I was planning a short weekend getaway some weeks ago. I wanted something close enough that I could drive to and a nice hotel that accepts pets. Airbnb was just too expensive, so I found a few hotels. Some of them offered free complimentary breakfast. But I went specifically with one that didn't.
Why?
While convenient, if I got the free breakfast, I would have filled up my stomach with whatever they offered there. I'm sure they'd have served the same thing every day, it would have been overcrowded and I would have missed out on the local cuisine and culture.
Simply because the hotel breakfast is included and readily available doesn't mean it's the only option you have. You might be missing out on a more personalised and more valuable alternative that includes higher-quality dishes from unique cafes and restaurants.
When something is free and easily accessible, there's a tendency to rely solely on that resource, often at the expense of better alternatives.
Automated accessibility testing tools have become increasingly popular in web development. They offer a quick and free way to identify potential accessibility issues on your website. They can flag many technical violations and you'll feel like you're doing what you need to support people with disabilities.
But over-reliance on automated tests will lead to complacency and a reluctance to invest in more comprehensive or higher-quality solutions. They'll also give you a false sense of security, while not truly making things better for people with disabilities.
This is because they often lack the nuance to understand context and user needs. Some of the tests are also quite impossible to run in an automated fashion.
Even if you address every issue highlighted by these tools, you might not create a more accessible website. I would argue that blindly following automated suggestions will sometimes make you change things where no change is needed. You may even hurt real-world accessibility.
I would suggest a more effective approach. Focus on addressing issues that actually occur and cause problems for users.
This means:
- combining automated testing with manual testing and user feedback
- prioritising fixes based on their impact on real users
- understanding the intent behind those accessibility guidelines
- talking with people with disabilities to see for yourself how they use your website
Don't get me wrong!
Automated tools remain valuable as a starting point. But you should see them as one part of your accessibility strategy, not the entire solution.
Unless you'd rather simply check boxes on an automated checklist...I can't help you in that case and you should just keep eating the same white toast every morning on vacation.