Technology nowadays is rapidly growing, as modern society is gradually immersing into the internet world. Its content has numerous forms and shapes which can be accessed from various devices. The options are vast, ranging from web pages containing different information for PC or mobile browsers to specialized interactive applications available only on mobile platforms. However, the vastness implies competition for consumers; thus, the developers and designers spend countless hours making their content more attractive and appealing to achieve the best user experience (UX) possible. One of the fundamental aspects of positive UX is the content’s accessibility. With the example of The New York Times (NY Times) website, this paper will study the matter of accessibility and evaluate how accessible the mentioned website is to its potential users.
Despite its seeming straightforwardness, the definition of accessibility can vary significantly, depending on the content. Durdu and Yerlikaya (2020) researched the topic of website accessibility and provided several options. In the most generalized terms, website accessibility is the measure to which the website is perceivable, understandable, and easy to use by disabled people (Durdu & Yerlikaya, 2020). However, its generalization comes at the expense of applicability – there are too many variables in this equation to state confidently whether the website is accessible. For example, accessibility could concern not only disabled people but older people too, or people in general without disabilities. In addition, the website would look different depending on the platform (PC, mobiles, tablets). There are also uncertainties about whether the concept of usability should be added to the definition. To conclude, there is a need to narrow the scope before the final assessment.
In the case of the NY Times website, its PC version will become the object of evaluation. Additionally, the accessibility definition provided by The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) for web content will be a starting point. It is based on four principles for any user: the content should be perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust (Accessibility principles). NY Times serves as a news portal; consequently, its primary content is text. However, the website contains numerous pictures, videos, and other visual information along with audio files. The articles are placed according to their importance, highlighting the most recent or the most impactful news while putting their less essential counterparts to the side. The website’s interface allows for many interactions, such as navigation, search, and language settings. The users can also adjust the content to their needs – change the text’s font size or zoom in/out to change the page size. Everything mentioned so far covers the first three principles of accessibility.
The fourth principle – robustness – stands out amongst others because it is devoted mainly to people with disabilities. It resembles the website’s reliable interpretability by various software: browsers, media players, or assistive technologies (Accessibility principles). The latter is of utter importance for the people deprived of some basic senses. For deaf people, the NY Times website provides closed captioning on videos in addition to their transcripts (Accessibility). For blind people, the website supports the browsers’ assistive technology called a screen reader. It allows the computer to read the written text aloud, thus converting the information to audio format. Unfortunately, there are no captions for the provided pictures or videos that a screen reader could sound; therefore, a blind person might not even know some visual information is present in the text. Additionally, the website’s search does not have a voice input, which might cause issues for people who struggle to provide text input.
According to the W3C’s definition of accessibility, the NY Times website can be considered accessible. It covers the principles of being perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust to a significant extent. In other words, its content can be perceived differently, interacted with, and adjusted by all users, even considering people with disabilities. Certain features could still be improved, though, but on a very narrow scope. Overall, the website achieves its goal as a news portal and manages to provide positive UX, at least in its PC version.
References
Accessibility. (n.d.). The New York Times.
Accessibility principles. (n.d.). The World Wide Web Consortium.
Durdu, P. O., & Yerlikaya, Z. (2020). The perception of website accessibility: A survey of Turkish software professionals. AJIT-e: Bilişim Teknolojileri Online Dergisi, 11(41), 42-71.