Your Trusted Digital Accessibility Consultancy—Creating Web Experiences That Welcome All

Author: Andrew

  • WCAG Is Frustrating Yet Essential

    WCAG Is Frustrating Yet Essential

    WCAG is frustrating—it often feels like it fails to cover many people with disabilities or address scenarios where it should. This article delves into these frustrations, the key concerns it raises, the individuals it impacts, and the solutions that can help overcome these challenges to improve accessibility.

    The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) serve as a global standard for accessibility, providing principles, guidelines, and success criteria aimed at eliminating barriers for people with disabilities.

    For professionals like designers and accessibility testers, working with WCAG can sometimes feel daunting and frustrating. Its language can be complex, and its scope may seem restrictive in covering certain accessibility issues.

    Understanding Why WCAG Is Frustrating

    Some accessibility professionals note that the wording of WCAG success criteria can be difficult to understand due to its technical nature and high reading level.

    As a technical standard, WCAG aims to remain broadly applicable across different technologies while providing practical guidance for developers and testers. However, some criteria can be complex, requiring multiple readings to fully grasp.

    Additionally, accessibility testers often encounter issues that do not fit neatly within WCAG categories. This raises concerns about whether such issues will receive adequate attention.

    While WCAG is a well-established framework that addresses many accessibility needs, it does not cover all possible barriers. Testers are encouraged to refer to additional resources, such as the Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities guidance from the COGA task force, and to engage with community groups for further insights.

    Recognizing these challenges is important, but it remains essential to uphold WCAG as a foundational accessibility standard. With a significant portion of the web still inaccessible, maintaining rigorous standards helps ensure a more inclusive digital experience. A structured approach to addressing accessibility concerns—while continuing to refine and expand guidance—supports both practitioners and individuals with disabilities.

    The section below explores strategies for enhancing accessibility practices while reinforcing WCAG’s role in promoting digital inclusion.

    Addressing The Frustrations

    Improving the readability of WCAG’s success criteria

    While some WCAG success criteria can be complex, constructive feedback helps improve accessibility standards. Reporting readability challenges to the WCAG community supports ongoing refinement.

    Engaging with peers and accessibility-focused communities, such as WCAG on GitHub and the Web-A11y Slack channel, provides valuable perspectives on interpreting the guidelines. Additionally, the Understanding documents from WCAG offer further clarification, including examples of techniques that pass or fail specific criteria.

    Recognizing and Categorizing Accessibility Issues Beyond WCAG

    It is essential to ensure that accessibility issues outside WCAG are recognized for their significance. Even when an issue falls outside WCAG’s defined criteria, it can still have a meaningful impact on usability and inclusion.

    A lack of clarity in categorization may make it harder for stakeholders to learn from accessibility challenges, and miscommunication can erode trust between testers and recipients. Taking the time to clearly justify issue categorization fosters better understanding and collaboration.

    Reframing WCAG as a Starting Point for Broader Accessibility

    Despite the challenges outlined above, WCAG remains a foundational standard for digital accessibility. When its importance is questioned, productive discussions can help bridge gaps in understanding.

    If accessibility standards are dismissed too readily, the broader field may suffer, potentially diminishing trust in WCAG and affecting the credibility of those advocating for accessibility. This, in turn, could leave individuals with disabilities without crucial support. Rather than viewing WCAG as a limitation, it is more effective to emphasize its role as a starting point while continuing to address broader accessibility needs.

    By approaching conversations with optimism and a commitment to inclusion, accessibility advocates can reinforce the significance of WCAG while encouraging progress in areas that extend beyond its current scope.

    Image Credits

    All images used in this article are credited to Karolina Grabowska.

  • Alt Text Confusion? Don’t Let AI Blur the Details!

    Alt Text Confusion? Don’t Let AI Blur the Details!

    Alt text isn’t just a box you check for accessibility—it’s the hidden voice of every image, ensuring that visual content is meaningful to everyone, including those who rely on screen readers.

    Yet, as AI tools increasingly generate images and descriptions, it’s more important than ever to ensure alt text is genuinely useful—rather than vague or generic. Automation can’t always capture the real intent behind an image, which is why human oversight remains essential.

    Let’s untangle the confusion and make alt text work the way it’s meant to—clear, concise, and actually helpful.

    What is Alt Text?

    Alt text stands for alternative text and is also known as text alternatives.

    Text alternatives provide essential support for assistive technology users who may not be able to fully perceive the information contained in images. While various types of media benefit from text alternatives, this discussion will focus specifically on images frequently used by content editors. These alternatives are crucial when key information is conveyed that cannot be inferred from the surrounding context.

    AI-Generated Images: Don’t Let Automation Decide Your Alt Text

    While AI can generate images in an instant, relying on it for alt text isn’t always the best approach. AI-generated descriptions often default to vague labels like “Image of…”—which fail to provide meaningful context and can discourage people with disabilities from engaging with the content. No matter how an image is created, always take the time to review and refine its alternative text. Accessibility shouldn’t be left to automation—thoughtful, human oversight is essential for ensuring that alt text genuinely enhances the user experience.

    Alt Text As A Content Creator

    While AI can assist with generating images, the best alt text still comes from human insight. A well-crafted alternative text reflects the intent behind an image—something automation often misses. That’s why content creators play a crucial role in ensuring accessibility through thoughtful and meaningful descriptions.

    If you’ve created or placed an image, you’re in the best position to define its text alternative.

    You understand the intention behind selecting that media—perhaps you aimed to evoke a specific emotion or reinforce a message. Take advantage of this opportunity by crafting a text alternative that captures the same essence. If you’re unsure, imagine what would be lost if the image weren’t on the page.

    Your approach to text alternatives might challenge conventional wisdom, and that’s okay. While countless blogs discuss best practices, there’s no single, universally correct answer for every situation.

    Stay true to your intent, and don’t let others discourage you from conveying the message you originally envisioned.

    Alt Text For Images You Didn’t Place

    Not being the original creator or placer of an image puts us at a disadvantage—we lack the full context needed to craft the most effective alternative text.

    Ideally, we’d be able to ask content editors or designers about the image’s purpose, making the decision much clearer. However, when direct communication isn’t possible, our priority should be ensuring that no crucial information is lost when users rely on alternative text.

    Often, discussions around alt text focus on delivering the best user experience. While striving for optimal accessibility is valuable, we must first establish a solid foundation—ensuring that essential meaning is conveyed.

    First, recognize that not all images serve a purpose for every user. Even if an image seems insignificant to an outsider, we should set aside personal biases and aim to translate its visual message into meaningful text alternatives.

    That doesn’t mean describing every intricate detail—like each brushstroke of a painting—but rather making an informed judgment about what information sighted users gain from the image. For example, if surrounding context already provides key details, the image’s primary role may be to convey mood.

    Skipping foundational accessibility can lead us to make assumptions—about the author’s design intent, about how assistive technology users engage with media, and about what content is truly necessary.

    Before nullifying a text alternative, we should pause and consider: Are we making the right decision for the user?

    Thoughtful consideration is key to ensuring that alternative text enhances the experience, rather than unintentionally creating a different one.

    A Last Word

    If you’re the one placing an image, you have the advantage of ensuring its text alternative is descriptive and meaningful. Trust your judgment—you understand the purpose of the image, and all you need is the confidence to make accessible decisions.

    For everyone else, approach the selection of text alternatives with care. Avoid rushing to dismiss text that could provide value.

    Keep in mind that you may not always be in the best position to craft detailed descriptions or to override choices made by content editors and designers. Thoughtful consideration ensures accessibility remains a priority.

    Image Credits

    All images used in this article are credited to Taryn Elliott.

  • Form Labels That Float… But Do They Sink Accessibility?

    Form Labels That Float… But Do They Sink Accessibility?

    Despite being an older design pattern, Floating Form Labels continue to be widely implemented today, making them just as relevant as ever.

    You might wonder why I’m revisiting this topic, but the reality is that this pattern was originally developed to address real user needs—and understanding its accessibility impact remains crucial.

    Floating Labels, a design pattern from Google’s Material Design, assist users in recognizing form fields—or so the pattern claims.

    This pattern places labels inside form fields when they’re empty, allowing users to quickly understand what’s expected. As data is entered, the label shifts above the field, making space for input—or so the pattern claims.

    Google’s usability study found that 600 participants found Floating Labels helpful, so there is merit to the pattern. However, Material Design’s own guidelines outline certain drawbacks, offering a balanced perspective on its effectiveness.

    Why do accessibility issues arise with Floating Labels? Is it a lack of awareness among designers, or is there a deeper flaw in the pattern? Unfortunately, both.

    Form Labels and the Myth of Keeping It Short

    Google suggests keeping labels short to prevent text from wrapping onto multiple lines, but this isn’t always within our control.

    The floating effect requires placing elements over other content, which introduces the risk of obscuring important information on the page.

    Floating labels present challenges due to text dynamically adjusting in size. Users with low vision or cognitive disabilities may increase text size or adjust spacing to suit their reading needs, while others may switch to languages with longer words. These modifications often cause text to flow onto multiple lines, and when that happens, the floating label can obscure the form field beneath it.

    On a website’s account creation form, I encountered this issue while using my iOS device with Larger Text settings enabled. The label “First Name (you may need to add a middle name)” wrapped onto two lines, obscuring the field and preventing me from seeing what I was typing.

    In an ideal scenario, the instruction “you may need to add a middle name” wouldn’t have been part of the label. However, this example effectively illustrates how Floating Labels can create accessibility challenges, especially when text expands and wraps onto multiple lines.

    How Serious Is The Issue?

    Floating labels often use opaque white backgrounds to enhance their floating effect while keeping text legible. However, this opacity can obstruct the form field beneath it, making it difficult for users to verify their input. Without clear visibility, people may struggle to confirm whether their entries are accurate or formatted correctly. This can lead to frustrating trial-and-error processes or even submission of incorrect information.

    The impact is especially significant for users with disabilities who may be unable to adjust their devices to compensate. Some lack the ability to rotate their screens for a larger view, while others rely on magnification or large text sizes to navigate interfaces effectively. For these users, floating labels can present an insurmountable barrier.

    Ensuring Accessibility with Floating Labels

    Google has laid the foundation for the floating label pattern by recognizing and addressing a user need, but there’s still more to be done.

    To achieve this, we need to extend user studies to include individuals with low vision and cognitive disabilities, ensuring accessibility remains a priority.

    By working inclusively, this pattern could undergo a fundamental transformation. It may evolve beyond floating labels altogether, adapting to better meet the diverse needs of users. What remains paramount is achieving the ultimate goal: helping people easily and effectively identify form fields.

    WCAG Supports Accessible Form Labels

    The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) provide essential principles, guidelines, and criteria to ensure people with disabilities are considered in design. These are crucial, as anyone—including individuals with compound disabilities—could be interacting with our form at any time.

    We should pay special attention to the following success criteria (SC) to better support individuals with low vision and cognitive disabilities: 

    Ultimately, it’s up to us to ensure that the patterns we implement are well-suited to the needs of our audiences.

    Image Credits

    The featured image used in this article is credited to Pramod Tiwari.