Social Media Accessibility: Where Are We Today?

a11yBOS 2011 (updated version)

Boston — September 17th, 2011

(In slideshow mode, use the arrow keys or spacebar to get started)

Spread The Word!

Creative Commons.

Fully licenced under a BY-NC-SA Creative Commons Licence.

2011, Some Rights Reserved - Under the following conditions
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/deed.en

Permalink (HTML file)
http://www.accessibiliteweb.com/presentations/2011/a11yBOS/

Speaker

Denis Boudreau

  • 11 years of experience in Web accessibility
  • President, Coopérative AccessibilitéWeb
  • Co-editor, Quebec Govt Accessibility Standards (SGQRI 008)
  • Founder and main organizer, a11yMTL Conference
  • Invited Expert, W3C
    • Education and Outreach Working Group
    • Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group
    • WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology TaskForce
    • HTML5 Accessibility TaskForce

Social Media Are Great...

...if you're lucky enough to be able to use them.

...But The Worms Are Leaving The Can

Cartoon worms coming out of a can with the words horror, mystery, suspense and drama written on it.

So, what's an organization to do?

Social (Poorly Accessible) Media

SPAM - Social but Poorly Accessible Media: Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube (just to name a few!).

Social Media Should Be About People...

  • Communicating,
  • Sharing,
  • Interacting,
  • Contributing,
  • Bonding,
  • Networking...

...With each other on the Web.

As It Turns Out...

...this is not always the case.

  • (Real) people get left behind based on...
    • Physical disability
    • Technological illiteracy
    • PREJUDICE appearances

The <Quebec> Government Dilemma

How Can We Play Along, with EVERYONE on Board?

Evaluation Results Overview

Total of success criteria that are successfully met

Most Common Accessibility Problems
#1 - Section Headings 0 / 3 0 / 3 2 / 3 1 / 3 1 / 3
#2 - Color Contrasts 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 1 1 / 1 0 / 1
#3 - Labels and Form Fields 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 1 / 2 0 / 2
#4 - Keyboard Navigation 0 / 7 1 / 7 2 / 7 0 / 7 0 / 7
#5 - Text Equivalents for Images 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 1
#6 - Multimedia N/A 0 / 5 N/A 0 / 5 0 / 5
#7 - Language 0 / 2 1 / 2 1 / 2 1 / 2 1 / 2
#8 - Validation 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 1
Total Success Criteria Met 0 / 17 2 / 22 5 / 17 4 / 22 2 / 22

Criteria #1: Section Headings

Percentage of success criteria that are successfully met

WCAG 2.0 - Success Criteria
1.3.1 - Info and Relationships 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2.4.2 - Page Titled 0% 0% 100% 100% 0%
4.1.1 - Parsing 0% 0% 100% 0% 100%
Percentage of success criteria met 0% 0% 67% 33% 33%

Criteria #2: Color Contrasts

Percentage of success criteria that are successfully met

WCAG 2.0 - Success Criteria
1.4.3 - Contrast (Minimum) 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Percentage of success criteria met 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%

Criteria #3: Labels and Form Fields

Percentage of success criteria that are successfully met

WCAG 2.0 - Success Criteria
1.3.1 - Info and Relationships 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
3.3.2 - Labels or Instructions 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Percentage of success criteria met 0% 0% 0% 50% 0%

Criteria #4: Keyboard Navigation

Percentage of success criteria that are successfully met

WCAG 2.0 - Success Criteria
1.3.1 - Info and Relationships 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
1.3.2 - Meaningful Sequence 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
1.4.4 - Resize text 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2.1.1 - Keyboard 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2.4.1 - Bypass Blocks 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2.4.3 - Focus Order 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
2.4.7 - Focus Visible 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Percentage of success criteria met 0% 14% 29% 0% 0%

Criteria #5: Text Equivalents for Images

Percentage of success criteria that are successfully met

WCAG 2.0 - Success Criteria
1.1.1 - Non-text Content 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Percentage of success criteria met 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Criteria #6: Multimedia

Percentage of success criteria that are successfully met

WCAG 2.0 - Success Criteria
1.1.1 - Non-text Content n/a 0% n/a 0% 0%
1.2.1 - Audio-only & Video-only (Prerecorded) n/a 0% n/a 0% 0%
1.2.2 - Captions (Prerecorded) n/a 0% n/a 0% 0%
2.1.1 - Keyboard n/a 0% n/a 0% 0%
2.1.2 - No Keyboard Trap n/a 0% n/a 0% 0%
Percentage of success criteria met n/a 0% n/a 0% 0%

Criteria #7: Language

Percentage of success criteria that are successfully met

WCAG 2.0 - Success Criteria
3.1.1 - Language of Page 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%
3.1.2 - Language of Parts 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Percentage of success criteria met 0% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Criteria #8: Validation

Percentage of success criteria that are successfully met

WCAG 2.0 - Success Criteria
4.1.1 - Parsing 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Percentage of success criteria met 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Overall success rating...

First position - LinkedIn (5 successful criteria on 17, 29%). Second position - YouTube (4 successful criteria on 22, 18%). Third position - Google+ (2 successful criteria on 22, 9%).  Fourth position - FaceBook (2 successful criteria on 22, 9%).  Fifth position - Twitter (0 successful criteria on 17, 0%).

Could they do any WORSE if they tried?

What Can Organizations Do About This?

Setting rules and adopting a "game plan" for social media

What's yours?
How can organizations tackle social media responsibly?

Helping Social Media Giants Understand

Slice of life: "The Survey Monkey Incident"

Putting The Worms Back In The Can

What can WE do to improve social media accessibility?

Thank You!

Denis Boudreau,
President

Coopérative AccessibilitéWeb
1751 Richardson street, suite 6111
Montreal (Quebec), Canada H3K 1G6
Toll Free: 1 (877) 315-5550

Email: info@accessibiliteweb.com
Web: www.accessibiliteweb.com
Blog: www.accessiblogue.com
Twitter: @AccessibiliteWb / @dboudreau

Permalink (HTML file)
http://www.accessibiliteweb.com/presentations/2011/a11yBOS/