A false reality is created
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2024 9:30 am
We do everything we can to make our website accessible according to the WCAG guidelines, but it is frustrating to hear from users that the website remains difficult to use.
Because the law prescribes that (continued) compliance with WCAG is sufficient for an accessible website, false claims arise. We have already seen that in audit reports texts such as:
Also read: Digital accessibility as top priority [why & how]
Congratulations! The website of … complies with WCAG 2.1 level AA.
This document specifies to what extent the website complies with the accessibility requirements set out in WCAG, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. The website … complies with all success criteria. The assessment was carried out using the WCAG-EM evaluation method. This means that the website can be used by everyone, including russia telegram data people with disabilities such as the blind and deaf. All page types and components were checked for this system assessment.
It is therefore logical that the recipient of such a report actually thinks that his website can now be used by everyone with a disability and also communicates this externally. After all, he paid for such a study. The reality is that you cannot claim something like that based on a test of technical guidelines. You will first have to do a thorough user study before drawing such conclusions.
3. Proliferation of research agencies
In America, an average accessibility audit for a website costs around 20,000 dollars. Here, comparable audits are currently offered for around 3,000 euros. In America, you run a great risk of being taken to court by a user if your website is not accessible. The financial consequences of this can be enormous. This enforcement therefore ensures that American organizations are stimulated to have thorough and high-quality research carried out.
In the Netherlands, compliance with the process is currently leading. This means that there is a need for research rather than insight into accessibility. This creates a proliferation of audits for prices that do not allow for sufficient insight into the actual accessibility of a website. Someone who offers a study for 3,000 euros does not do so in the interest of the end user. And of course that also applies to the person who has the study carried out. But he could still appeal to a lack of knowledge.
Because the law prescribes that (continued) compliance with WCAG is sufficient for an accessible website, false claims arise. We have already seen that in audit reports texts such as:
Also read: Digital accessibility as top priority [why & how]
Congratulations! The website of … complies with WCAG 2.1 level AA.
This document specifies to what extent the website complies with the accessibility requirements set out in WCAG, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. The website … complies with all success criteria. The assessment was carried out using the WCAG-EM evaluation method. This means that the website can be used by everyone, including russia telegram data people with disabilities such as the blind and deaf. All page types and components were checked for this system assessment.
It is therefore logical that the recipient of such a report actually thinks that his website can now be used by everyone with a disability and also communicates this externally. After all, he paid for such a study. The reality is that you cannot claim something like that based on a test of technical guidelines. You will first have to do a thorough user study before drawing such conclusions.
3. Proliferation of research agencies
In America, an average accessibility audit for a website costs around 20,000 dollars. Here, comparable audits are currently offered for around 3,000 euros. In America, you run a great risk of being taken to court by a user if your website is not accessible. The financial consequences of this can be enormous. This enforcement therefore ensures that American organizations are stimulated to have thorough and high-quality research carried out.
In the Netherlands, compliance with the process is currently leading. This means that there is a need for research rather than insight into accessibility. This creates a proliferation of audits for prices that do not allow for sufficient insight into the actual accessibility of a website. Someone who offers a study for 3,000 euros does not do so in the interest of the end user. And of course that also applies to the person who has the study carried out. But he could still appeal to a lack of knowledge.