One of the joys of doing the Better Connected accessibility assessments, is the chance they give us to see how much residents can do on their local council web sites now. Things are just so much easier for people who don’t find it easy to get down to the council offices, especially for quick tasks like paying bills.
So you can imagine how distressing it is when we have to fail a site because its online payment system won’t function without JavaScript.
More often than not, the online payments facility is third party content, but as online payments are so well integrated into most sites, there’s really no way that the user would know this. Quite apart from which, it’s not fair to deny access to people who may not be able to switch JavaScript on.
But how common is this? You’d think that a vast majority of councils would make sure that online payments were available and worked for everyone. Not so, not yet, anyway.
Online payment statistics
Last year I handled 160 local authority web sites, about a third of the sites assessed. Of these:
- 54 councils, (34%), had a JavaScript reliant online payment facility.
- 14 councils, (9%), didn’t offer an online payment facility..
- 92 councils, (57%), provided online payment facilities that didn’t rely on JavaScript
Which means that 43% of the councils I assessed didn’t provide an accessible way to pay bills online. Quite a surprise, isn’t it?
Making it better
Web managers often aren’t the people who choose the online payments provider, so this certainly isn’t a reflection on their skills or awareness. It would be good though if they made sure that the decision-maker was aware of the effect they’re having on the site’s accessibility, and more importantly, that it could make it more difficult for some people to pay bills.
But what can you do if you have a JavaScript reliant online payment system? How about getting in touch with the provider to ask them when they will be issuing an accessible version? If enough web managers do this, it could well inspire the providers to get to grips with the problem.
patrick h. lauke | 25/10/2007 at 1:08 | Permalink
with a view toward WCAG 2.0’s “accessibility-supported technologies” idea, would you say though that javascript - if done properly - is accessibility-supported? in other words, is reliance on javascript an accessibility barrier, or a universal access barrier? maybe that’s splitting hairs, for some…but if we look at accessibility in terms of “can users with disabilities understand/use/operate it”, is a well constructed, accessible piece of javascript really a no-go?
Darren Taylor | 25/10/2007 at 9:53 | Permalink
More a question than a comment but are local councils exempt from using the Government Gateway?
JackP | 25/10/2007 at 10:39 | Permalink
I’ve got to agree with Patrick here: from what I understand, some pieces of javascript are extremely well supported by assistive technology (the javascript postback, for example).
A site using this relies on javascript, but is accessible to disabled users, although it is in breach of WCAG 1.0.
I’m all in favour of universality (indeed I include this in my definition of accessibility) but I recognise that there is a key difference between calling a site inaccessible when a disabled user is unable to use it, and calling it inaccessible when for whatever reason javascript has been disabled.
I’ve got to admit I’m a little disappointed to hear the “uses javascript therefore is inaccessible” line being trotted out from the RNIB and perpetuating the old stereotype. This may be the case if the javascript has not been tested with assistive technologies, but isn’t necessarily the case at all.
Iain Lackie | 25/10/2007 at 11:50 | Permalink
Why doesn’t RNIB go for a reall accessibility issue. I refer to the ubiquitous CAPTCHA. They may not appear on local authority websites but they are a true barrier to people who have no sight. There is often nothing that can be done to get past them. That’s real inaccessibility for you!.
KLewis | 29/10/2007 at 11:37 | Permalink
Quote: “it could make it more difficult for some people to pay bills.”
I’m afraid “some people” is not enough of a business case to persuade the bill payers and I doubt it’s enough for the providers either.
“You’ve got some simple to figures to show that a problem might exist but can you provide some to show that it really does? Then I’ll provide the cash for the change” says Mr Hard-Nosed-Budget-Holder.
Bim | 29/01/2008 at 10:32 | Permalink
I’m so sorry it’s taken so long for me to get back to you all on your comments. We’ve been hard at this year’s Better Connected assessments for the last three months and it’s left little time for anything else.
What Patrick and Jack say is absolutely right, there are JavaScript events that can be used by everyone, unless client-side scripting is disabled, and I should have been more precise in my phrasing.
When I said that a site “uses JavaScript therefore is inaccessible”, I meant of course within the context of WCAG 1.0, as the Better Connected assessments only check compliance to the current guidelines. It would have been better if I’d said “uses JavaScript is therefore bound to fail the single A assessment of compliance to current guidelines.
Having said that, can I just pick up on Jack’s comment, “there is a key difference between calling a site inaccessible when a disabled user is unable to use it, and calling it inaccessible when for whatever reason javascript has been disabled”.
At the highest level this is true, but what about users whose disability makes it very difficult for them to use sites where problematic scripts are in use? Or users who feel the need to have high security settings, (which disables JavaScript)? At present they should be able to use any part of a site calling itself accessible, because the client-side script will be backed up with a server-side alternative.
In the future, will these people, (who include those with dyslexia and other distractibility conditions, as well as many access tech users), have to delve into the bowels of their browsers to enable/disable JavaScript, according to the site’s content?