Accessible websites better for all

Feb 18 2010 by Rob Colling , The Journal

WHEN I'm explaining what my company does, it's never long before someone says something like "You know, I often watch TV with the subtitles on. I don't need to, but I just enjoy the programme more when I'm catching every detail."

I’ve always found that interesting. Subtitles are intended to improve accessibility, to allow people to watch video who’d otherwise have difficulty. The industry tends to assume that the hearing majority find captions intrusive and annoying.

Yet I constantly meet people who don’t need accessibility measures but who, for any number of reasons, watch TV with the captions on. Extra accessibility for the minority of viewers has led to better usability for the majority.

This isn’t an isolated phenomenon, of course. Improving accessibility for those with disabilities very often improves overall usability, especially on the web.

The Disability Discrimination Act says if you have a website you have to make “reasonable adjustments” so that a person with a disability can use it. I’d say we shouldn’t need the DDA’s stick, because the carrot actually outweighs it. An accessible site is a usable site, with potentially a huge return on the investment of making it accessible.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission did a large study a few years back with non-disabled web users. They found that tasks that took an average of 52 seconds on an ordinary website only took 36 seconds on an accessible one. In other words, the accessible website was easier to use for everyone, not just for disabled users.

Legal & General redesigned their site a while ago with accessibility as their top priority. Afterwards they found the number of web customers doubled, the natural search performance improved by half and the maintenance cost fell by two thirds. An accessible website is an effective website, it seems.

Accessible websites are also generally easier for mobile browsers to make sense of, and therefore nicer to use via a phone or netbook.

All of this makes sense when you think about it. A website optimised for accessibility is a neat, tidy website with a coherent, simple structure and no loose ends or bodgery in the code. It contains no duplication or clutter, its text is concise and clear, and it is highly consistent from page to page.

Does that sound like a website aimed at disabled users? Or, if we’re honest, wouldn’t we prefer every website to be like that? Especially our own?

:: Rob Colling is founder of Gateshead-based www.internetsubtitling.com