Website Design and Accessibility

When new standards are introduced, there will often be debate over the direction a website should take or how standards should apply to a website or other online content. Compatibility, accessibility, design principles, and long-term planning for access are critical considerations for any successful or useful website. This guide will provide examples of how an accessible design makes for a great website.    

Why meet website design standards?

Sustainability – Websites built to comply with common industry standards are easier to maintain. When proprietary software or standards become obsolete, websites can fall vulnerable to security breaches, breakages, data loss, and inaccessibility. 

Accessibility – Website and software accessibility rely on adhering to standards. Accessible standards such as WCAG help facilitate better readability and navigation for users and assistive devices. Clear standards help mitigate issues with access, displaying information, and other problems end users may encounter when accessing a site.

Design – Web design standards have changed in response to changes in consumer habits. The plethora of devices available today has made cross-compatibility mandatory, so content is expected to scale appropriately regardless of accessibility requirements. People use computers, smartphones, tablets, kiosks, and touchscreen devices daily to access and interact with digital content. 

Whether commercial or not, a website is often the first opportunity to make an impression. An unwelcoming interface may discourage users from staying on a website. Standards ensure that no matter what device someone uses, they can access relevant information.

A site called “The World’s Worst Website Ever” demonstrates poor design choices, being visually cluttered, hard to navigate, not optimized for all devices, and inaccessible. Photosensitive users should not access this site, but the page explaining the design choices is safe for photosensitive users and accessible.

There are some common criticisms about accessibility standards and how they harm website production, but there are many possible solutions to the challenges that may arise.

Some claim that accessibility requirements limit designs, but:

• Standards do not mandate 100% contrast, which would limit one to using black and white. This level of contrast, however, does display dense information best.

• Various colors can be used as long as they meet minimum contrast requirements.

• Most contrast requirements are for optimum readability and to avoid unpleasant effects, not just for accessibility reasons.

• WCAG requires a minimum contrast level of 3:1 for large-scale images and text and 4.5:1 for normal-size images and text. 

• Alternative text is required for images to meet accessibility requirements.

Standards are said to reduce artistic license and control, however:

• Decorative images and text do not need to meet accessibility standards. Purely decorative elements serve no informational or navigation purpose.

• Non-standard user interfaces are allowed, provided that a name, role, and value exist for assistive tools to access and communicate to an end-user.

• Accessibility standards mostly apply to websites that offer products or services. A blog or personal webpage without an intent to raise money may be treated differently as a non-commercial presence.

Accessibility standards have been blamed for plug-ins and extensions not being supported but, in reality:

• Accessibility standards build upon pre-existing web development standards. If a plug-in or extension doesn't work with a certain browser, it's because it wasn't coded properly.

• Browsers limit or eliminate plug-ins and proprietary extensions that pose security risks.

It's assumed that maintaining digital accessibility will always be a huge expense and time commitment, even though:

• There are many free accessibility tools available.

• Chrome-based browsers — Developer Tools Instructions.

• Firefox browser —  Accessibility Inspector Instructions.

• Additional free and open-source accessibility applications.

• Users share responsibility for being able to access content. For example, they must provide and utilize their own assistive devices.

• Accessible web content has greater reach and is easier for machines to interpret, which provides a return on the resources required to create and maintain it.

• There are benefits to offering content in alternative formats. Text alternatives, for example, are useful when people have slow connections and can’t load multimedia.