People might disagree with this, but I think we need to remove A/AA/AAA or things like critical/severe/should/must, etc., from accessibility audit reports. They're abused as a mechanism for product and delivery managers to deprioritise as much as possible.
Comments
But even non-disabled auditors can, and many have, learn the impact of specific barriers for disabled people.
Let’s not throw baby out with bath water!
This thought has been rattling around my head for a while.
How many assessments include inclusive quantitative usability data? Or does everyone just ignore that bit.
There is a lack of quant data and inappropriate qual methodologies are often used for evaluations which is just papering over cracks.
Remember the old saying, “data is not the plural of anecdote.”
It’s binary, “Is this service accessible?”
A service must be accessible. So that’s a binary
But a service is a collection of parts.
And reality creates friction. So how do we get the maximal best?
If we only look at the parts then there is a risk we end up with too much missing.
No simple answer
PMs need something to prioritize order of work. This helps.
But it requires working with clients to make sure they understand this.
Unfortunately, a lot of people just don’t see building accessible products as driving value. It’s frustrating when you have to point to lawsuits for them to perk up.
It’s not surprising. Humans haven’t been the most empathetic on the issue..
All things that drive people to deprioritise accessibility
If we truly believe that checklists guaranteed good user outcomes then why don’t we fire all the UX designers and replace them with checklists?
Like should we focus on damage more, so instead of:
* Fail
* A
* AA
* AAA
...should we frame as:
* Harm
* Exclude
* Discriminate
* Respect