When I talk to teams about web accessibility, often someone will ask how many people with disabilities use their site(s), or some variation of that question. It’s complicated, and other questions can be more helpful.
My standard answer usually includes that we can’t measure assistive technology usage for (good) privacy reasons, that our analytics won’t show customers that went to a more accessible competitor and that accessibility benefits everyone.
Accessibility ROI irrelevant (says… Apple!)#heading-1
One other aspect though, let’s go into that straight away, is that looking for this data hints at trying to find return on investment. A counter question could be: what will we do with that data? Let’s say we get the number and deem it a very small percentage… whatever that is… equal access is still the right thing to aim for, it is still a human right and it is still required by law in most places. So, basically, our organisation has three good reasons to prioritise accessibility that exist regardless of a number of users with disabilities.
Or, as Apple CEO Tim Cook once told a shareholder:
When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI. When I think about doing the right thing, I don’t think about an ROI. If that’s a hard line for you, then you should get out of the stock.
(From: Apple’s Tim Cook gets feisty, funny and fiery at shareholders meeting, Los Angeles Times, 1 March 2014)
This makes sense for the web too. The web is all about accessibility, both of information and for end users.
Privacy trumps metrics#heading-2
A web user’s need for privacy trumps our need for analytics. This is especially the case for people with disabilities, who rightly don’t want their disability to be one of your metrics. Standards organisations are careful not to add features to the Web Platform that allow such tracking, because it would invade individual user needs too much.
Your analytics don’t show market potential#heading-3
Even if we could accurately measure how many people with disabilities used our site, it isn’t a very meaningful number. If our site is inaccessible to people who use voice control, chances are those people are shopping with our competitor instead. The reason they don’t show up in our numbers might be just that.
For the potential, we could look at the World Health Organisation’s Report on Disability, published in 2011. In a comprehensive chapter on demographics, they conclude 15-20% of the world’s population has a disability. These numbers aren’t exact, as countries have different methods of counting, but they give a reasonable estimate that we can work with.
Accessibility benefits everyone#heading-4
Accessibility features on our site won’t benefit everyone all the time, that would be an exaggeration, but they often benefit many more people than just specific groups of people with disabilities. Dark mode is a feature some users need to avoid headaches or to read content, but many others still apply such settings, for a wide variety of reasons.
And it doesn’t just benefit a large parts of our user base, accessibility can also inspire innovation in our organisations. When an Italian inventor created the first typewriter for his blind friend, he invented a thing that is at the centre of what all of us do all day. Voice controlled software, audiobooks… the examples of things that were initially designed for people with disabilities but used by many more, are countless.
Conclusion#heading-5
We probably don’t need to know how many people with disabilities use our sites, as regardless of what that number would be, we should want to build accessible sites, for many ethical, legal and business reasons.
Comments, likes & shares (2)
This week, a product launched and claimed to generate “production ready” code. But it also generates code with accessibility problems, which contradicts “production ready”. When someone called this out publicly, a community showed itself from its worst side. What can we learn?
I'll state again, I wrote this to share learnings around community respondes to a concern about accessibility issues. Because these kinds of replies are common and it's useful to have context. I don't want to add fuel to the issue, which is why I left out links to individual tweets and people.
I do want to call out Vercel, a business with a large voice in the developer community, which I do at the end of the post.
The “production ready” claim
I’ll start by elaborating on my first point. “Has accessibility issues” contradicts “production ready”, for three reasons:
I will note it was an “alpha” launch, but the words “production ready” were used and not nuanced (not in marketing and not in the actual tool; a warning banner could go a long way). Fair enough, maybe they want to look at accessibility later (a personal pet peeve though: I recommend shifting left instead, doing accessibility earlier is easier).
The company could have made different choices. If it is known that accessibility is problematic, maybe the product could have come with a checklist that helps people avoid some of the most common issues? Or some kind of warning or banner that explains nuances the “production ready” line? These are choices to be made, to balance between what makes the product look less good and what harms end users.
Ableism
Many of the responses were ableist: they discriminate or contain social prejudice against people with physical or mental disabilities. A key point to make here is: don't feel offended if you or your comment is called ableist. Instead, listen and learn (seriously, it's an opportunity). The system is ableist, on top of which individuals make comments that can be called ableist. We (as a people) need to identify and break down that system, but also, people can individually learn: everyone has a degree of ableism (like they have some degree sexism and racism). I know I do. I've been learning about accessibility for about 15 years and still learn new things all the time (same for sexism, or racism, etc, these are all things need regular introspection; and they are related, see also intersectionality).
Learning from the responses
Below, I'll list some responses I found problematic, and try and explain why. I'm hoping this is helpful for people who want to understand better why accessibility is critical, and why accessibility specialists point this out.
Some responses were particularly hostile and personal. “I'm shocked that you're unemployed ..🤯🤯😅”, “Okay, Karen”, “(…) She wants attention”, “No matter how much you shame Vercel, they don't want you. They never will”, “Go accessibility pimp else where (sic) and pretend that others give a shit”, “[you are] being an insufferable dick”. These are all unacceptable personal attacks.
If you work at Vercel (this was relating the v0 product), please consider speaking up (silence speaks too) and/or talking with your community about how accessibility is viewed and how people in the community interact. The quotes in this post are all real quotes, from people defending Vercel. To his credit, the CEO gave the right example with his response (”Thanks for the feedback”)
Wrapping up
So, in summary: the “production ready” claim and lack of nuance about what that means is problematic. Pointing it out got responses I'd call ableist, plus a few responses that were plain hostile. All of this reflects badly on the community.
It's not new that accessibility advocates get hostile responses to reasonable requests (or when doing their job). But it's been a while since I've seen so many of those responses, so I wanted to take the opportunity to write down some common misunderstandings.