A service called WiderWeb, launched last week, promises to enhance web site accessibility "automatically and immediately" without the need for web site owners to redesign their sites.
The targets of the service are those without the cash for consultants to repair their non-accessible web sites or intranets (which should also meet accessibility standards), and also those intending to get the necessary work done but seeking an interim solution.
Site owners do not do any development – other than adding a link for easy access on their homepage – and pricing begins at £120 a year.
The added homepage link directs page requests from users through WiderWeb. Its software then automatically translates any visited pages on the site into more accessible pages before delivering them to the user. Subsequent page requests by that user are dealt with in the same way until he leaves the site. So users can immediately surf a more accessible web site without any development work by the site owner.
It may sound too good to be true – and in some ways it is. WiderWeb is not a silver bullet. It does not necessarily raise an inaccessible site to even the minimum level recommended by the World Wide Web Consortium. But nor does it guarantee that it will. It just promises to improve accessibility. It's a treatment, not a cure.
Take Hotmail.com. Despite its massive popularity, it is not accessible to all, in part because it relies heavily on JavaScript, a scripting language that excludes many disabled internet users. Yet, without any work from Microsoft, WiderWeb can emulate the site in real time and provide a version that accommodates the user whose browser does not support JavaScript, by running the JavaScript on the host server, not the client computer.
WiderWeb's version of Hotmail does not make for a flawless user experience for the disabled internet user; but its significance is that it provides any experience at all.
The limitations to such a solution are the changes that cannot be automated. WiderWeb will guess the alternative text for an image where none has been provided. It does this by examining the site for an identical image that does have an ALT tag, guessing the image from a scan of the surrounding text, or settling for the image filename. But only a user check can guarantee that an image of a cat is not labelled as "dog". Similarly, complicated text – a challenge to readers with dyslexia or other cognitive problems – cannot be simplified on the fly.
Entry level WiderWeb packages do not address these problems, although its founder, Ed Moore, explained to OUT-LAW that a superior package is available that includes manual checks – adding, for example, custom ALT tags where required.
Ultimately, the law expects more from major companies like Microsoft than it does from small companies when it talks of the need for reasonable steps, and Microsoft has already made a commitment to improving the accessibility of Hotmail. This will not happen overnight, however, and this is where Moore is hoping that WiderWeb will be adopted as an interim solution.
Whether large companies will want a quick fix remains to be seen; but the small business market certainly looks like an obvious one for Moore and his team to target.
A small organisation launching a new site has few excuses for failing to launch an accessible site. If, however, it maintains a legacy site that is not accessible and it outsources its web development, it may be that it genuinely cannot afford the consultancy costs of improvement. Courts are likely to be more forgiving here because they have been guided (by the Disability Rights Commission) that financial resources should be taken into account when determining whether reasonable steps towards accessibility have been taken.
This is where WiderWeb's potential is apparent: its low entry price of £120 a year could destroy the argument that an organisation cannot afford the costs of some accessibility improvements.
However, there is another risk: organisations may erroneously think that signing up to the service is all that's required for legal compliance, when more may be required to ensure that the same services are accessible to all.
AbilityNet, a British charity that champions IT for the disabled community, argues that an organisation's main web site can and should be accessible to the broadest audience possible. The Royal National Institute for the Blind concurs: it argues that separate accessible sites, or text-only versions, should be avoided whenever possible, simply because being treated differently can reinforce the feeling of marginalisation that someone with a disability experiences.
This view is shared by Léonie Watson, Head of Accessibility with design firm Nomensa and chair of the UK's Usability and Accessibility Working Group. Watson, who is registered blind, said of WiderWeb, "I have no wish to use a product or service that my contemporaries don't use, even if it is only a re-engineered version of the same thing. In exactly the same way as I am opposed to text-only sites, I am reluctant to condone a second best option."
Watson fears that such products could be exploited as an escape clause by some organisations. "If a company believes this to be a solution to web accessibility," she reasons, "they may be inclined to continue paying for this service, rather than investing in a longer term, more permanent solution by including accessibility when their next redesign is due."
But Moore, whose project development was backed by the DTI, says his product works as an interim solution for web sites and intranets and that it is a complete solution for small businesses "until either we're not needed any more or our service becomes so good that everyone wants it."
"There is a huge gap in the market where thousands of small sites are maintained by amateurs and they will unfortunately never have time or possibly inclination to do a good job of accessibility," he added.