Download accessing-higher-ground_common-accessibility

Common Accessibility Mistakes
(and how to avoid them)
Beth Crutchfield, VP of Policy and Program Services
Agenda
• Common Planning Mistakes
• Common Design Mistakes
• Common Coding and UX
Mistakes
• Summary
Planning Mistakes
Planning Mistakes - Overview
Common Mistake: Failure to identify accessibility
requirements prior to development
Planning Mistakes - Overview (cont.)
How to avoid:
▪Clear direction from client regarding requirements
▪Review the selected requirements and determine how
they will impact your project
▪Add accessibility in at the beginning of the planning
process
Planning Mistakes – Technology Issues
Selecting a technology without verifying its support
for accessibility standards
Planning Mistakes – Technology Issues (cont.)
How to avoid:
▪Understand what it’s going to take to meet your
accessibility requirements using the development
technology you have selected
Design Mistakes
Design Mistakes – Design Elements
Common Mistake: Selecting design elements that
limit accessibility
▪Color
and contrast
▪Alternative text
▪Icon fonts
Design Mistakes – Color Contrast
Common Mistake: Providing insufficient color
contrast for text and images of text
▪Text
has a luminosity contrast ratio of 1.92:1
▪ Fails AA and AAA requirements for small and large
text
Design Mistakes – Color as the Sole Method
Common Mistake: Using color as the sole method
to identify selection or meaning of an element
Using color to demonstrate selection of page
tabs
Design Mistakes – Shape and Location
Common Mistake: Using shape and location to
convey meaning
Food Pyramid
Implicit List Structure
Organization Chart
John Smith
Bob Garcia
Stan
Johnson
Morgan
Trekker
Tom Stein
Jennifer Jones
Design Mistakes – Alternative Text #1
Common Mistake: Displaying images with missing
alternative text
<img class=“dog” src=“dog1234_dog_dog.png”>
The image is missing alternative text
Design Mistakes – Alternative Text #2
Common Mistake: Displaying images with
meaningless alternative text
<img class=“dog” src=“dog.png alt=“image of dog”>
The image contains alternative text, however, the alternative text does not convey the meaning of
the image and provides unnecessary information
Design Mistakes – Alternative Text #3
Common Mistake: Displaying decorative images
with a missing alt attribute
<img class=“decorative” src=“spacer.gif”>
Provide a null alt attribute or alt=“” for decorative images
Design Mistakes – Images of text
Common Mistake: Using images of text
<img type=“image” name=“submitbutton” alt=“submit”
src=“submit.png”>
<button class=“submit”>Submit</button>
(Style with CSS)
Coding Mistakes
Coding Mistakes – Unusable Forms Overview
Common Mistake: Creating unusable forms
▪ Lack
of semantic grouping for related form elements
▪ Lack of proper and explicit labels
▪ Mishandling errors
Coding Mistakes – Fieldset and Legend
Common Mistake: Lack of fieldset and legend
elements for groups of form controls
▪ Grouped
elements require a fieldset and legend element
▪ The legend and the label for each form within the fieldset will be rendered
by the screen reader
Coding Mistakes – Form Errors
Common Mistake: Mishandling form errors
▪Error
at the bottom of the form after submit
▪Programmatic focus does not move to the form error
Coding Mistakes – Form Labels
Common Mistake: Using placeholder text as the
label for a form field
Placeholder text in place of label for all form fields
Coding Mistakes – Form Labels (cont.)
Common Mistake: Improper association of label
and input field <label>First Name<span>*</span></label>
<input type=“text”…>
No association between label and text input field
Coding Mistakes – Forms (Summary)
How to avoid:
▪Use visible label text
▪Provide support for groups of form controls
▪Communicate constraints: required, character limit
▪Give the user help when submission fails: what,
where, how
Coding Mistakes – Headings
Common Mistake: Incorrect use of Headings
Heading Fails
Heading Wins
Coding Mistakes – Headings (Summary)
How to Avoid:
▪Use proper heading structure (h1 – h6)
▪Avoid implicit headings
▪Avoid unnecessary headings
<h1>An inside look at the new SpaceBear 8™</h1>
<h2>Cotton Fur</h2>
<p>paragraph about cotton fur</p>
<h2>Sapphire Eyes</h2>
<p>paragraph sapphire eyes</p>
<h2>Synthetic Felt Paws</h2>
<p>paragraph synthetic felt paws</p>
W3 Page Structure
Example
UX Mistakes
UX Mistakes – Visible Focus
Common Mistake: Removing visual indication of
keyboard focus from active elements
▪ Keyboard
only users as well as users with low
vision rely on visual focus to identify current
location
▪ Users without disabilities may use the keyboard
to navigate through active elements
UX Mistakes – Visible Focus (Summary)
How to Avoid:
▪Do not use outline:none to remove default outline
▪Ensure sufficient color contrast is provided for visual
focus outline
UX Mistakes – Keyboard Access and Focus
Common Mistake: Keyboard focus and keyboard
trap
▪ When
users are shifted to a form field without initiating the
focus change, users of AT can become confused and
disoriented
▪ If a user cannot move back to the previous form using the
keyboard, keyboard only users will not be able to efficiently
interact with the controls
UX Mistakes – Keyboard Access and Focus (cont.)
How to Avoid:
▪Use
tabindex and javascript .focus() method
▪Ensure focus moves appropriately (shift and shift+tab)
▪Use html elements that natively receive keyboard
focus
Questions?
Thank You
Contact Us
Beth Crutchfield, VP of
Policy and Program Services
beth.crutchfield@ssbbartgro
up.com
Follow Us
@SSBBARTGroup
linkedin.com/company/
SSB-BART-Group
facebook.com/
SSBBARTGroup
SSBBARTGroup.com/blog
About SSB BART Group
•
•
•
•
•
•
Unmatched Experience
Focus on Accessibility
Solutions That Manage Risk
Real-World Strategy
Organizational Strength and Continuity
Dynamic, Forward-Thinking Intelligence
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fourteen hundred organizations (1445)
Fifteen hundred individual accessibility
best practices (1595)
Twenty-two core technology platforms
(22)
Fifty-five thousand audits (55,930)
One hundred fifty million accessibility
violations (152,351,725)
Three hundred sixty-six thousand
human validated accessibility violations
(366,096)
Design Mistakes (Appendix)
Design Mistakes – Icon Fonts
Common Mistake: Using icon fonts without an
accessible label
<i class=“font-button”>i</i>
Visually hiding content
.hidden
{position:absolute;
left:-10000px;
top:auto;
width:1px;
height:1px;
overflow:hidden;}
1.<i
class=“font-button”>i<span class=“hidden”>Info</span></i>
2.<i
class=“font-button”>i Info</i>
3.<i
class=“font-button aria-hidden=“true” aria-label=“Info”>i</i>
Design Mistakes – Complex Images
Common Mistake: Displaying complex images that
do not provide a text alternative
•
•
Text alternative is not provided for the complex
image
Screen reader users as well as some users
with cognitive disabilities may not be able to
fully interact with and understand the image
Design Mistakes – Background Images
Common Mistake: Providing meaningful
background images with a missing text equivalent
Colors Enabled
Colors
Disabled
High Contrast
Mode Enabled
Design Mistakes – Images of Text (Exceptions)
Original Documents
Photograph that happens to
have text in it, but the main
purpose is to show the
surrounding content
Logo
Design Mistakes – Design Elements (Summary)
How to avoid:
▪Select a UI that supports users with a wide range of
abilities
▪ Provide
text alternatives for images and icon fonts that
convey meaning
▪ Provide meaningful alternative text for images
▪ Provide text alternatives for complex images
▪ Provide sufficient contrast for text and images of text
Coding Mistakes (Appendix)
Coding Mistakes – Tables (Summary)
How to avoid:
▪Data tables should only be used to present tabular
data
▪ Use
th, scope, id & headers
▪Layout
tables must not contain data table elements or
attributes
▪ Use
role=presentation
Coding Mistakes – Web Controls Overview
Common Mistake: using controls that do not
support AT
▪ Simulated
controls
▪ Device-dependent event handlers
▪ Keyboard access
Mozilla Developer Network Example Widget
Coding Solution – Web Controls
Common Mistake: Failure to provide accessibility
information such as name, state, role, and value of
an element
Coding Solution – Web Controls (cont.)
Use ARIA to provide missing accessibly information
<!-- Now *these* are Tabs! -->
<!-- We've added role attributes to describe the tab list and each tab. -->
<ol role="tablist">
<li id="ch1Tab" role="tab">
<a href="#ch1Panel">Chapter 1 active</a>
</li>
<li id="ch2Tab" role="tab">
<a href="#ch2Panel">Chapter 2</a>
</li>
<li id="quizTab" role="tab">
<a href="#quizPanel">Quiz</a>
</li>
</ol>
<div>
<!-- Notice the role and aria-labelledby attributes we've added to describe these panels. -->
<div id="ch1Panel" role="tabpanel" aria-labelledby="ch1Tab">Chapter 1 content goes here</div>
<div id="ch2Panel" role="tabpanel" aria-labelledby="ch2Tab">Chapter 2 content goes here</div>
<div id="quizPanel" role="tabpanel" aria-labelledby="quizTab">Quiz content goes here</div>
</div>
Coding Mistake – Web Controls
Common Mistake: Providing controls that use
device-dependent event handlers
▪ All
functionality must be actionable regardless of the input
method used
▪ This requirement is necessary to ensure that people who are
blind, people with low vision, and people with dexterity
impairments who do not use the mouse can access all
<div onclick="alert('This is not
functionality
keyboard accessible')">Non-standard link
</div>
Coding Mistakes – Web Controls (Summary)
How to avoid:
▪ Ensure
that web controls have the Name, Role and State to correctly identify
them to assistive technology
▪ Ensure that web controls provide the functionality and user interactive experience
the user is expecting from the control
▪ Use non device-dependent event handlers
Event Handler
Keyboard Alternative
OnClick
OnKeyPress
OnMouseDown
OnKeyDown
OnMouseUp
OnKeyUp
OnMouseOver
OnFocus
OnMouseOut
OnBlur
Coding Mistake – Dialog Boxes
Improper implementation of dialog boxes
• Ensure dialog boxes receive focus
• Ensure focus remains within the dialog
• Ensure focus returns properly when the dialog is
closed
Coding Mistake – Dialog Boxes (Focus)
Common Mistake: Failure to provide keyboard
focus to the dialog when the dialog is displayed
• When the dialog is activated, focus must move appropriately to the first
content element in the simulated dialog or to the dialog as a whole
• Use tabindex=“-1” on the div tag that contains the dialog
• Use javascript focus() method to set focus on the content as a whole
Coding Mistake – Dialog Boxes (Hidden Content)
Common Mistake: Providing focus to hidden
content outside of the dialog content
•
•
Keyboard only users or screen reader users may be able to access content that is
not active with the mouse but actionable from the keyboard
Users of the keyboard may become confused as the visual and programmatic
focus is no longer in the dialog and the user is able to interact with inactive
elements.
Coding Mistake – Dialog Boxes (Return Focus)
Common Mistake: Failure to return focus to the
most appropriate location when the dialog is closed
• Focus must return to the most appropriate location when the dialog is
closed
• Use Javascript focus() function after removing the dialog from
display
Coding Mistakes – Attribute Misuse
Common Mistake:
Incorrect use of
accessibility attributes
▪
Combining attributes
▪ alt
▪ title
▪ aria-label
▪ aria-labelledby
▪
Redundant < Accessible
<label for=fName>First
Name:</label><input type=text
id=fName alt=“First Name” arialabel=”First Name”…>
<a href=“something”
title=“Home”>Home</a>
Coding Mistakes – Tables Overview
Improper data table structure
▪Screen reader users rely on proper data table
structure when reading through tabular information
▪Screen reader users navigate through a table using
table reading commands
Coding Mistakes – Layout Tables
Common Mistake: Using a data table to layout a
form
Coding Mistakes – Data Tables
Common Mistake: Lack of association between
table headings and data cells
Coding Mistakes – Skip Link
▪Common
Mistake: Failure to provide a visible
mechanism for skipping past repetitive navigation
links
The skip to main content link provides a mechanism for screen reader users
and sighted keyboard-only users to navigate past repetitive links
Coding Mistakes – Language (cont.)
Common Mistake: Failing to identify changes in
natural language
Coding Mistakes – Language (demo)
Screen Reader Language Support
Demo
Coding Mistakes – Language (Summary)
How to Avoid:
▪Set the language of the document in the HTML
▪When changes in natural language occur, identify
changes inline
UX Mistakes (Appendix)
UX Mistakes – Animation
Animation Demo
Should I use a Carousel
W3C Carousel Tutorial
UX Mistakes – Multimedia
Common Mistake: Providing multimedia without a
synchronized text alternative and audio description
▪Multimedia
requires synchronized captioning for users
who are hearing impaired as well as audio description
for users who are blind or visually impaired
Frozen Trailer with Audio Description
UX Mistakes – Synchronized Multimedia (Summary)
How to Avoid:
▪Provide synchronized audio and text equivalents for
multimedia (through audio description and closed
captioning)
Summary
Planning
▪ Identify
the standard(s) for your team and/or confirm requirements for the project
(Section 508, WCAG 2.0, CVAA. Etc.)
▪ Investigate development framework’s support for accessibility your standard.
▪ Design:
▪ Provide text alternatives for non-text elements
▪ Provide sufficient color contrast for text and images of text
Coding and UX
▪ Use
the right attribute or approach
▪ Provide keyboard access for all active elements
▪ Ensure focus is provided appropriately
▪ Ensure form fields are coded correctly using appropriate labels
▪ Test with users, via code review, use automated testing tools, and/or with
assistive technology
Agenda
• Big Picture Stuff
• Laws, Regulations &
Standards
• Accessibility Technology
Big Picture Stuff
People are getting older
…every day in fact
•
•
•
•
Global population growth is declining
Life expectancy is growing
The big opportunity for accessibility – a graying
population
– 7% of the global population is 65 and older in
2005
– 16% of the global population is 65 and older in
2050
– Tripled since 1950, will triple again by 2050
– Developed Countries
• 15% of the population in 2012
• 26% of the population by 2050
That population is increasingly digital
Pretty pictures pulled from Mary Meeker’s 2016 Internet Trends Talk
Population data from Graying of the Global Population – Stanford
Center of Longevity
Graying Population Accessibility Needs
▪Not
likely to identify as disabled
▪May
use assistive technologies if
packaged in a clever fashion
▪Need
and want to (and maybe
have to?) be productive longer
The Mobile Market
You know it’s big, but it’s REALLY
big
▪ Mobile
▪
1995 – 80M Mobile Phone Users
▪ 1%
▪
use is exploding
of population
2014 – 5.2B Mobile Phones Users
▪ 73%
of population
▪ 97
subscriptions per 100 people in the
global population
▪ Rich
countries often over 100 per 100
people
▪ Mobile
data and video traffic growing
strongly
▪ Time spent on mobile devices > time
spent on desktop for digital media
Smartphones and Access
▪ Smartphone
growth is strong, slowing
▪ 2.5B smartphone users
▪ Up 21% YoY (down 10%)
▪ Smartphone
use growing rapidly in Asia
Pacific, emerging markets
▪ Smartphone
is the default “Assistive
Technology” platform for emerging markets
▪ Smartphone are still expensive as a % of
per capita income
The Mobile Market
And what is it like for people with
disabilities?
•
Desktop still primary means of access for people
with disabilities
– Opportunity
•
•
Mobile reaching parity of use in terms of
penetration and use
iOS is dominant platform (70%) but Android
growing in use (21%)
– General market share Android (83%) and iOS
(14%)
– Opportunity
•
Data pulled from WebAIM Screen Reader User
Survey #6 http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey6/
Communication is Key
▪ Mobile
is the dominant platform for
communication
▪ Communication uses are driving
onboarding to mobile platforms
▪ Communication uses required to be
accessible under FCC requirements
in US, similar requirements globally
Laws, Regulations &
Standards
Section 508 Refresh - Timing
Timing to Final Rule
▪ NPRM
and comment period complete in 2015
▪ Good odds for published regulation in 2016
▪ U.S. Access Board staff working on preamble currently
▪ Board approves the draft regulation (September 11 – 13 2016)
▪ Final regulation and cost analysis goes to OMB
▪ Submission Status
▪ OMB reviews and approves rule and cost analysis
▪ 90 days by executive order
▪ As long as they want by practical reality
▪ Final rule published
▪ Board saying October - call it November to make it easy
Section 508 Refresh - Application
Application After Final Rule
▪ Once
final rule published, application follows
▪ Significant rules effective 60 days after pub in Federal Register (FR)
(estimated January 2017)
▪ Complaints can be filled under 508 rules 6 mos after rules take effect
(estimated May/June 2017)
▪ Conformance may vary
▪ No central enforcement or policing
▪ Each federal department/agency must revise their procurement policies
and directives
▪ Matches 6 month complaint window;
“Effective date” 6 months after publication in FR
Americans with Disabilities Act
Enforcement Environment
▪ Public
(Title II) and private (Title III) sector orgs continues to
see active litigation under ADA, related state statutes
DoJ continues to actively pursuing web-related litigation
▪ Advocacy groups actively using litigation to
accomplish access
▪ ADA focused attorneys now actively pursuing web-related litigation
▪
▪ We
expect accelerated litigation activity in this area
▪ Tracking standards continue to be WCAG 2.0 A and AA
THIS IS A MATTER OF LITIGATION NOT REGULATION!
▪ Functional use by people with disabilities remains key issue
▪ Settlement language varies and WCAG 2.0 carve outs can drastically
impact cost
▪ Check out our ADA Lessons Learned Blog and Webinar Series for
more information on this
▪
Americans with Disabilities Act
Regulatory Environment
▪
▪
▪
▪
Title II – RIN 1190-AA65
▪
Currently in SANPRM
▪
Please comment!
▪
Target standards: WCAG 2.0 AA
▪
Compliance Timeline: Two Years
▪
Lots of other items
▪
July 2017 NPRM date
Title III – RIN 1190-AA61
▪
Moved to a long term action
▪
No actions expected before fiscal 2018
We expect regulations in effect only in the distant future
▪
Title II (5+ years)
▪
Title III (9+ years)
▪
Administration risk with 2016 election
We expect legal risk management (versus regulatory conformance) will drive accessibility for
foreseeable future
Americans with Disabilities Act
Title II SANPRM
▪ DoJ
continues to view (and enforce) Title II as applying to
web sites
▪ WCAG 2.0 AA is the likely standard
“the Department believes that Level AA conformance is the most
appropriate standard.” (81 FR 28663).
▪ Rough safe harbor for site changes
▪
▪ Partial
compliance still required if undue burden is
relevant
▪ Mobile application coverage open for comment
▪ Economic and regulatory impact analysis clearly a
challenge
Americans with Disabilities Act
Title II SANPRM Themes
▪ What
▪
“The Department is generally considering including within the scope of its proposed rule
all Web content public entities make available to the public on their Web sites and Web
pages, regardless of whether such Web content is viewed on desktop computers,
notebook computers, smart phones, or other mobile devices.” (81 FR 28662)
▪ DoJ
▪
would be covered?
takes a dim view of alternatives for providing access
Accessible alternative means for obtaining access to services, programs, and activities
offered on Web sites, such as a staffed telephone line, would need to afford individuals
with disabilities equivalent access to such Web-based information and services (i.e., 24
hours a day/7 days a week). As indicated in the 2003 guidance, the Department questions
whether alternative means would be likely to provide an equal degree of access. As Web
sites have become more interconnected, dynamic, and content heavy, it has become
more difficult, if not impossible, for public entities to replicate by alternative means the
services, programs, and activities offered on the Web. (81 FR 28661)
Americans with Disabilities Act
Title II SANPRM Themes
• Timing?
– “The Department is considering a two-year implementation timeframe for most public
entities in an effort to balance the importance of accessibility for individuals with
disabilities with the resource challenges faced by public entities.” (81 FR 28665)
• Exceptions?
– “The Department is currently of the view that some exceptions to any Web access
standards may be warranted and should therefore be part of any Department
rulemaking. At this juncture, the Department is considering a number of categories of
Web content for potential exceptions: (1) Archived Web content; (2) certain
preexisting conventional electronic documents; (3) third-party Web content linked
from a public entity’s Web site; and (4) certain Web content posted by third parties on
a public entity’s Web site” (81 FR 28668)
Accessibility Technology
Mobile Dominance
AT Environment
▪ Desktop
Platforms
▪ Mostly
costed assistive technology - some FOSS and
some bundled AT
▪ Accessibility supported via apps / sites or AT scripting
▪ Mobile
▪ Free
platforms
assistive technology
▪ Generally installed and configured as part of core OS
▪ Accessibility must be supported directly via apps /
sites
Mobile Dominance
Platform of Choice for Access
Key Question: Are mobile access solutions
inherently more accessible than desktop
solutions?
•
•
•
•
Accessibility and assistive technology baked into OS releases
Mobile platforms provide cheaper access to assistive technology
Mobile apps and sites tend to be simplified and streamlined UIs
App developer understanding and actual application support low but
gaining…
…but how is that really different than desktop web and application
development?
Voice Control
Going Mainstream
▪ Speaker
independent voice control really works
▪ People are really using it
In 2013 30% of people used smartphone voice assistant
▪ In 2015 65% of people used smartphone voice assistant
▪ Google Voice search queries up 35x since 2008
▪ 20% of searches on mobile phones are voice
▪
▪ Businesses
are embracing it
Alexa skills – 14 in September 2015
▪ Alexa skills – 950 in May 2015
▪
Voice Control (cont.)
Opportunity
•
•
•
•
•
Voice control and audio interfaces for
many applications
– But still a fraction of what it will be
Voice enabled personal assistants are
one front end
– Siri, Google Now, Cortana
Voice enabled devices are another front
end
– Amazon Echo – a good example of
where this is going
Generally redundant app interfaces
We see this as a big opportunity
The Rise of Free
Costed vs. Free Assistive Technologies
•
•
Increasing viability of open source and free assistive
technologies
– Of the top three used screen readers
one is open source (NVDA) and one
is free (VoiceOver®)
– NVDA and VoiceOver® showing the
strongest numbers in terms of use growth
Costed ATs still primary mode of access in
professional environments and for heavy use
– Don’t see this changing anytime soon
Internet of Things
• “Always on” smart devices controlled via IP
• Users do not expect access through primary
devices alone
– Access through secondary Bluetooth app control
– Mobile apps much, much, much easier to make
accessible than native devices
• Going forward view:
– We see secondary routes of accessible control for hardware as a norm
– Accessibility concerns aligning with broader demographic design
considerations and regulatory environment
– Likely that a central home hub will help normalize access for connected
devices
Multi-device Access Solutions
• Accessible App + Inaccessible Hardware = Access?
– Multi-device solutions are effective, easy way to address
accessibility in way that aligns with mainstream use
– Leverages access at logical points
– Practically supports functional use
– A general trend we are happy to see
– Effectively supports broader modal use requirements
• Multi-device workflows becoming commonplace
– OS X Yosemite - Handoff - full framework for crossdevice interaction
– Right device for the task
– Apple environment provides the most fertile ground for
seeing how this impacts accessibility
Multi-device Access Solutions (cont.)
• Generational pressure for this
– Gen X = One Screen
– Millennials = Two Screens
– Gen Z = Five Screens
Other Technologies to Watch
Round One
• Responsive Web Design continues as a dominant theme
– Functionality works across multiple devices
– Mobile profile often more accessible than desktop
– Test, test, test!
• Frameworks a primary coding approach
–
–
–
–
–
Every framework has unique accessibility issues
Support is improving but still limited
Framework accessibility issues often very difficult to fix
Proceed with caution
Test, test, test!
Other Technologies to Watch (cont.)
Round One (cont.)
• Computer vision systems getting really good
– Microsoft Cognitive Services
– Facebook Automatic Alternative Text
– Aligns with an increasingly image centric communication paradigm
• Touch interfaces are a dominant focus going forward
– Keyboard access no longer guarantees a sufficient accessible input method
– Compelling alternatives to touch are needed
– Standardized alternatives to touch are needed
Other Technologies to Watch (cont.)
Round Two
•
Gaming Access
–
–
–
–
•
Accessibility of gaming systems and ACS features of games
Incremental improvements now, more with extended software waiver expiration
Next gen systems and upgrade likely to have bigger impact
Voice and multi-device access solutions
Electronic Document Access
– Significant focal point for the Section 508 regulations
– Need for materially better tools for generating accessible e-documents
– Big problem SSB is focused on
•
•
Self-driving cars – huge impact on ability to live and commute
independently
Custom physical AT - assistive tools and prosthetics created with with 3D
printers
Thank You
Contact Us
Follow Us
Beth Crutchfield
@SSBBARTGroup
VP of Policy and Program Services
[email protected]
linkedin.com/company/
SSB-BART-Group
facebook.com/
SSBBARTGroup
SSBBARTGroup.com/blog
[email protected]
|
www.ssbbartgroup.com
|
(800) 889-9659
About SSB BART Group
•
•
•
•
•
Unmatched Experience
Focus on Accessibility
Solutions That Manage Risk
Real-World Strategy
Organizational Strength and
Continuity
• Dynamic, Forward-Thinking
Intelligence
• Fourteen hundred organizations
(1445)
• Fifteen hundred individual
accessibility best practices
(1595)
• Twenty-two core technology
platforms (22)
• Fifty-five thousand audits
(55,930)
• One hundred fifty million
accessibility violations
(152,351,725)
• Three hundred sixty-six thousand
human validated accessibility
violations (366,096)