DEV Community: Chris

Why accessible video is still not possible on Instagram

Chris — Tue, 16 Dec 2025 09:38:42 +0000

TL;DR - Basic video accessibility features, closed captions and audio descriptions are still not possible on Instagram.

Instagram was launched in 2010, it has grown into a cultural force. While Meta doesn’t publish Instagram’s profit precisely, it is estimated that Instagram’s advertising revenue alone reached approximately $39 billion in 2023 (and will likely make up over half of Meta’s US ad revenue in 2025). The cultural and financial impact of the platform is impossible to understate.

However for millions of disabled people, the short-form-video experience is incomplete, frustrating, and often exclusionary.

The missing accessibility features

The core issue lies in the lack of support for industry-standard accessibility features:

Closed captions are not fully supported

Closed captions (CC), like those found on Netflix or broadcast television, are not really possible on Instagram. Closed captions are a vital feature for the deaf and those hard of hearing community. They usually appear at the bottom of the video with high-contrast text (eg white text on a black background) and, crucially, can be switched on and off by the user. They also allow for adjustments in text size and shape, and can be picked up and processed by assistive technologies.

Instagram offers some users automated closed captions but it doesn’t let users edit this text or really control any aspect of it relying on automation. It’s not possible to add a relevant caption file which is essential for accuracy and compliance.

Open captions which are often ‘burned’ directly into the video file, meaning they cannot be turned off, adjusted, or read some assistive technology. These are possible but which is something, but open captions have been normalised as an aesthetic addition to a video, rather than an accessibility need. They are often flashy and are used to drive engagement rather than serve deaf people and those with hearing loss.

Audio description is not possible

Equally, audio descriptions which is a secondary audio track that narrates key visual elements for people who are blind or have low vision is not a built-in possibility on Instagram’s video features. This means content creators cannot easily upload a separate audio track to ensure their visual stories are accessible to everyone.

There are 3 core layers of why this is happening

The missing features are basic and would be simple for a company with Meta’s resources to implement. The reasons for this failure are structural and I can sort of break them down into three parts.

Regulation (the Government layer)

In jurisdictions like the UK, broadcast television is bound by strict laws that force broadcasters to include features like closed captions and audio description. Instagram, however, removes this legal obligation because it is classified as a tech platform, not a traditional broadcaster, allowing it to operate in a regulatory grey zone with fewer accessibility requirements.

Legal Liability (the structural layer)

On broadcast TV, the channel or network is legally responsible for the content’s accessibility. On Instagram, that legal liability has been effectively shifted to the user creating the content. The platform doesn’t feel compelled to provide the tools because the creators shoulder the burden. Netflix only started to take captioning seriously after they were sued in 2015. (Does the European Accessibility Act apply? Quite possibility, but that’s another post)

Culture (the top-down layer)

Ultimately, this points to a deep-seated cultural issue. Meta has a long, public history of deprioritising accessibility features in favour of new monetisation tools and engagement drivers. Threads was launched without features to add alt text. The lack of basic functionality points to a persistent top-down culture where the needs of disabled users are not treated as a priority, if at all.

What is the solution?

The fix is almost laughably simple for a company of Meta’s scale. They possess virtually unlimited resources and could:

Establish a dedicated, empowered Accessibility Team within Instagram.
Run a short development sprint (allocate time) to allow users to upload external caption files (SRT, VTT formats) and separate Audio Description tracks.
Launch a global marketing campaign to educate content creators on the importance and process of adding these features.

Will they do it?

Instagram short-form-video “Reels” launched over 5 years ago in 2020, and the fact that such a basic, fundamental features are still missing speaks volumes. It is unlikely to happen until the regulatory or public pressure becomes financially too great to ignore

In the meantime, what are the workarounds?

Use other platforms. Creators who value accessibility should post their video content on platforms like YouTube, which have robust, fully adjustable closed caption support and audio description options, and then link back to their Instagram profile.

The platform may be an cultural force, but until it provides truly accessible tools, it excludes a significant portion of people with health conditions or impairments.

Cover image: Instagram Reels, with the Reels icon on the left (a play button inside a stylised film strip) and two smartphones on the right displaying the Instagram app. One phone shows a user profile, and the other shows a dancing video playing in the Reels interface.

Accessibility: FashionNova fined $5.15M, Vueling Airlines €90,000

Chris — Thu, 02 Oct 2025 10:48:51 +0000

FashionNova, Vueling Airlines, Auchan, Carrefour, E. Leclerc, Picard Surgelés logos on white background

The European Accessibility Act (EAA) came into force on 28th June this year. But what’s happened since June?

On 7 July 2025, two visual-impairment advocacy groups (apiDV and Droit Pluriel), with legal support from the collective Intérêt à Agir, issued formal warnings to four large French retailers Auchan, Carrefour, E. Leclerc, and Picard Surgelés for failing to make their online supermarket services fully accessible.

If the retailers haven’t fully complied by 1 September 2025, the associations plan to take legal action to enforce their obligation.

Vueling Airlines

Meanwhile last year in 2024, airline Vueling in Spain was fined €90,000 in for failing to make their website accessible. They were fined even before the EAA came into force, demonstrating that accessibility enforcement isn’t just theoretical, the EAA will only make expectations even clearer.

Fashion Nova was fined millions

Fashion Nova in the US was fined $5,150,000, individuals who are legally blind and attempted to access the Fashion Nova using screen reading software now may be eligible to submit a claim.

Featured on TGPi, Weekly Reading List August 18 2025

Want more simple, actionable tips? I'm Chris, a UX Developer with a focus in accessibility, available for hire.

Follow me on LinkedIn

Why does big tech not run Accessibility bug bounties?

Chris — Thu, 02 Oct 2025 10:45:11 +0000

A dark blue background filled with a grid of light blue binary code (ones and zeros). In the center, a large, stylised outline of a beetle or bug is visible in a slightly brighter blue. The bug is flanked on either side by a large, light blue curly brace, enclosing it like a piece of code. The overall image represents a programming or software bug.

10 reasons why this would be great

The biggest names in tech, from Google to Netflix, invest millions in security bug bounty programs. They pay ethical hackers, also known as researchers, to find vulnerabilities, Netflix can pay upto $25,000 for a critical bug viewing it as a smart business move to prevent security vulnerabilities in their software, systems, or websites.

So why not for Accessibility bugs?

It’s a somewhat perfect analogy to security. The principle is identical, crowdsource the identification of critical flaws that the internal Production team might miss. Lack of proper keyboard navigation is a critical bug, just like a security vulnerability. The only difference is who is at risk.
A bug bounty program provides a direct and immediate channel for feedback. Issues can be reported and triaged in real-time, allowing for rapid fixes and a continuous cycle of improvement.
A bounty program almost gamifies accessibility bugs in a way. It creates this technical competitive environment that encourages technical experts to find and report the most critical issues, accelerating the discovery of flaws and raising the standard of Accessibility testing across the industry. It also creates this technical environment where Accessibility bugs are treated like the technical bugs they are.
It aligns the financial incentives, Accessibility professionals, Designers and other Developers are being paid for their detailed labour and feedback, bugs are being fixed while the company benefits from the labour. It encourages others to learn about Accessibility and even try and find bugs as now there’s a method to get paid for this labour. Someone posting they were "paid $1,000 to fix a P3 Netflix Accessibility bug" might help change the culture.
It's proactive, not reactive. Many companies fix accessibility issues only after receiving a legal threat or public backlash. A bug bounty program would incentivise a proactive approach, encouraging companies to find and fix issues before they become a liability.
Companies that publicly champion accessibility through a bounty program can build a reputation for inclusivity. This not only attracts a wider customer base but also helps recruit and retain talent who want to work for socially responsible organisations.
A bug bounty program allows companies to pay for verified bugs on an as needed basis with a fixed allocated budget.
Accessibility advocates and testers often perform valuable, unpaid labour by reporting bugs and providing feedback. A bounty program would finally validate and compensate for this work, turning a moral obligation into a paid, professional pursuit.
A public bug bounty program signals a genuine commitment to Accessibility. It makes a company's efforts transparent, showing the community that their feedback is not only heard but valued and compensated.
Beyond all business justifications, running a bug bounty program would also acknowledge the ethical duty companies have to ensure their products are usable and accessible to everyone, regardless of ability. By doing so, they demonstrate that they value the well-being of all their users.

Someone at a big tech company with the budget to launch an Accessibility bug bounty program might like to see this post.

Want more insights? I'm Chris, a UX Developer with a focus in accessibility, available for hire. Follow me on LinkedIn

Use of Colour (Level A) WCAG 1.4.1 - Accessibility Design tips

Chris — Thu, 02 Oct 2025 10:36:56 +0000

Don't use colour as the only way to tell people something important. Colour is not used as the only visual means of conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual element.

Why is WCAG 1.4.1 important?

There are various eye conditions that mean people see colours in different ways. This includes various types of colour blindness, some people need high contrast, some people need low contrast, there’s a whole spectrum of people that might see the world differently.

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.4.1 means by not relying on colour alone within a Design,

Let’s give an example, what's the problem with these links?

Only colour is communicating what is a heading and what is a link. In this example “Overview” is a heading but the rest are links, all the spacing is the same, the font size and weight is the same. Meaning what is a link and what isn't is harder to determine.

Below is what someone with blurred vision might see.

Someone with cataracts, glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration might see reduced contrast. Notice how the contrast is harder to see so the colour difference of what's a link and what isn't makes less of an impact, it’s less noticeable.

Achromatopsia, is one type of colourblindness in this context the colour is stripped this is what this person might see.

The solution to WCAG 1.4.1 is to add a second visual cue. Colour is not used as the only visual means of conveying information.

In this example, the links or headings need to have a second visual cue. Often links as historically blue and underlined. The blue colour lets sighted users know it's a link, but the underline provides that extra visual cue for people who might see colours differently.

Historical fun fact, the creator of the blue link chose it because he liked blue and it was partially down to the fact that screens at the time could also show a small amount of colours, so they could have easily been green or something else.

How to meet WCAG in this context?

So, for links to be accessible, you need to ensure they are:

Distinct from other text, they shouldn't blend in with the surrounding text.
Identified by more than just colour, they need a non-colour visual cue.

Underlines are typically the best, easier and simplest solution to this problem. More on this in a moment, however underlines are not the only solution to this problem. WCAG often describes the problem rather than a set of solutions.

Solution 1 - change of size and shape

In this solution the headings are made bigger, bolder and there is more spacing between the heading and the links. This ensures that 1.4.1 is met and more than colour is being used to determine the difference. The headings are very clear and they are different. Not as good as it could be but still works.

Solution 2 - remove the confusion

Another solution is to remove the headings entirely, this way there’s no confusion at all, all of these are links due to the positioning.

Solution 3 - underline the links

The most simple solution is to add an underline to the links, this sticks with a known convention.

Solution 4 - style the underlines

Don't like the way those underlines look? How about giving the underline more breathing room, along with a reduced opacity to make it more subtle?

Solution 5 - what about overlines instead?

Don’t like underlines at all, how about overlines, so lines on top? A bit more unconventional, however still manages to comply with WCAG 1.4.1

Solution 6 - how about an icon?

Don’t like the overline, how about an arrow icon or shape so that the links are clearer?

Those were 6 Design solutions that take the WCAG constraints and implement a creative Design solution. There's probably 100s more that could also work.

I personally prefer adding a border, an outline, or an underline, or increasing the thickness of the text (or a combination of any of these) to highlight the active link. - Sara Soueidan

“It is amazing to me how this suggestion causes so much angst and fighting. Designers often argue that they look ugly, some users claim they are distracting, others even claim they reduce accessibility.” - Adrian Roselli

This is where some designers bristle. If there are a lot of links on a page, it could look awfully cluttered with underlines. That’s why some designers would rather remove the underline completely - Jeremy Keith

But I don’t like any of these it spoils the vibe...

Look I get it, there’s a layer of what visually looks good, feels nice. Some argue that underlines create visual noise, making the design look cluttered or less sophisticated. Change can be difficult.

For many users, a lack of an underline is even more distracting. They have to scan the entire section, mentally hover over each piece of text, or rely on a slight colour difference to figure out what is clickable and what isn't. This mental effort is called cognitive load. An underline eliminates this problem instantly, making the section scannable and reducing frustration.

The problem is what one person sees as "visual noise" is, for another, a vital, expected cue that makes the page easier to use. This is when WCAG comes into play, to make things more detailed. A set of international technical standards that move away from opinion.

I’ve done a lot of audits in the first half of this year and at this point a believe that designing links without underlines is a kink. The idea that users don’t understand that links are clickable arouses some designers. I can’t explain it any other way. - Manuel Matuzović

This is often the crux of this argument, there is an aversion to change due to aesthetics, meaning it looks nicer to some people. However this goes back to the concept of Design. Design is about function first. Something can be beautiful first and lack function.

Function first, beauty second

This watch (below) is beautiful, it might be the perfect choice for a photoshoot, for an Instagram profile picture or something where the goal is visual aesthetics.

However, if the goal is to tell the time, consistently, reliably, this design choice fails as it's much harder to see the numbers

Most people aren’t typically visiting most websites to admire the website. Typically they are trying to do something, they are trying to get in and get out. They are trying to find some information, buy something, contact someone, get something done. It should be usable, accessible, first and beautiful second.

What's another example?

Notice how the text adds a secondary visual cue to inform the user whether someone is online

Some more amazing examples can be found on Access Guide

Why are NHS trusts buying Accessibility overlays?

Chris — Thu, 02 Oct 2025 10:26:41 +0000

The NHS is bound by the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations 2018. These regulations require websites and apps to meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and to be usable by everyone - including disabled people.

Unfortunately, some NHS trusts are relying on so-called accessibility overlays, which I've written about in more depth. These are plug-in toolbars that claim to “fix” accessibility problems automatically. These overlays don’t make websites compliant. In fact, they can create new barriers, often make things worse, interfere with assistive technologies like screen readers, and give organisations a false sense of compliance. Sometimes people mean well but often they are sold products that don’t work.

NHS Trusts using Accessibility overlays

After some short amount of time doing some research, I discoverd at least 15 NHS trusts that have currently deployed overlays (there could easily more).

Why this matters

By using overlays instead of making their websites genuinely accessible, these trusts are failing to comply with accessibility law. That puts them at legal risk, wastes money, but more importantly, it lets down the disabled patients, staff, and carers who rely on accessible information.

The way forward

Accessibility can’t be bolted on with a widget. NHS trusts need to commit to building accessibility into their websites from the ground up. Stay tuned for part 2.

Accessibility failures -FashionNova fined $5.15M, Vueling Airlines €90,000

Chris — Mon, 18 Aug 2025 10:07:28 +0000

The European Accessibility Act (EAA) came into force on 28th June this year. But what’s happened since June?

If the retailers haven’t fully complied by 1 September 2025, the associations plan to take legal action to enforce their obligation.

Vueling Airlines

Fashion Nova was fined millions

Fashion Nova in the US was fined $5,150,000, individuals who are legally blind and attempted to access the Fashion Nova using screen reading software now may be eligible to submit a claim.

Accessibility pushback

Chris — Mon, 18 Aug 2025 09:52:06 +0000

Talking openly and debunking some common pushback

Pushback or objections when advocating for accessibility is unfortunately very common. Companies are all at different points in their journey, and the Accessibility Maturity Model from W3C outlines these different stages. The less mature a company is in its journey, the more often pushback will be encountered, and the more nonsensical this pushback can be.

“It’s very common, everyone does it”

A classic. One that’s used time and time again. This is really a simple bandwagon fallacy that pops up a lot in Accessibility as a way to justify a decision. Just because lots of companies do it, doesn’t mean it’s accessible. It doesn’t mean it aligns with WCAG, it doesn’t mean it’s been tested with disabled people.

Other flavours of this include “but Google does it..” There is an amazing blog post that tackles this common fallacy in depth.

I Don’t Care What Google or Apple or Whoever Did

It also compounds, sometimes these decisions are made in 2 seconds on a Thursday afternoon, if the company is a household name then other people copy it and thus the cycle continues.

Does the pushback have engagement with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)? No, then this is ableism. We’ve all absorbed ableist ideas, because society itself is built on them, the good news is we can unlearn these. Is there a follow up task created to revisit it? No. Ableism. However, does the pushback engage with WCAG and provide solutions and compromises? This is healthier.

“Accessibility can’t be a bottle neck”

There’s a lot to unpick in this sentence. This phrase frames accessibility compliance as a type of obstruction, not a normal part of the process. This misrepresents accessibility, this extra burden or the “cherry on top” rather than the flour in the cake that’s baked into the process. If something is a bottleneck, it suggests it’s an additional step tacked onto an existing process. It implies Accessibility is an add-on or afterthought. This is why it’s crucial to have an experienced accessibility specialist on the team from the beginning.

It usually is used to ignore taking action. A way to argue that urgency has to override the work being asked to be completed. A way to create pressure and convenience so it can be ignored. However it just creates more work, if this is not fixed at Design stage, it ends up being way more expensive later on to resolve.

Accessibility is about baking it in from the very first thought, rather than trying to retrofit it later. There’s been quite a few food analogies. One that has been popularised is from an web accessibility engineer at Salesforce and co-host of the 13 Letters Podcast

You can’t put the blueberries in the muffin after the muffin is baked. – Cordelia McGee-Tubb

I’ve seen other variations of this

You can’t sprinkle on eggs after the cake comes out of the oven…taste along the way - Sara Basson

Also by calling it a bottleneck, this tries to shift responsibility. Someone or a team can implicitly “blame” accessibility itself for delays. Rather than looking inward at their own processes, lack of proactive planning, lack of training, poor hiring, unwillingness to change habits, read documentation, or insufficient knowledge. It also devalues the expertise of accessibility professionals. The language can be disheartening for those championing accessibility. It signals that their efforts are perceived as hindrances, annoyances to business as usual.

“We have to live in the real world”

By suggesting that accessibility is not a part of the “real world,” it implies that the experiences and needs of 24% of people are somehow not part of this “real world”.

It also frames the request as an extreme or unreasonable demand when the actual request is likely a very reasonable, well-documented best practice (“Can we add alt text to these images?”). By misrepresenting the request, it’s easier to dismiss it as impractical.

Airbnb introduced a new accessibility category and generated an extra $5.5 million in 4 months.

“We just sell [product] we’re not a bank”

The sentiment behind is built on a foundation of really shaky logic. There are multiple fallacies at play here.

First, it uses the simplicity fallacy, implying that because a product is not essential, the need for accessibility is trivial. This ignores the fact that 1) the European Accessibility Act (EAA) is active and 2) a user’s experience is defined not by the product, but by the user interface.

Second, this statement presents a false dichotomy, suggesting that a business is either a high-stakes, high-risk company like a bank that needs to care about accessibility, or it isn’t. In reality, the legal obligation to provide equal access exists for all, regardless of the industry.

Third, the argument often stems from a place of appeal to ignorance, where a lack of personal experience with disability leads to the assumption that a website is universally usable simply because it works for the speaker. They’ve never been blocked making a purchase so “who cares”.

Finally, this perspective often employs a straw man fallacy, arguing against a caricatured version of accessibility as an overly burdensome and costly process, rather than what it actually is: a set of foundational best practices that improve the experience for everyone.

It sort of implies some companies need to be more accessible than others as they can cause larger harm. In some ways I can understand this while I don’t agree with it. The idea that a financial product needs to be more accessible than a luxury scarf company. If someone can’t buy a luxury scarf they can purchase a different scarf. However doesn’t everyone deserve a to be able to purchase a luxury scarf if they want to?

Also, what happens when digital professionals that work at the luxury scarf company take their skills into the healthcare sector?

“This WCAG advice is from 2017?!”

The implication of this sentiment is that because the advice is older therefore it’s not valid. It’s the inverse of an appeal to novelty fallacy. This fallacy suggests something is superior because it’s new.

Of course there is the possibility that changes might have happened since 2017 and there is a better way to do things, a more accessible way. However this should be easily evidenced. Is there an issue raised against this pattern? Is there an existing discussion to read? Some new research to review?

However, if recommended WCAG patterns are dismissed simply because they are old without any other justification it sets a really odd precedent.

I think this stems back to a cultural issue. As WCAG was published in 1999, WCAG 2.0 in 2001, WCAG 2.2 in October 2023. Private companies have now been building digital products and services for over 26 years and have been able to ignore WCAG.

26 years is a lifetime (and then some) in tech, there will undoubtedly be some digital professionals that have been able to progress to the most senior levels, sell courses and pass on “best practice” without even considering WCAG. Also, in the age of context collapse, casual advice can be presented with the same authority as in-depth research from professionals.

“If we’re sued we’ll revisit it”

The argument implies that because no lawsuit has been filed yet, there is no problem, and therefore no action is needed. The absence of a lawsuit is being used as evidence that the issue isn’t important enough to address. This is a terrible strategy for several critical reasons. It’s a reactive, not proactive.

Also, “the biggest lie in software is Phase 2” - Jeff Gothelf from Lean UX

When dealing with pushback, ask

Is someone only looking for some type of last-minute sign off?
Has someone engaged with the detail? With WCAG? With the the - resources shared? Have they chosen to reply selectively and ignored all other points?
Is the person acting in good faith or engaging in demagogue behavior? Good faith means they are genuinely trying to find a solution. Demagogue behavior means they are focused on gaining support, even if it means ignoring facts or expert advice to do so.
Can this be clearly captured as a bug to be prioritised later on?

When intent and expertise are aligned, accessibility challenges can be addressed as technical issues by professionals working together toward solutions. With the right people in the right roles, accessibility can stop being a tick-box exercise and becomes a natural, integrated part of creating better products.

Scandinavian Airlines were fined $100,000 for accessibility bugs

Chris — Sat, 14 Dec 2024 05:58:08 +0000

They faced legal action in two different markets.

Did you know, in 2017 the Norwegian government gave Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) 12 months to fix accessibility bugs on their website.

Instead of building their main website so that it was accessible inline with WCAG, SAS made a separate website after advice from a third-party company. They created a separate “assistive” experience for people with disabilities.

Creating a separate experience for people with disabilities might seem like a good idea, it’s not. A separate experience is continued discrimination not equality.

Meanwhile in the United States, the Department of Transport (DOT), also found that SAS’s website had accessibility bugs and ordered them to fix them. Airlines operating in the U.S. have to make their main website accessible to people with disabilities, as per the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA).

Why did SAS create a different experience?

They were sold the wrong solution by a third party. They were told this new, different, website would fix all of their accessibility issues and legally protect them - it didn’t.

Separate assistive websites have more issues

They often don’t have all the same information as the main site.
They can be hard to keep up to date, maintaining two codebases.
They might not have all the features of the main site.

What happened next?

SAS were told by the Norwegian government they would be charged €15,000 per day should they not fix the issues. In under 10 days they resolved many of the issues.

However in the US, DOT fined SAS $100,000. They then had 12 months to fix their website otherwise they would face another £100,000 fine. SAS also had to stop using this different website, they had to make their main website accessible.

They were told user journeys have to be able to be used by all people, including:

Booking or changing reservation (including all flight amenities)
Checking in for a flight,
Accessing a personal itinerary
Accessing a personal frequent flyer account,
Accessing flight schedules, and
Accessing carrier contact information.

Companies should focus on making their main site accessible to everyone.

A competitor Norwegian Airlines didn’t face such issues. If SAS simply made their website accessible from the start they wouldn’t have faced legal action in two different markets.

Read more about this case and why separate but equal is never OK by Sheri Byrne-Haber

The European Accessibility Act

The European Accessibility Act (EAA), which will come into force in 2025 is a law designed to create equal access for Europeans with disabilities by requiring a mix of products and services to be accessible. This will impact private companies should they wish to operate in the EU.

5 accessibility defects LinkedIn could resolve to make content more accessible

Chris — Sat, 14 Dec 2024 05:55:59 +0000

It's the role of the platform to prevent accessibility issues

LinkedIn is a business and employment-focused social media platform that works through websites and mobile apps. It was launched on May 5, 2003, Linkedin’s revenue was $15 billion in 2023, it’s also part of Microsoft.

Summary

Strip out fancy fonts (𝒻𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓈)
Automatically add capital letters to #HashTags
❌ Warn about overuse of emojis and for bullet point use
Replace links converted to short LinkedIn URLs, to meaningful text with links
Warn about UPPERCASE text

The problem

One of the biggest problems of user generated content on social media is that it can be deeply inaccessible. Often users are given an empty-text-field to post content, they can do what they like.

People can offer guides, training, workshops, and even call out inaccessible content. However, this bottom up approach is not only ineffective it also shifts responsibility from the platform to the user.

Users can often be left policing each other, educating each other, however actually it is Linkedin’s job to do this work. It's their role to make sure their publishing tools prevent accessibility issues before they happen.

5 defects that LinkedIn could resolve to make content more accessible

1. Strip out fancy fonts

I’m not sure when this happened but fancy fonts became a trend. Linkedin could add features to block posts from being published when it detects the fonts. Alternately it could strip them out automatically.

A screen reader allows people who are blind or visually impaired to use their computer. Below are three sentence in fancy fonts that are ignored by screen readers:

𝒯𝒽𝑒𝓈𝑒 𝒻𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓈 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝒾𝑔𝓃𝑜𝓇𝑒𝒹 𝒷𝓎 𝓈𝒸𝓇𝑒𝑒𝓃 𝓇𝑒𝒶𝒹𝑒𝓇𝓈
𝕋𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕗𝕠𝕟𝕥𝕤 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕚𝕘𝕟𝕠𝕣𝕖𝕕 𝕓𝕪 𝕤𝕔𝕣𝕖𝕖𝕟 𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕕𝕖𝕣𝕤
ᵀʰᵉˢᵉ ᶠᵒⁿᵗˢ ᵃʳᵉ ⁱᵍⁿᵒʳᵉᵈ ᵇʸ ˢᶜʳᵉᵉⁿ ʳᵉᵃᵈᵉʳˢ

2. Automatically add capital letters to #HashTags

HashTag is more accessible that #hashtag. Why's that? One, it’s more readable visually so users with cognitive issues like dyslexia benefit. Secondly, for screen readers it gets read out as two different words.

At the moment this is a manual process by individuals, there’s no reason why LinkedIn couldn’t make this process automatic (while also giving an override feature).

Technically the more accessible style is called pascal case, camel case or upper camel case.

3. Warn about overuse of emojis

There seems to be a big trend to use emojis as bullet points.

While some users with cognitive issues might find the visual nature helpful, Current guidance, especially for screen-readers users, is that this trend is not accessible.

LinkedIn could offer warnings to re-consider or reduce this use. It could offer links to articles the outline how a screen-reader announces it. Screen readers typically announce bullet points as “list, X items” whereas with this trend it will announce the emoji: “straight mouth-face with one raised eyebrow” then the content.

There is an example of this mis-use below:

🤨 The Emoji
🚄 Bullet point trend
❌ Not great for accessibility

The video below has a demonstration of a screen reader reading emoji bullet points.

4. Replace links converted to short LinkedIn URLs, to meaningful text with links

At the moment LinkedIn uses their own method to change a link to a short URL that is then tracked by LinkedIn. The problem with that is it impacts WCAG 2.4.4 link in context.

Typically, how it should work is that the text of the link is descriptive and relevant. For example this is a link to Google. A screen reader will announce: “link, Google” this indicates to the user there is a link and it goes somewhere called “Google.”

However on Linkedin posts, a user sees something like “http://lnkd.in/tr4ck3ing”. What the user hears instead is “link, h-t-t-p-colon-slash-slash…”

Linkedin should change this feature, to allow linking like it’s always been done on the web. Allow a user to provide the text and provide the underlying link. They can also append the link with tracking details so exsisting functionality is not lost.

5. Warn about UPPERCASE text

SOMETIMES USERS WANT TO POST SHOUTING CONTENT. Again, LinkedIn could provide a warning to create some friction so that users consider if they actually want to include uppercase text. Readability is reduced with all caps because all words have a uniform rectangular shape, meaning readers can't identify words by their shape.

These are just 5 defects that would go a long way to making LinkedIn more accessible and doesn't even touch upon media like images, and video.

Some ideas LinkedIn could prioritise to prevent accessibility issues

Why Svelte?

Chris — Thu, 12 Dec 2024 20:18:10 +0000

I found myself wondering what technology stack to use for my personal site.

I've recently been working within Ruby on Rails, however my perception within the private sector, is this is not a Frontend web framework that is usually considered an option (I'm not entirely sure why).

Realistically, this site doesn't even need to even use an single-page application (SPA) framework but learning-wise I felt I wanted to use some type of SPA.

I was looking at React as an obvious option but I wanted it to be accessible as possible out-of-the-box. With React, I started to notice some issues. This isn’t an anti-React post by any means, it’s more of a "here is what I’ve learnt in the context of React and Accessibility and why I chose Svelte."

React doesn't handle page titles in an accessible way without additional work. Typically when a user changes page, the page title is read-out-loud through a screen reader as the page is reloaded. However with React, as this is a SPA that does routing, this doesn’t happen quite the same. There’s some additional work or a plugin that’s needed.

Additionally, focus management appeared a bit more complicated as well. Should a keyboard user need to navigate correctly, there’s a host of plugins and techniques that need to be considered.

I also wanted progressive enhancement to “just work”.

What this means is if JavaScript is disabled or doesn't load, the project will still render and work - to a point. Many users and use cases require a project to work without JavaScript, additionally it makes a project more robust. Give it a try, disable JS on this site to see this in action.

React (and React frameworks) have re-branded progressive enhancement, calling this server side rendering (SSR). By default progressive enhancement is not active within React. Some of the React frameworks have started to introduce progressive enhancement citing the benefits, like faster initial page load and enhanced performance on low-end devices.

I recently watched a documentary on the origins of React. It’s a really fascinating watch, however I think it might be fair to say that accessibility and disabled users were not necessarily at the forefront of priorities when this technology was created.

Enter Svelte

Svelte and Sveltekit was created later and after reviewing some of the features I started to feel it met of a lot of my requirements.

Svelte handles page titles in accessible way with route announcements
Progressive enhancement is setup "out-of-the-box"
Focus management was considered and is easier to control without plugins

Also, this is just a preference, but syntax wise it follows the same concepts that VueJS introduced. Namely, writing HTML CSS and JS just within the Svelte system rather than everything being written in a different syntax - JSX.

Side note, I also read an article titled "the Great Gaslighting of the JavaScript Era" which makes a lot of interesting points that I don't feel are shared or explored widely, if at all.

Of course, there are many reasons behind choosing a technology including the ecosystem, plugins, integrations, hiring and long-term investment. However these are just some of my reasons for choosing Svelte for this project.

Why has progressive enhancement stopped being practised?

Chris — Thu, 12 Dec 2024 20:13:06 +0000

I was thinking about how Frontend values change depending on the company, or rather change based of values of people within these companies. The values of people producing the frameworks, libraries and tooling that everyone else uses.

Like most things - it's always political, not in the party sense, but what receives priority, budget, attention and money. Who decides what aspects of Frontend are important? Which people can be easily excluded without a second thought and who makes this decision?

One particular requirement that is dropped in many private companies and some modern tooling is "progressive enhancement". This post isn't to explain what this is, but more, thinking about why this is ignored.

This term was coined by Steven Champeon and Nick Finck at the SXSW Interactive conference on March 11, 2003, in Austin. The strategy is an evolution of a previous web design strategy known as graceful degradation.

Progressive enhancement means that everyone can access the basic content and functionality of a page in any browser, and those without certain browser features may receive a reduced but still functional experience — Lighthouse

Progressive Enhancement reading list

Below is a good reading list around the concepts and benefits of Progressive Enhancement

Does the website work without JavaScript?

I sometimes think "business needs" are used to justify this drop in requirement. However it feels like one of these systemic issues, whilst also being one less thing to think about among the all the other demands, feature requests and bugs. Trying to justify this to stakeholders that don't care might even put someone at risk.

However I don't tend to believe it costs more time or money to practice progressive enhancement, it's simply a different development style. Much like mobile first I'm not sure it's objectively slower. If anything it could easily reduce testing and make the site more robust.

The other argument tends to be used it's only a small number of users that benefit. However, it's estimated that 1.1% of people might use the web without JavaScript.

This helps many different types of users, including those with disabilities. This might sound like a small number of people that can be excluded but thinking about 1.1% - what could we compare this to?

The following groups, represent around 1.1% of the population

Redheads

The UK has the highest proportion of redheads globally, with estimates suggesting around 1-2% of the population.

Electric car owners

Electric vehicle owners: As of 2023, there were over 1 million electric vehicles registered in the UK, accounting for approximately 1.5% of all vehicles.

Green eyes

Green eyes are among the rarest globally, with about 2% prevalence. In the UK, this percentage is approaching 1.1-2%.

Welsh speakers

According to the 2021 Census, 538,300 people in Wales reported being able to speak Welsh, representing 17.8% of the population of Wales. However, considering the entire UK population, fluent Welsh speakers constitute less than 1%.

Workers in agriculture

As of 2021, there were approximately 476,000 people employed in agriculture in the UK, representing about 0.7% of the workforce.

AB-negative blood type

Individuals with AB-negative blood type is one of the rarest blood types, present in about 1% of the UK population.

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

The NHS estimates that around 1.1% of the UK adult population is on the autism spectrum.

Coeliac Disease

Approximately 1% of the UK population is diagnosed with coeliac disease, an autoimmune condition triggered by gluten ingestion.

Schizophrenia

This severe mental health condition affects about 1% of the UK population.

Rheumatoid Arthritis

An estimated 1% of UK adults live with rheumatoid arthritis, a chronic inflammatory disorder affecting joints.

Epilepsy

Approximately 1% of the UK population has epilepsy, a neurological condition characterised by recurrent seizures.

Sorry, you can't use this website as you have green eyes

What could be the reasons?

Popular JavaScript frameworks like React, Angular, or Vue rely heavily on JavaScript, which can sideline the progressive enhancement principle that prioritises HTML-first and basic content availability.
Developers might be interested to focus on cutting-edge features and frameworks, which may not support older or simpler implementations, leading them to overlook basic functionality that would benefit all users.
There might be a strong emphasis on creating visually impressive and interactive UI, often driven by stakeholders or clients, making the minimalist approach of progressive enhancement seem less appealing.
Developers sometimes assume that users have the latest devices and fast internet connections, leading them to build for an "ideal" user profile and neglect those with less advanced technology.
Newer developers may not have experience with or training in progressive enhancement, as many modern tutorials, resources and interviews, focus on JavaScript-heavy approaches.
Progressive enhancement might be perceived as requiring extra effort to ensure that content works without advanced features. Under tight deadlines and limited budgets, it’s often seen as expendable.
General enshittification, cutting corners, taking shortcuts.
Clients and stakeholders often prioritise speed, features and aesthetics over accessibility, pushing developers to deprioritise progressive enhancement.
Many developers may not fully understand that progressive enhancement improves accessibility for all, particularly for users with disabilities or those using assistive technology.
Without direct feedback from users who are affected by the lack of progressive enhancement, developers may not realise its impact, leading them to continue without it. If a disabled developer was on the team, this might shift perspective.

Just normalised?

Going a bit more into the first point, As React dominates and hasn't necessarily prioritised progressive enhancement out-of-the-box, perhaps this was seen as acceptable?

This feels like this has somewhat cascaded down throughout the industry as the standard. While React can be setup to be progressively enhanced, ultimately this wasn't key feature of the technology, this has somewhat changed recently with SSR. It might be a bit less active than a company, project or team thinking they wish to exclude people. Although maybe it is, especially when the industry faced such ridiculous pushback from renaming a single word.

Progressive enhancement is often deprioritised probably due to various factors. Including values, business priorities, developer habits, and the normalisation of certain frameworks, that haven't historically prioritised it. While this exclusion may be less impactful in luxury purchases, in essential services like finance or travel, it can prevent access for those relying on accessible design.

Progressive enhancement can benefits all users, promoting a resilient, inclusive web experience.

Apple Books and the disability tax

Chris — Thu, 12 Dec 2024 20:10:19 +0000

Audiobooks on Apple Books can be on average 114% more expensive than its written counterpart. This impacts customers with disabilities that wish to consume the same content in a different format. The solution is to make these the same price.

Disability tax

The ”disability tax” or the “disability price tag" refers to the additional financial burden or costs that disabled individuals and their households often face due to their disabilities.

This term is not an official tax imposed by the government, but rather a metaphorical way to describe the extra expenses and financial challenges that arise as a result of living with a disability. These extra costs can arise from various factors, including the need for specialised equipment, medical treatments, accessible transportation, and other accommodations that are necessary for daily living and participation in society.

For instance, a disabled person might need to purchase assistive devices or technology (AT), modify their home for accessibility, or spend more on healthcare-related expenses.

Additionally, disabled individuals may have to pay higher utility bills due to increased energy use, or they might face added costs when seeking accessible forms of entertainment, travel, or housing. While disability benefits and support programs exist to assist with these extra costs, they might not always cover the full extent of the financial impact.

As a result, disabled individuals and their families can find themselves in a situation where they are effectively paying more for essential needs and services compared to those without disabilities. This concept underscores the need for a fair and inclusive society that provides adequate support and accommodations to ensure that disabled individuals can live fulfilling lives without facing undue financial strain.

OK, what has this got to do with Apple Books?

Apple Books offers AudioBooks alongside regular books. Audiobooks can be helpful to a wide range of people, including:

Visually Impaired Individuals: Audiobooks are a valuable resource for people who are blind or have low vision, as they provide access to literature and information that may otherwise be inaccessible in printed form.
People with Learning Disabilities: Audiobooks can be beneficial for individuals with dyslexia, ADHD, or other learning disabilities. Listening to audiobooks can make it easier for them to comprehend and enjoy books and educational materials.
Busy Individuals: Audiobooks are a convenient option for people with busy lifestyles. You can listen to audiobooks while commuting, exercising, doing household chores, or during any downtime when it's difficult to sit down and read a physical book.
Elderly Individuals: As people age, their eyesight may deteriorate, making it challenging to read small print. Audiobooks can provide a way for elderly individuals to continue enjoying books and stories.
Language Learners: Audiobooks can be a valuable tool for language learners. They allow learners to practise listening comprehension and improve their pronunciation and vocabulary in the target language
Children and Young Readers: Audiobooks can engage young readers and help them develop a love of literature. They can also assist struggling readers by providing an alternative way to access books.
People with Physical Disabilities: Individuals with physical disabilities that affect their ability to hold or manipulate a physical book may find it easier to consume literature through audiobooks.
Multitaskers: Audiobooks are great for individuals who like to multitask. You can listen to a book while doing other activities, such as cooking, cleaning, or driving.
Long-Distance Travelers: Audiobooks can make long car rides or flights more enjoyable and productive. They provide entertainment and a way to pass the time.
People with Anxiety or Stress: Audiobooks can serve as a form of relaxation and stress relief. Listening to a soothing or engaging story can help people unwind and escape from the pressures of daily life.
Book Enthusiasts: Audiobooks can be enjoyed by anyone who loves books. Some people simply prefer the experience of listening to a well-narrated story, even if they also read printed books.

Audiobooks are a versatile and inclusive medium that can benefit a diverse audience, making literature and information more accessible and enjoyable to a wide range of individuals.

Reviewing the data

I compared the top 20 titles on Apple Books UK for this month.

Top fiction Apple Books in the UK in September 2023

The Woman Who Lied by Claire Douglas. The book is £0.99, the audiobook £7.99
Meet Me in Milan by Sophie Gravia. The book is £0.99p, the audiobooks is £9.99
The truth about Her by Annie Taylor. The book is £0.99p, the audiobooks is £7.99
Only Love Can Hurt like this by Paige Toon. The book is £2.99, the audiobook is £7.5.
Unsafe by Cathy Glass. The book is £4.99 the audiobook is £7.99
It Ends with Us by Colleen Hoover. The book is £5.99 the audiobook is $11.99
The people on platform 5 by Clare Poolney. The book is £0.99p the audiobook is £7.99
A Court of Thorns and Roses by Sarah J Maas The book is £1.99 the audiobook is £20.99.
The Love of my Life by Roise Walsh. The book is £2.99 the audiobook is £7.99
The Affair by Lee Child The book is £1.99 the audiobook is £4.99

Top nonfiction Apple Books in the UK in September 2023

A Family Torn Apart by Cathy Glass. The book is £2.99, the audiobook is £7.99.
Why Has Nobody Told Me This Before by Julie Smith. The book and audiobook is £7.99.
Menopausing by Davina McCall & Dr Naomi Potter. The book is £3.99, the audiobook is £7.99.
Girlhood by Maggie Dent. The book is £6.99, the audiobook is £18.99.
Chatter by Ethan Kross. The book is £7.99, the audiobook is £7.99.
Yoga by Emmanuel Carrère & John Lambert. The book is £9.99, the audiobook has not been offered.
Between by Sarah Ockwell-Smith. The book is £4.99, the audiobook is £9.99.
It Didn't Start With You by Mark Wolynn. The book is £4.99, the audiobook is £7.99.
Otherlands by Thomas Halliday. The book is £9.99, the audiobook is £7.99.
Rogues by Patrick Radden Keefe. The book is £4.99, the audiobook is £9.99.

The average cost of eBooks for 20 titles £4.49
The average cost of audiobooks is £9.62 for 19 titles (one title did not offer an audio book).

Findings, audiobooks cost on average, 114% more

Audiobooks on Apple Books cost an extra 114% more than the regular ebook version. This is the aggregate average of these 20 titles. This is a significant extra burden.

For the book "A Court of Thorns and Roses" it was 903% higher.

Why?

Who knows, maybe they are more to produce and they wish to pass these onto the consumer.

Solution

One solution is that both formats should be the same price.

A better solution is to bundle them both into the same purchase. The customer is paying for the content, not the format.

An audiobook is an alternative format, a customer and a disabled customer should not have to pay 114% extra to consume the same content in a different format. Accessibility should be reflected in business decisions.

Hire

I'm Chris, a UX Developer with a focus in accessibility.

DEV Community: Chris

Why accessible video is still not possible on Instagram

The missing accessibility features

Closed captions are not fully supported

Audio description is not possible

Regulation (the Government layer)

Legal Liability (the structural layer)

Culture (the top-down layer)

What is the solution?

Will they do it?

In the meantime, what are the workarounds?

Accessibility: FashionNova fined $5.15M, Vueling Airlines €90,000

Vueling Airlines

Fashion Nova was fined millions

Why does big tech not run Accessibility bug bounties?

10 reasons why this would be great

So why not for Accessibility bugs?

Use of Colour (Level A) WCAG 1.4.1 - Accessibility Design tips

Why is WCAG 1.4.1 important?

Let’s give an example, what's the problem with these links?

How to meet WCAG in this context?

Solution 1 - change of size and shape

Solution 2 - remove the confusion

Solution 3 - underline the links

Solution 4 - style the underlines

Solution 5 - what about overlines instead?

Solution 6 - how about an icon?

But I don’t like any of these it spoils the vibe...

Function first, beauty second

What's another example?

Further reading

Why are NHS trusts buying Accessibility overlays?

NHS Trusts using Accessibility overlays

Why this matters

The way forward

Accessibility failures -FashionNova fined $5.15M, Vueling Airlines €90,000

Vueling Airlines

Fashion Nova was fined millions

Accessibility pushback

Talking openly and debunking some common pushback

“It’s very common, everyone does it”

“Accessibility can’t be a bottle neck”

“We have to live in the real world”

“We just sell [product] we’re not a bank”

“This WCAG advice is from 2017?!”

“If we’re sued we’ll revisit it”

Scandinavian Airlines were fined $100,000 for accessibility bugs

Why did SAS create a different experience?

Separate assistive websites have more issues

What happened next?

The European Accessibility Act

5 accessibility defects LinkedIn could resolve to make content more accessible

Summary

The problem

5 defects that LinkedIn could resolve to make content more accessible

1. Strip out fancy fonts

2. Automatically add capital letters to #HashTags

HashTag is more accessible that #hashtag. Why's that? One, it’s more readable visually so users with cognitive issues like dyslexia benefit. Secondly, for screen readers it gets read out as two different words.

3. Warn about overuse of emojis

4. Replace links converted to short LinkedIn URLs, to meaningful text with links

5. Warn about UPPERCASE text

Why Svelte?

Enter Svelte

Why has progressive enhancement stopped being practised?

Progressive Enhancement reading list

Does the website work without JavaScript?

The following groups, represent around 1.1% of the population

Redheads

Electric car owners

Green eyes

Welsh speakers

Workers in agriculture

AB-negative blood type

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

Coeliac Disease

Schizophrenia

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Epilepsy

What could be the reasons?

Just normalised?