Accessibility: we can’t get it right on the high street, what hope do we have on the Web?

On 12:06:55 2 May 2006 PaulWalsh wrote:

 

Accessibility: we can’t get it right on the high street, what hope do we have on the Web? 

This is an opinion piece I’ve been eager to write for sometime, well, ever since I tried to exchange a top at Gap for one of my in-laws in Guildford just after Christmas. The recent media coverage surrounding River Island’s new inaccessible website has encouraged me to put pen to paper, so to speak.

‘Accessibility’, we should try our best not to discriminate against other people, by making sure everyone in society has equal access and is treated fairly – but should this come at the expense of making redundancies or closing down a business?

Below are three examples that demonstrate how society just doesn’t get it, or perhaps, doesn’t care?

One of my examples below demonstrates that providing the same access to everyone isn’t possible all of the time, yet people are still treated equally. The second example demonstrates a situation where it is possible to provide equal access, but a local authority has decided to prohibit ‘access to everyone’, in favour of the sentimental value of a building. My final example draws the parallel between the first two accessibility issues that are recognised by everyone, irrespective of the industry they’re involved in and the online world.

Every example is an actual recent occurrence.

Example 1

My next door neighbour is a solicitor with an office located on the forth floor of a very narrow, listed building. It’s technically impossible to install a lift currently. The cost of adding an extension in order to install a lift is significantly disproportionate to the benefits of making it accessible to wheelchair users. In short, he would go out of business if forced to install a lift.

So, to ensure he is being inclusive and fairly accommodating all clients, he makes customers and potential customers aware that he’s very happy to meet with them in the café across the road.

Do you think he should try to install a lift no matter what the cost? Or do you think it’s ok to meet people in the café?

Example 2

Retail outlet Gap is located in the scenic high-street of Guildford. Gap also happens to be located in a listed building. They applied for planning permission to have a lift installed during a complete refurbishment project, perhaps for dads like me with two small children in a double push chair (gremlins at the best of time when your back is turned) (note, I include myself and my double pushchair in the classification “disabled” here, I am not restricting the term to the traditional sense of the word).

Gap’s planning permission to install a lift was denied by Guildford Council due to being a listed building. Today, Gap has a beautifully furnished retail outlet but it doesn’t permit access to the men’s department for a great number of potential customers, including dads with double pushchairs and wheelchair users.

Is this ok? If you were the planning authority for Guildford and you had to choose between two pieces of legislation, would you choose a building over people? Could Gap still be taken to court? 

Could Guildford Council be taken to court? Remember the airport was also found 50% liable when Ryanair lost their court case for charging a passenger for the use of a wheelchair.

Example 3

River Island (you’ve probably read about this already) built a website recently that didn’t provide equal access to everyone.

Since they’ve been slated in the press and reaping the benefit of free PR (it is arguable at the same time that they used this smartly) River Island has stated that they will now build a HTML alternative so that blind users can have access. BTW, accessibility is not all about blind people! (Many mobility impaired web surfers use head sticks to tab through web pages).

So, not only does River Island have to spend more time and money building a new site, they will have to spend ongoing time and money in maintaining the site because both must provide the same products and services at the same time. Otherwise they’re back to square one and could end up in court – which is likely given the bad publicity they’ve received.

Some users may feel discriminated against if they’re asked to use another website ‘just because’.

Conclusion?

So, if it’s not technically possible, or the cost is significantly disproportionate to the benefit of making a website accessible, then provide an alternative.
Does River Island fit into this category?

Should people write to Guildford Council to find out why they think it’s more important to maintain the look ‘n feel of the inside of a building than it is to provide equal access to everyone and to treat everyone fair?

I’m very interested to hear your opinion because often we entertain extreme views in society. We have people who think disabled users get too many parking spaces in shopping centres, while others go on the war path if they see a driver in a disabled spot 5 mins before Tesco is about to close on a Sunday afternoon and it’s unlikely that 50 disabled drivers are about to enter the car park and require that same spot.

If we find it difficult to get it right on the high-street, how on earth are we supposed to get it right online? River Island isn’t supposed to end up as my punch line; the story entered my head as I was finishing my second example. But it’s a good example of a traditional bricks ‘n mortar business with an online presence. 

Do they get it? Did their project manager purposely stick their head in the sand? Do they have a smart PR team? Are they still discriminating with a new ‘alternative’ site?

Kind regards,
Paul

-------
CEO
Segala - Providing a Reliable, Consistent and Trusted Experience
www.segala.com
-------
Gold Sponsor of Internet World 2006 - http://www.internetworld.co.uk
Bronze Sponsor of WWW2006 Conference - www.www2006.org

On 13:23:13 2 May 2006 jonbovard wrote:

 

Paul, great post.

Usability is a tough one to measure empirically, hence maybe why its often neglected by the decision makers.

The sooner business's are held accountable for both ROI and usability, the better.

re: The River Island site is a classic example of why Branding people should be beaten off with a stick from some web projects. At least from the functional component of the project,

Similar vein to Ashleys post about the Tail wagging the dog here (ie. wrong people being responsible for important decisions)

The growth and increased adoption of Web analytics (of which can see none on Rivver Island) is tending to focus peoples minds on site ROI but site usability seems to have a fair way to go. Yet.

jon

On 12:06:55 2 May 2006 PaulWalsh wrote:

 

Accessibility: we can’t get it right on the high street, what hope do we have on the Web? 

This is an opinion piece I’ve been eager to write for sometime, well, ever since I tried to exchange a top at Gap for one of my in-laws in Guildford just after Christmas. The recent media coverage surrounding River Island’s new inaccessible website has encouraged me to put pen to paper, so to speak.

‘Accessibility’, we should try our best not to discriminate against other people, by making sure everyone in society has equal access and is treated fairly – but should this come at the expense of making redundancies or closing down a business?

Below are three examples that demonstrate how society just doesn’t get it, or perhaps, doesn’t care?

One of my examples below demonstrates that providing the same access to everyone isn’t possible all of the time, yet people are still treated equally. The second example demonstrates a situation where it is possible to provide equal access, but a local authority has decided to prohibit ‘access to everyone’, in favour of the sentimental value of a building. My final example draws the parallel between the first two accessibility issues that are recognised by everyone, irrespective of the industry they’re involved in and the online world.

Every example is an actual recent occurrence.

Example 1

My next door neighbour is a solicitor with an office located on the forth floor of a very narrow, listed building. It’s technically impossible to install a lift currently. The cost of adding an extension in order to install a lift is significantly disproportionate to the benefits of making it accessible to wheelchair users. In short, he would go out of business if forced to install a lift.

So, to ensure he is being inclusive and fairly accommodating all clients, he makes customers and potential customers aware that he’s very happy to meet with them in the café across the road.

Do you think he should try to install a lift no matter what the cost? Or do you think it’s ok to meet people in the café?

Example 2

Retail outlet Gap is located in the scenic high-street of Guildford. Gap also happens to be located in a listed building. They applied for planning permission to have a lift installed during a complete refurbishment project, perhaps for dads like me with two small children in a double push chair (gremlins at the best of time when your back is turned) (note, I include myself and my double pushchair in the classification “disabled” here, I am not restricting the term to the traditional sense of the word).

Gap’s planning permission to install a lift was denied by Guildford Council due to being a listed building. Today, Gap has a beautifully furnished retail outlet but it doesn’t permit access to the men’s department for a great number of potential customers, including dads with double pushchairs and wheelchair users.

Is this ok? If you were the planning authority for Guildford and you had to choose between two pieces of legislation, would you choose a building over people? Could Gap still be taken to court? 

Could Guildford Council be taken to court? Remember the airport was also found 50% liable when Ryanair lost their court case for charging a passenger for the use of a wheelchair.

Example 3

River Island (you’ve probably read about this already) built a website recently that didn’t provide equal access to everyone.

Since they’ve been slated in the press and reaping the benefit of free PR (it is arguable at the same time that they used this smartly) River Island has stated that they will now build a HTML alternative so that blind users can have access. BTW, accessibility is not all about blind people! (Many mobility impaired web surfers use head sticks to tab through web pages).

So, not only does River Island have to spend more time and money building a new site, they will have to spend ongoing time and money in maintaining the site because both must provide the same products and services at the same time. Otherwise they’re back to square one and could end up in court – which is likely given the bad publicity they’ve received.

Some users may feel discriminated against if they’re asked to use another website ‘just because’.

Conclusion?

So, if it’s not technically possible, or the cost is significantly disproportionate to the benefit of making a website accessible, then provide an alternative.
Does River Island fit into this category?

Should people write to Guildford Council to find out why they think it’s more important to maintain the look ‘n feel of the inside of a building than it is to provide equal access to everyone and to treat everyone fair?

I’m very interested to hear your opinion because often we entertain extreme views in society. We have people who think disabled users get too many parking spaces in shopping centres, while others go on the war path if they see a driver in a disabled spot 5 mins before Tesco is about to close on a Sunday afternoon and it’s unlikely that 50 disabled drivers are about to enter the car park and require that same spot.

If we find it difficult to get it right on the high-street, how on earth are we supposed to get it right online? River Island isn’t supposed to end up as my punch line; the story entered my head as I was finishing my second example. But it’s a good example of a traditional bricks ‘n mortar business with an online presence. 

Do they get it? Did their project manager purposely stick their head in the sand? Do they have a smart PR team? Are they still discriminating with a new ‘alternative’ site?

Kind regards,
Paul

-------
CEO
Segala - Providing a Reliable, Consistent and Trusted Experience
www.segala.com
-------
Gold Sponsor of Internet World 2006 - http://www.internetworld.co.uk
Bronze Sponsor of WWW2006 Conference - www.www2006.org