WCAG is the foundation of digital accessibility, but it’s not the whole story. While a crucial standard for making the web usable for people with disabilities, it has limitations. Understanding the difference between a technical checklist and a human-centered experience is key to creating truly inclusive digital products.
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are a set of international, technical guidelines for making web content more accessible. Developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), WCAG provides a shared standard for developers, designers, and organizations. The guidelines are organized around four core principles, often remembered by the acronym POUR:
WCAG: The Web Accessibility Standard
Perceivable: Users must be able to perceive the information presented. This means providing text alternatives for images, captions for videos, and sufficient color contrast.
Operable: Users must be able to operate the interface and navigate the content. This includes ensuring all functionality is available via a keyboard and that users have enough time to interact with a page.
Understandable: The information and the user interface must be understandable. This involves using clear and simple language, providing predictable navigation, and giving clear instructions for forms.
Robust: Content must be robust enough to be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.
Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusion: Defining the Differences
These terms are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings, as defined by the W3C.
Accessibility is a prerequisite for usability, specifically for people with disabilities. It focuses on removing barriers so that people with diverse abilities can perceive, understand, and interact with the web. It’s about ensuring an equivalent user experience for everyone.
Usability is a broader concept that focuses on how easy, efficient, and satisfying a product is to use. It addresses the overall user experience for all users, regardless of ability. A product can be usable for some people but not accessible to others.
Inclusion is about ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, identity, or abilities, feels involved and welcome. It’s the overarching goal that encompasses both accessibility and usability, recognizing that a truly inclusive product serves the needs of the widest possible audience.
In short, accessibility is a subset of usability for people with disabilities, and both are part of the larger practice of inclusive design.
Accessibility addresses discriminatory aspects related to equivalent user experience for people with disabilities. Usability and user experience design address the overall user experience of everyone, including people with disabilities.
The Gaps: When WCAG Isn’t Enough
While WCAG provides a critical foundation, it’s a technical standard, not a measure of human experience. This creates gaps that can only be filled with real-world user testing.
Here are some examples of where WCAG conformance can fall short, with hypothetical scenarios from usability testing:
Long and Unhelpful Alt Text: WCAG requires that non-text content (like an image) has a text alternative. A developer might write a very long, literal description for a decorative image to meet the letter of the law. However, in a usability test, a screen reader user might express frustration at having to listen to a 30-second-long description of a background image just to get to the main content. The site is WCAG-compliant but provides a poor user experience.
Confusing Link Text: WCAG 2.4.4 requires that link text be understandable from its context. A developer could use the text “Click here to view our return policy” for every link, which is technically understandable in context. However, during a usability test, a user navigating with a screen reader might get a list of 15 “Click here” links without clear context, making it impossible to distinguish between them.
Correct Markup, Bad Flow: A website may have all the correct heading (H1, H2) and ARIA (aria-label) attributes, satisfying the technical requirements. But in a usability test, a user with cognitive disabilities might get confused by a convoluted page structure where the content jumps around illogically, even if the markup is “correct.” The user experience is still difficult because the overall flow wasn’t considered.
Why WCAG Cannot Cover Everything
WCAG’s limitations are by design. It’s a set of testable, pass-or-fail criteria, which makes it an enforceable legal standard, but it can’t capture the nuanced nature of human interaction.
Technical Reason: WCAG guidelines must be technology-agnostic to remain relevant as new technologies emerge. This means they can’t provide specific solutions for every possible scenario. For example, WCAG can’t tell you the perfect design for a complex data visualization, only that it must be “perceivable” to all users.
Scope: The guidelines primarily focus on the technical aspects of the code and content, rather than the subjective user experience. They can ensure a site is keyboard-operable, but they can’t guarantee that the keyboard navigation is efficient or enjoyable. The guidelines do not cover the user interface, only the content.
Conformance vs. Experience: Achieving WCAG conformance is about meeting a set of criteria to demonstrate compliance. This is a critical first step. However, it’s not the same as providing a positive user experience. Conformance is a checklist; experience is the outcome of how a person feels and performs when using the product. A technically compliant site can still be frustrating, slow, or difficult for a user with a disability to navigate.
True accessibility goes beyond the checklist. It requires engaging with people with disabilities, observing how they use your products, and learning from their experiences. This is where the practice of usability testing becomes an indispensable tool for filling the gaps left by WCAG.
References:
Challenges with Accessibility Guidelines Conformance
