WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Conforming alternate version

for

From: Mark Magennis
Date: Jan 12, 2022 3:45AM

Has this website arrived from the 1990's via a time machine? You just don't see this approach any more, though back in the day the accessible alternative was widely promoted as a good idea.

It's great that you're getting to test it with users. Nice to see that and good luck to you.

Aside from the compliance issue (which I know is what you asked about), there were (or are) a number of problems with 'accessible versions' that caused them to go away. I hope the owners of this website are aware of these problems and are taking measures to prevent them:

- The 'accessible version' was often specifically aimed at screen reader users (typically removing all images for example) and offered a worse experience in some ways for some other users with disabilities, e.g. sighted keyboard users and magnification users. Those users therefore had a choice between two versions, neither of which met their needs.
- It required the user to understand what 'accessible' means and that "it applies to my needs" (I originally got into accessibility when my web dev company misunderstood a client's request for a website that was "accessible". We thought it meant "easy to find").
- In practice, the accessible version often had issues that were not noticed by the admins or were given a lower priority for fixing and therefore persisted for a longer time than they would have on the 'standard' version.
- In practice, the 'standard' version often had content and functionality that was not included in the accessible version.
- It was seen by many users as a form of ghetoisation. A special place for people with disabilities. Better than just having one inaccessible website, but still a subtle form of exclusion.

Mark