Commonly Misused or Misleading Claims

Introduction and Words of Caution

The following list provides terms that are frequently misused by those who discuss accessibility. Some of the terms can even be used to mislead people who are unfamiliar with the practice of accessibility. This list is provided as an aid in "red-flagging" certain questionable claims or remarks in proposals that you may receive from accessibility consultants.

Please note that the following discussions are presented for informational purposes only, and they should not be considered legally binding definitions or opinions. Please refer to the Disclaimer for use of this online tool.

Terms

"Certified compliant"

For Section 255 of the Communications Act (i.e., telecommunications) and Section 508 of the Rehab Act (i.e., federal government procurement), there are no authoritative bodies that issue any kind of certification. Consequently, nothing built according to the requirements of Sections 255 or 508 can ever be "certified."

In addition, there is much discussion in the field about the meaning of the word "compliant." Sections 255 and 508 request accessibility that is "readily achievable" and "not an undue burden," respectively. Compliance with this request is, therefore, a judgment call. The question is not whether the product or service is compliant, but whether the manufacturer or service provider is complying with the request of Section 255 or Section 508 to do what they can reasonably do. "Compliance" is therefore a gray area that generates debate, so any promises of "compliance" should be questioned, even though this is what many customers want to hear.

Another term that can be misused is "self-certification," which is subject to similar arguments as above, i.e., who is authorizing the "self" to issue a certification, and what does that really mean?

"Approved / Certified / Endorsed by the [name of disability organization]"

While some disability organizations may "approve / certify / endorse" a certain type of product or service, that does not mean that any authoritative bodies, e.g., the FCC, Access Board, or GSA, recognize that claim (see above). In addition, claims concerning approval, certification, or endorsement do not necessarily mean that the product or service meets the needs of its intended users. Furthermore, a disability organization may make statements on behalf of its members, but not all people with disabilities are going to be members of any given organization, and no disability organization can make a statement on behalf of the general population of "people with disabilities."

"It was purchased by [name of federal government agency] and they had to meet Section 508 standards, so it must conform with 508"

Section 508 does not require that an agency buy the most accessible product available. What any given government agency is obliged to do is to consider the needs of people with disabilities when they purchase electronic and information technology. Section 508 requires a Federal agency to select a product that "best meets" all of the technical requirements of an agency. It is probable that accessibility would be only one of many considerations that come into play when procuring a product. For example, when buying a copier, an agency might be concerned with other business requirements such as the speed of production.

So, the fact that a government agency has already bought such-and-such a product or service means only that that agency has gone through the required procurement process as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and standards related to Section 508. It does not provide any kind of certification or guarantee of the accessibility of the product or service itself. Besides, the determination of what is "an undue burden" will vary from agency to agency, and that will vary over time as new technologies emerge.

In short, because a government agency has purchased a product or service in the past, even if their decision was based on accessibility needs, that history of purchase does not imply that the product or service conforms to Section 508 standards.

"Usable by (all) people with disabilities"

The phrase "usable by people with disabilities" or "usable by all people with disabilities" is impossible to justify. The terms include all persons with functional limitations that affect their daily lives. While many people with disabilities may be able to use a product or service, there will be some people, especially those with severe cognitive limitations, who may not be able to understand the concept of a given product or service, let alone actually use it. If the term is used to refer to the intended target audience of a product (e.g. people with sensory disabilities) then this should be made clear. You should be wary of any claim that all people with disabilities will be able to use a product or service.

"Universal" (as opposed to "Universally Designed")

The term "universal" presents similar problems to "usable by all people with disabilities." For a product to be truly "universal," it would need to be usable by everyone. The term "universally designed," however, is accepted to mean that a product or service is designed to meet the needs of as many users as is practical. Therefore, interestingly, the end result of any universal design process can never be a "universal" product or service.

As with Sections 255 and 508, there is no certification for the process of Universal Design, and the customer, therefore, should be wary of any claim of a "Certified Universal Design Process."

"Ergonomic" (as opposed to "Ergonomically Designed")

As with the above term, "universal," the term "ergonomic" is commonly misused. A given product or service may be ergonomically designed (i.e., it has gone through a design process that takes into account variations in the capabilities of a broad spectrum of users). However, to be truly "ergonomic," a product needs to exactly fit a specific user. In other words, if a product or service meets an individual user’s needs, then it can be said to be "ergonomic." But, a mass-market product or service cannot itself be inherently "ergonomic." As with universal design, there is no certification for the process of ergonomic design, and you should be wary of any such claim of a "Certified Ergonomic Design Process."

On a related subject, an individual consultant may have obtained the qualification of Certified Professional Ergonomist (CPE), but this certification is still relatively new, and it should not be expected that all ergonomics consultants will be CPEs.

"User tested / User proven"

User testing of any product or service is a good idea as a part of any design process. However, without knowing the details of the testing, any claim of "user proven," "user approved," or "user tested" can be meaningless. For example, a given consultant could be developing a website to comply with published accessibility requirements, and then run the website by two people with disabilities who happen to be colleagues. It could be claimed in this instance that the website has been "user tested."

Questions should be resolved with respect to the number of test participants with particular types of functional limitations, the relationships between the participants and the consultant, the procedures for the actual tests, and the measures employed for verifying the results of the tests.

There are many factors that influence the validity of the outcomes of a usability test, and you should determine what is really meant by the term "usability testing." Generalizing the results of any usability test to the population as a whole is difficult if the test process is flawed. This argument is not intended to dissuade anyone from the need to do usability testing, but it is intended to highlight the possible problems in interpreting common user testing claims.

On a related note, because of general differences between the professional practices of designing for usability and designing for accessibility, it is relatively uncommon to find consultants who are experts in accessibility and usability. The customer should be aware of the different skills required, and look at past experiences of the consultants to judge their capabilities.

"End-user designed" / "Participatory Design"

A recent trend in this field has been for many to value the inclusion of people with disabilities in the design process. This trend, it could be argued, sees people with disabilities more as participants in the design process rather than just as subjects in usability tests.

While it may be useful for people with disabilities to give opinions on the design of a product or service, having a disability does not automatically enable someone to practice design. Designers learn skills over time through education and experience. Designers know how to design things to meet the needs of a broad spectrum of the population, with appropriate aesthetics, safety, user fit, etc. Non-designers do not have these skills. Further, the needs of Section 255 and Section 508 are based on cross-disability access (i.e., the needs of people with visual, hearing, and physical disabilities). There is very low likelihood that the average person with a visual disability will understand or be able to design for his or her own needs and meet the needs of people with hearing and physical manipulation difficulties.

"Bobby accessible / Bobby approved"

In the early days of web accessibility (the mid to late 1990s), a tool called "Bobby" was introduced to assess the compliance of HTML (web) code with the guidelines set out by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). This tool is still in use today, and you can read about it at http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp. The term, "Bobby Approved," is a stamp that the owners of the Bobby tool allow developers to use on their website. This stamp means that the website has passed the Bobby tests. However, only a portion of the W3C tests can be automated, and the rest requires human judgment. So something that is "Bobby Approved" may or may not be designed as required by the W3C standards.

"Bobby" is a tool and not a standard. The W3C set the de facto standards for web accessibility, not the owners of the Bobby tool. The term "Bobby Accessible" is therefore meaningless. The terms "accessible" (meaning compliant with the W3C guidelines) and "Bobby accessible" have, unfortunately, become erroneously interchangeable for many in the field.