Accessibility Matters - Are Retroactive Obligations Realistic?

When it comes to accessibility, we all know what should be done. But those scenarios exist in a Utopian world that doesn't actually exist. The questions in our real world must focus on: what's realistic, what's doable, and what helps people succeed. Accessibility can uplift your business, but it can't be seen as a burden.

This week I had an accessibility reality check. Sometimes the cost of retrofitting complex software and design is too great to make accessibility a realistic goal.

Recently, I was evaluating a booking application to see if it would be compatible with various accessible technologies and tools. While the initial results were good, I found that the more I progressed, the more challenges I discovered.

In the end, the program's most important features could only be used with a mouse, meaning that it could not be used by a blind user. And, as it was to be used in an employment situation, its unusability was particularly disappointing.

While there may be work-arounds -- for example, getting help from a sighted colleague or seeking out an accessible alternative as a company (although the latter may not exist) -- both options present an unwelcome inconvenience.

The manufacturer of the software I tested this week was fantastic through my evaluation process. The representative spent time with me on the phone to explain how their software worked and what it visually looked like. The company also provided me with test credentials so that I could experience all aspects of their software as a paying client might. And while they were receptive and understanding of the accessibility issues I explained to them -- even going so far as to warn me prior to testing that such issues might exist -- their hands were effectively tied.

To fix the problem would require a costly retrofit they were unable to finance.

This raises the question of balance – how does a company balance the moral obligation of universal access with the practical concerns of their bottom line? Does one always trump the other? How should these decisions be made?

Ideally, all programs and services would be accessible to all. But unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. The reality is that retrofitting for accessibility is far more costly – in effort and in finances -- than designing a new and accessible product from scratch.

This is why the AODA's rules on accessible websites apply to new and significantly refreshed sites rather than those already built. There's also the consideration of market share. The population that uses screen readers is small; the aging population will more than likely require better colour contrast and large text rather than the ability to use a keyboard in lieu of a mouse.

This is not to get anyone off the accessibility hook – software and websites should be designed and built with accessibility in mind.

To work towards the ideal of universal accessibility, that needs to be implemented from the ground up, because once a project's gone past a certain point making it work for everyone isn't necessarily feasible.

That Utopian world doesn't exist today. But that doesn't mean we can work today to make it a reality in the future. And part of that work is awareness.