News

Can high accessibility actually mean good Creative?

Posted on:  Thursday, May 21st, 2009 by Michael Boeck

 

Whether design versus accessibility or design versus usability, a lively and sometimes heated debate accompanies developments in web design. It seems that with accessibility in one corner and design in the other, the relationship is generally perceived as two opposites that can only be traded against one another.

In numerous articles on ‘accessibility versus design’ one is given the impression that a designer’s concern is entirely focused on aesthetics, rather than on solid design thinking which includes aspects of usability and accessibility alike. As per definition, accessibility is a general term to describe the degree to which a product such as a website is accessible by as many people as possible. It is the ability to access and its focus is on people with disabilities and their right to access. Whereas usability is used in context of the efficiency and effectiveness of web design or in fact any other design discipline, such as product design or environmental design for example. So how come there is such a wide-scaling debate fought between designers and web standardistas, the latter predominantly concerned with applying web development to WCAG 2.0 criteria?

In this argumentation it seems worthwhile mentioning that good design education teaches about a methodical process of which defining goals and setting out the parameters for what design has to achieve are key to the successful delivery in any given project. Whether this addresses the ergonomics of a coffee machine or the communicative tasks of a charity website, solid design methodology integrates usability and, where required, accessibility right from the outset to ensure that shape and form, three or two dimensional, respond to the effectiveness of any given product or service.

The debate on visual aesthetics versus functionality is not exclusive to web design and I am convinced it has been fought a million times. I would not be surprised if it goes as far back as to when Romans chiselled our modern alphabet into marble. However, if there is anything to learn from design history then we do not even have to look back this far. An historic showcase that demonstrates design performs at its best when functional aspects are taken into account is London Underground. Not only has the capital’s transport system provided us with one of the most iconic symbols in the world but also created a visual navigation system that is widely acknowledged as an example for functional Creative. Aesthetically and logically sound, it guides millions of people everyday, through narrow tunnels that twist and turn and in which anyone’s intuitive sense of direction gets confused. In many ways a great example that shows that if form takes into account functional aspects, some of the best designs solutions are achieved. It seems worthwhile remembering that functional design, sometimes interchangeably coined as Modernism, came into existence no later than in the late 19th and early 20th century. The integration of aesthetics and engineering was further illustrated by the inherent conflict between functional design and the demands of the marketplace happened in 1935, after the introduction of the streamlined Chrysler Airflow. Too far ahead of its time it could not meet customer expectations. And Raymond Loewy, who gave the Coke bottle its iconic shape, stated that design is bounded by functional constraints of math, materials and logic, but that its acceptance is constrained by social expectations.

Leaving creativity and its successes and failures of customer and social expectations aside, functional aspects had long been an integral part of the design process, so why the design versus accessibility or design versus usability debate? Is it partly because it is still a relatively new medium in historic terms? It shouldn’t be the reason as the fundamental principles of good design methodology are universal. Functional aspects such as accessibility and usability on one side and form-giving on the other are interlinked if not two sides of the same coin. Therefore, designers should always take functional aspects into account, whereas web standardistas should be remembered that questioning common practises, challenging standards and the way we do things is an imperative to improvement, not only in digital but in general.

In that sense, designer or web standardista, if you happen to work in a practice that is about the giving of help to those in need, most likely to be a charity, you may also consider providing high standards of accessibility to those with disabilities almost by default. It is a uniquely positioned opportunity for those who happen to be lucky enough to work for charitable organisations to drive good design standards and best practise forward. After all, which sector other than Ethical would require equally high accessibility standards and as a result of that, provide this kind of platform from which to lead the debate?

http://webaim.org/blog/access_vs_design/
An illustration of a rather amusing conversation between a web designer and web standardista.

http://webstandardsgroup.org/features/joe-clark.cfm
Journalist, author, and accessibility consultant Joe Clark is refreshingly direct on the subject and speaks his mind. Here are ten questions for him.

http://www.sensible.com/
Usability and Accessibility are totally different things, however, in the context of this article, we might mention Usability Guru Steve Krug. Unfortunately, Krug often portraits the designer as a mere decorator or a make-beautiful sort of person, other than that, generally a good read and resource.

http://blog.chrisfearon.com/archives/92
More in-depth thoughts on design versus accessibility

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtuna2AWvqk  A little song on the subject that my dear colleague Paul Collins made me aware of