Accessibility

A common idiom in our industry is, “You never can predict how the user will use your product once they get it in their hands.” If you’ve ever watched a stakeholder use a website or web application for the first time, you may know this firsthand. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen a user seemingly forget how to use websites on a mobile device, or try to use it in a way that makes you think, “But no one would actually do that in real life!”

The thing is, you never really do know what a user may do in the moment. They might be in a frantic state of mind, trying to accomplish something too quickly, and don’t tap or type the way a calm, focused user might. This fits right into the all-too-common scenario of designing and developing for the best case scenario, and not thinking about edge cases or “what happens if things don’t happen perfectly in this order?” As developers, we tend to build things thinking that everything will be understood, that the user is rational and should just know that tapping around too quickly might cause something weird to happen. It can even affect those who might make accidental taps or clicks when not giving an app full attention - how many times have you accidentally tapped on a mobile device when you were walking and talking while also trying to reply to a tweet or email.

Building out tools to help us test the unpredictable aren’t entirely new. In 2012, Netflix had open-sourced their internal service Chaos Monkey, which “terminates virtual machine instances and containers that run inside of your production environment.” In plain language, it’s a service that tears down servers at random to ensure an entire system doesn’t violently collapse during a failure. Our development communities also remind us to not just design for “the happy path”, but how can we actually detect for unpredicted points of failure in our interfaces the way we can with our server architectures?

If a hundred monkeys at typewriters can write the works of Shakespeare, then one monkey should surely be able to find bugs and problems in our interfaces.

Bring in the monkeys

Monkey testing is a method of testing that generates random user input - clicks, swipes, entering input - with the sole purpose of finding issues with, or entirely breaking, your application. Unlike unit and acceptance testing, where you are writing test cases that occur in a specific order or set of conditions, which ultimately creates bias in how your interface is tested. Developers have less control over how a monkey test will execute, and since they are random every time they are run, you’ll never be testing for just one scenario, but rather an infinite combination of interactions.

Although this type of testing is available for most technology stacks, things built for the web haven’t necessarily got there yet. For example, the Android SDK has a UI Exerciser Monkey that handles most interface-level and system-level events. As web developers have begun to think more critically about performance and stress testing, some of these ideas have finally made it over to the world of the web in the form of Gremlins.js, a JavaScript-based monkey testing library written by the team at Marmelab.

Often regarded as an advertising eyesore, QR codes have their place in certain circumstances. One obvious example is providing an easily-scanned sigil on a printed Web page that enables the user to return to the live version without having to type the URL.

To create the matching QR code, we’ll use Google’s Chart API, which has four required components:

• The kind of chart information we want Google to deliver (qr, in our case);
• The rendered size of the QR sigil, in pixels;
• The URL to encode;
• The form of character encoding to use.

We’d typically associate the URL with a heading element at the top of the page:

To create the printed result, we’ll provide a margin on the right side of the h1 that is large enough for the heading, and then position a QR code in that area:

Because the QR code will be unique to each page, this would be added as an embedded style sheet:

This approach has the downside of forcing the developer to enter a URL individually for each page into the API code. If your Web host is running PHP, you can provide the URL of the current page automatically:

Aaron Gustafson recently sent a tweet to Indiegogo in which he pointed out that their order details pages aren’t usable when printed.

When I saw this tweet it struck me, because I realized that it has been a long time since I have optimized a page for print or even spared a thought on checking.
Maybe it’s due to the constant resizing of our browsers and making sure that our sites work perfectly in all shapes and sizes or maybe it’s just because I rarely print web pages myself. Whatever it is, I totally forgot about print style sheets and that’s bad.

Optimizing web pages for print is important because we want our sites to be as accessible as possible, no matter the medium. We shouldn’t make assumptions about our users and their behavior. People still print web pages. Just think about articles or blog posts, recipes, contact information, and directions or real estate sites. Someone somewhere will eventually try to print one of the pages you made.

[See various tips and primer in link]

Opening links in a new window [or tab] allows users to explore related materials without losing contact with the originating site; removing link underlines makes pages cleaner and easier to read because underlines are distracting and interfere with letterforms; and creating fixed-width pages restricts line length so users are not forced to read long lines of text. However, each decision has the potential of causing usability problems for some users: When links open in a new window, users who rely on the back button to navigate the Web will not have access to that functionality; when links are not underlined, users who cannot distinguish colors may not be able to identify links; and when pages are set to a fixed width, users who need to enlarge text will be forced to read narrow text columns.

I built text sizing widgets for years, every damn site. I was so proud of them too. It was a way of showing I care about users. It was all ego. As soon as I could start tracking clicks on those widgets I found they were not used. Even on sites I built for low vision communities.

Instead, a good design with non-hardcoded typefaces that is responsive and does not disable zoom was all I needed. In short, good development techniques and best practices. That handled most of my edge cases just fine. For the remainder, a little documentation in the form of simple, contextual help text.

Notice I am not referencing assistive technology. For the most part, those users don’t need your widgets, they have already obtained tools to work around a non-inclusive web.

[…]

Instead of custom widget, maybe help educate users on how to use their own web browser. Perhaps link to, or offer as pop-up help, quick instructions on how to scale text in the user’s current browser.

Now you will have educated a user. You will have armed a user to have a better experience across the whole of the web. You will have stopped selfishly building a widget for just your users and contributed to empowering all users.

What could be more inclusive than that?

Early in the development of GOV.UK we observed in research how a majority of users would click on radio button or checkbox controls rather than on their labels, despite the fact that the labels are much bigger and therefore easier to click (see Fitt’s Law).

[…]

We reasoned that this was because users didn’t know whether or not they could click on the labels. Many websites don’t let you click on labels, so choosing to always click on the control is perfectly rational user behaviour.

[…]

First we thought we’d try to make it really obvious that you could click our labels, so we coloured them grey and made them respond to the mouse hovering over them.

We thought this would work, so we rolled out the design across services on GOV.UK. We saw again and again though in lab research that most users still clicked on the controls.

[…]

In our latest iteration we’ve replaced the native browser controls with custom ones, which all our supported browsers will get.

We’ve also removed the grey background, as it did not have the effect on user behaviour that it was intended to.