The importance of critical accessibility in digital history

There exists a growing awareness among digital historians that accessibility, especially accessible web design, is crucial to online archives, data visualisations and interactive histories. This is not because digital history is uniquely in-need of an accessibility intervention -- on the contrary, the focus on accessibility among digital historians is due to the existing qualities of digital history; its focus on openness and the democratisation of information has made historical research more widely available, and so has brought it into contact with a greater number of disabled users. With greater availability comes more problems of accessibility -- more users means more diverse needs among users. There are many simple things that can be done to increase the accessibility of digital history resources. Archives can be made accessible for screen readers by simplifying menus, making full use of html headers, and making sites navigable by keyboard. Charts and infographics can be rendered readable to sight-impaired users through alt text and complex .svgs. Colour and contrast can be adjusted for users with colourblindness or low vision. A plethora of alternative formats for any data can be provided to serve a very diverse range of user needs. These are the basic tools for making digital histories as accessible as possible. In addition to the various available checklists for compliance to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and the like, it is also necessary for digital historians to adopt a critical view of our approach to accessibility. What is meant by this? Critical accessibility, or critical disability theory, seeks to view accessibility and disability as historically constituted, relative, and/or political phenomena that we actively shape through our practice. But what relevance does this have to digital histories? As Sarah Lewthwaite argues, current digital accessibility guidelines are not based on critical approaches, and as such reproduce a static idea of disability based on hard biological limits. Digital historians therefore tend to create “accessible” websites geared towards a specific kind of disabled user, usually a highly technologically literate, well-resourced and supported user, in their own country and part of the dominant national group. This is evidenced by the exclusion of certain factors from accessibility compliance checklists; cultural, linguistic, technological, or financial barriers to access are considered separate issues which are usually afforded less consideration. Keyboard accessibility will do little for a sight-imparied user who, due to a poor connection, cannot load a resource-intensive page! Of course it is not possible for digital historians to consider every potential user under the sun. Nonetheless, a critical analysis of why we are seeking to make sites accessible and for whom we are making them can help narrow down which accessibility requirements are worth deeper consideration. For example, an archive that includes immigration records might prioritise the provision of alt text and alternative formats in other languages, especially those of the largest migrant groups.

A critical view of accessibility also allows us to see the end goal of accessibility discourse: its own abolition. If such a day comes when “accessible” digital history is simply synonymous with “good” (ie. well-considered, user appropriate) digital history, then a special focus on accessibility will not be necessary. We will no longer have special “accessible” archives, data visualisations, and websites, rather accessibility will come part and parcel with what it is to be a digital historian.