Social Networking – Ignoring Accessibility

Social networking is the big thing, whether it’s entertainment or professionally focused. But it’s a big thing that falls into the same trap as many services on the internet. It marginalises or blocks out people who require greater accessibility on the internet, or special consideration from web designers.

Accessibility is about far more than just fulfilling the standard W3C guidelines. I’ve talked in the past about the importance of usability of the web, and the common failures of websites to provide that usability.

Basic guideline failures

The W3C guidelines may be flawed, but they are still a useful guide. And it’s clear that social network sites fail these most basic tests of accessibility. As a simple test I took a look at the results for the home pages of some popular social networking sites on W3C’s validator:

• Facebook fails validation with 66 errors.
• Digg fails validation with 79 errors.
• Myspace fails validation with 149 errors. It also makes use of tables for layout, even within a largely div based structure.
• Twitter fails validation with 11 errors – despite the simplicity of the home page for a new user.

Now I’m aware that the dynamic nature of these sites can make validation more difficult to achieve. But we’re looking at very significant failures, not just a few errors. Correct and validated code is important for providing the most usable experience for site visitors regardless of the way they access a site, and these major portals all fail badly.

Reliance on CAPTCHA

Many social networking sites make extensive use of CAPTCHA. That’s the little image of text that you’re asked to enter to prove that you’re human, if you’re submitting content to a site. It exists to protect against being spammed by robots, which is a fine aim, but it blocks sites to people who access through non traditional methods.

Purely from the visual point of view, CAPTCHA can be confusing. Even I make mistakes in entering CAPTCHA information about 10% of the time. Imagine how much more difficult it can be for people who have poor vision.

CAPTCHA usually offers an audio alternative, but that doesn’t always help. It requires a user to have a soundcard, and for the recording to be clear and audible. It also doesn’t take into account users who have both visual and hearing impairment. A tiny proportion of users to be sure, but the users who genuinely need support.

And generally CAPTCHA reduces usability. Anything that adds a level of complexity to the navigation of a site has a negative impact on general usability.

Do they care to improve?

I think it’s unlikely that these accessibility issues are a major issue for the social networking sites. They have millions of visitors and a high media profile. But they should care more – accessibility and usability go hand in hand. Even if these sites aren’t under the same legal restrictions and expectations as many corporate or public sector sites, to be accessible to the widest possible audience, I think there is a moral responsibility also.

And even without any moral responsibility, there’s a practical benefit. The more usable the site is, the wider the potential audience. Working on overall accessibility  makes physically impaired visitors potential users/consumers. And having focused on the unfamiliarity many web users have with the internet in general, usability and accessibility simply makes good business sense. The more people who feel comfortable with a site the better.