Filling in forms 50% 64% 54% 63% Figure 6: Website issues compared by type of AT In practice, screenreaders and refreshable braille rely on the same software to interpret the content of a web page; one driving a text-to-speech synthesiser, the other driving a Braille output device. The differences in user experience can be interpreted as due to the fact that Braille users will be almost certainly blind, while screenreaders may benefit people with different disabilities as well as those with differing degrees of visual impairment. These users might be expected to be most affected by access barriers generated at the coding level, and indeed the responses confirm that inadequate link information, navigation and form labelling create real difficulties. “Poorly labelled buttons/edit boxes/combo boxes/radio buttons, graphics without meaningful alt-text, links which do not read well out of context, pages which do not follow a logical tab order, links which trigger a pop-up to appear somewhere else on the page, can all make pages unusable.” However, the Survey also confirms the fact that AT are significantly inconvenienced by what might be considered as usability issues, such as crowded pages, poor legibility, and distracting movement. Access Barriers for Users with Access Needs not using AT A significant proportion of web users with disabilities either have impairments which cannot be addressed effectively using AT, or choose not to use such technological aids. Such impairments might include mild forms of
For businesses which use their websites and apps for selling goods or services there are several potential legal issues which could apply in relation to their accessibility and usability. The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for a service provider to: Directly discriminate against a disabled person by refusing to provide the service or providing a worse service because of their disability Indirectly discriminate against a disabled person by having a seemingly neutral provision criteria or practice (PCP) that it applies to everyone but which substantially adversely affects a particular group of people who share a protected characteristic such as a disability or a type of disability e.g. people with a visual impairment, without justification disabled people unfavourably for a reason arising out of their disability e.g. requiring a disabled person to pay more for a service without justification Fail to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled person. It is particularly important for service providers to be aware that providing reasonable adjustments is a proactive obligation. This means businesses should take steps to ensure the accessibility and usability of their websites before a complaint is received. The legal duty on service providers to make reasonable adjustments is twofold. First they should anticipate that they will have disabled customers and so should design websites and apps to be accessible and usable by disabled people. However, it will not be possible to anticipate the needs of every disabled person but service providers can and should consider when designing websites and apps the needs of people with: visual impairments hearing impairments manual dexterity problems mobility impairments cognitive impairments such as epilepsy learning difficulties such as dyslexia, dyspraxia Asperger’s and Autism Learning disabilities Mental health problems