterpart.

This approach creates a stigmatizing experience for users with disabilities and contravenes the core principles of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) which advocate for perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust digital content for all users.

Legal and ethical considerations

From a legal perspective, recent developments, including the Department of Justice’s update to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), underscore a shift toward integrated accessibility. This update mandates that state and local governments ensure all digital content meets the WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards, reinforcing that web accessibility is not merely a best practice but a legal requirement.

By providing a single, universally accessible platform, organizations acknowledge the right of all users to participate in the digital age equally. A commitment to inclusivity and accessibility means treating it as a fundamental aspect of the design and implementation process. 

The shortcomings of “accessibility shelters”

Separate or alternative versions suffer from issues like delayed updates, reduced functionality and lack of comprehensive testing. They can quickly become outdated, failing to reflect updates made to the primary site or application. This leads to a frustrating user experience and can pose security risks.

Maintaining two versions of a site or a web application is inefficient and requires double the resources for development, maintenance, and testing. This method also diverts attention from potential innovations in universal design.

Limitations of text-only versions

Text-only versions of websites are often assumed to be more accessible because they remove elements like images, complex layouts and interactive content, which could be interpreted as  potential barriers to accessibility. However, this assumption doesn’t account for the diverse needs of all users with disabilities.

Here’s why text-only versions are not always the most accessible solution:

1. Loss of context and information: Visual elements such as images, charts and graphs convey essential information that cannot be easily translated into text. Without these, users who rely on visual content for comprehension — like people with cognitive disabilities — may find the information less accessible.
2. Reduction of functionality: Interactive elements like maps and tools are crucial for users who rely on these features for navigation. This is especially true for users with motor disabilities who utilize specially adapted devices to interact with dynamic content.
3. Lack of engagement: For users with cognitive or learning disabilities, interacting with content that is both text and multimedia is easier to understand and more engaging.
4. Dual maintenance issues: Keeping a text-only version of a website alongside a standard version can lead to inconsistencies and additional maintenance challenges. If the text-only version is not updated with the same frequency and care as the main site, it risks providing outdated or incorrect information, leading to an unequal experience.
5. Exclusion from a rich internet experience: Offering a text-only site can inadvertently signal that users with disabilities are not expected to engage with the main, richer version of the site. This can be alienating and counter to the principles of inclusivity and equal access.

A better path forward: Inclusive design

Inclusive design approaches the user experience from the perspective of all potential users, including those with disabilities. It involves:

• Universal usability: Designing for a wide range of user abilities by default and accommodating those who use assistive technologies such as screen readers or who rely on keyboard navigation.
• Progressive enhancement: Building content to function with a basic level of user experience, but enhancing functionality and aesthetics for devices with greater capabilities.
• User-centered design: Engaging users with disabilities in the design and testing processes to catch bugs before externally sharing.

Developing interactive and media-rich web applications with full accessibility is undoubtedly challenging, requiring extensive research, team training and thoughtful design to balance functionality with accessibility. It demands a significant commitment from vendors to consistently integrate accessibility into their core products, rigorously test and make continuous updates.

Despite these challenges, the pursuit of accessibility is crucial. It ensures ethical practice, expands market reach and complies with legal standards. Ultimately, the investment in making applications truly accessible brings invaluable benefits to all.  

Truly accessible web applications matter

Truly accessible web applications are not just a regulatory requirement; they are a cornerstone of ethical business practices and social equality. They reflect an understanding that accessibility benefits everyone, not just people with disabilities. By designing with all users in mind, we can create digital experiences that are inclusive and innovative.

As we look to the future, it’s clear to us at Concept3D that the path to digital equality lies not in separate solutions but in comprehensive, integrated accessibility that respects and values the diversity of the user community. Institutions that embrace this approach will avoid the pitfalls of legal non-compliance and lead the way in creating a more inclusive higher education ecosystem.