Steering towards WCAG guidelines does not lead to a usable website for everyone
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:30 am
WCAG is not a panacea
It is impossible to create a set of criteria that meets everyone's individual needs to be able to read, understand and use websites well. There are simply too many individuals for that, each with their own specific situation. For example, the WCAG describes the minimum requirements for contrast ratios . A good contrast ratio starts at 4.5:1 for normal text. However, there are people who benefit from a much lower contrast ratio, because they are light-sensitive or cannot tolerate many stimuli due to a psychological condition. For these people, a website is therefore less accessible if it meets this specific criterion.
But that is the consequence of the choice that has been made to have websites meet a measurable set of criteria. This makes the research into those criteria fairly standard. And it is not bad, it is even russia telegram data an important step in the right direction. As long as we are aware that steering on WCAG guidelines does not lead to an accessible and therefore usable website for everyone. However, we notice that few organizations are aware of this.
What are the consequences?
By very specifically steering on a number of technical and well measurable criteria, the ultimate end user is sidelined. After all, it has been determined from above that meeting 50 specific criteria leads to an accessible website for the user with a disability. This has three unpleasant consequences.
1. WCAG as an end in itself
Organizations are no longer challenged to think about making their websites accessible and usable for people with disabilities. This is because they are guided by law to comply with the WCAG. This makes compliance with these guidelines a goal in itself. More is not necessary. Less is not necessary either. So, as said before, it is an important step, but no more than that.
You are simply not fully inclusive if your website complies with WCAG. There are still target groups with a disability who cannot or have difficulty using websites that comply with WCAG. This sometimes leads to frustration among accessibility managers, such as those of a large municipality in the Randstad.
It is impossible to create a set of criteria that meets everyone's individual needs to be able to read, understand and use websites well. There are simply too many individuals for that, each with their own specific situation. For example, the WCAG describes the minimum requirements for contrast ratios . A good contrast ratio starts at 4.5:1 for normal text. However, there are people who benefit from a much lower contrast ratio, because they are light-sensitive or cannot tolerate many stimuli due to a psychological condition. For these people, a website is therefore less accessible if it meets this specific criterion.
But that is the consequence of the choice that has been made to have websites meet a measurable set of criteria. This makes the research into those criteria fairly standard. And it is not bad, it is even russia telegram data an important step in the right direction. As long as we are aware that steering on WCAG guidelines does not lead to an accessible and therefore usable website for everyone. However, we notice that few organizations are aware of this.
What are the consequences?
By very specifically steering on a number of technical and well measurable criteria, the ultimate end user is sidelined. After all, it has been determined from above that meeting 50 specific criteria leads to an accessible website for the user with a disability. This has three unpleasant consequences.
1. WCAG as an end in itself
Organizations are no longer challenged to think about making their websites accessible and usable for people with disabilities. This is because they are guided by law to comply with the WCAG. This makes compliance with these guidelines a goal in itself. More is not necessary. Less is not necessary either. So, as said before, it is an important step, but no more than that.
You are simply not fully inclusive if your website complies with WCAG. There are still target groups with a disability who cannot or have difficulty using websites that comply with WCAG. This sometimes leads to frustration among accessibility managers, such as those of a large municipality in the Randstad.