An inaccessible website is one which simply does not make the information it contains available to those with a range of impairments. An inaccessible website is like an elevator with no voice-over, or a building with no ramp access to a raised front door. An inaccessible website with employment opportunities or advice on it discriminates against people with impairments and disables them by refusing them access to that information. As the DRC Report alluded to earlier makes clear: “In contrast to other information media, [the web] is, with the benefit of assistive technology, potentially tolerant of impairment. Inclusive website design makes it easier to use these alternative means of access, without making a site less attractive to unimpaired users. Irresponsible and inconsiderate design, on the other hand, not only puts disabled users at a significant disadvantage but can make life unnecessarily difficult for everyone, whether disabled or not.” [DRC 2004]
eDiscrimination is a complex area, but the following examples may assist with understanding the problem: Those using screen readers or voice browsers to listen to websites require alternative text with images, labels on form fields, and headings on data tables. Without these imagery is completely inaccessible, forms prohibitively confusing, and data tables meaningless. Those unable to use a mouse to navigate around a webpage require careful coding of the page to ensure ‘device independence’ is a feature of any interaction. Mouse-only interaction discriminates against such users. Many websites, nowadays, are transactional, offering the user search facilities, the opportunity to complete financial transactions, obtain particular documents, etc etc. Such tasks formed part of the research undertaken for the DRC’s report. Success or failure with a range of such tasks was tested with regard to a range of 100 websites. “Blind users constituted the most disenfranchised group studied in this Formal Investigation,” with only a 53% success rate, but all impairment groups taken together achieved only 76% success rate. [DRC 2004]