5 MYTHS ABOUT DIGITAL ACCESSIBILITY, DEBUNKED

Debunking myths about digital accessibility is essential to promoting a more inclusive digital environment. Why? It's simple: they are often used as an "excuse" for not starting a serious and complete process of making digital touchpoints accessible.

Here are five common myths:

1. Accessibility is only for people with disabilities.

Many think that digital accessibility only concerns people with obvious disabilities, such as blindness or deafness. However, it benefits a wide range of users, including those with temporary disabilities (such as a broken arm), situational (such as using a device in full sun), or age-related (such as decreased agility of the fingers). Let's remember also that there are so-called "invisible disabilities" that do not emerge by observing a person.

For example, a website with zoomable text helps not only people with visual impairment but also those who read from a mobile device under bright sunlight.

2. Accessibility limits design and creativity.

Another common myth is that adherence to accessibility principles limits creativity in design. In reality, accessibility can be integrated in a creative way and aesthetically pleasing, using high-contrast colors, intuitive navigation, and responsive design. For example, a website can use a sleek, minimalist design that also includes clear labels for keyboard navigation, making it both stylistically appealing and functional for users with motor disabilities.

3. Accessibility is expensive and complicated.

Many companies believe that making their websites and applications accessible is either too expensive or technically complicated. Although it may require an initial investment, in many cases, integrating accessibility from the very start of the development of a digital touchpoint can reduce overall costs, while adapting existing products may require more resources. The use of standards such as WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) facilitates implementation. Having said that, doesn't every improvement, new project, or adaptation to a standard always require an initial investment? The actual problem is that accessibility is not identified as a primary necessity, as if it were a second-class issue.

For example, incorporating the transcription of videos during their production is much cheaper and less complicated than adding it later.

4. Accessibility is a one-time task.

It is often thought that accessibility is an objective that, once achieved, does not require further attention. In reality, accessibility requires continuous commitment, with regular updates to meet the standards in evolution and consider new technologies and user feedback. A website may initially meet the standards of accessibility but needs regular reviews to ensure new functionality or content is equally accessible.

5. Automatic checks are sufficient to ensure accessibility.

Although automatic tools are useful, they cannot detect all accessibility issues; but, while automatic verification tools of accessibility can identify many problems, some aspects, such as overall usability or intuitive navigation, require a human and continuous evaluation. An automatic check may not detect whether an order of tabbing on a web page is logical and intuitive, it can be evaluated only through manual testing.

Recognizing and addressing these myths is critical to making the Internet more accessible and inclusive. Adopting a broad perspective on digital accessibility not only helps dispel these myths but also paves the way for more inclusive and accessible to a wider audience digital products. The world is full of stereotypes and false beliefs, help us raise awareness of digital accessibility by sharing this information.

Paolo Berro, Chief Accessibility Officer AccessiWay

Dajana Gioffrè, Chief Visionary Officer AccessiWay