For people managing websites or Digital Humanities projects, “web accessibility” is one of those words that is often thrown around. It often seems like a box to be ticked and means different things to different people. However, for people with visual impairments or other disabilities web accessibility is not only essential, but it determines whether they engage with a website or Digital Humanities project.

What is web accessibility? According to the Web Accessibility Initiative’s (WAI) Introduction to Web Accessibility, web accessibility allows users to fully engage with the internet regardless of their ability. For the WAI conditions that might limit internet usage do not only encompass permanent physical or cognitive disabilities, but also includes temporary limitations such as injury, lighting, or situation. Getting older may also increase the reliance of individuals on web accessibility. The WAI recommends that web accessibility is built into websites from the ground up.

There are numerous reasons for Digital Humanities researchers to care about web accessibility. I would argue that there are two main reasons. The first is synical and self-promoting. According to Brophy and Craven, it looks good to not only say your project is accessible, its even better if it is. The second reason is more complicated and may not apply to everyone. In certain countries, most notably the United States, it may be illegal for certain websites to be inaccessible to users. This is due to legal reforms during the late 2000s that required governmental organisations, large institutions, and certain businesses to ensure that everyone regardless of ability can access their websites. This may leave Digital Humanities projects supported and run by American universities open to legal action if they are not compliant with the WAI guidelines. Furthermore, funding for Digital humanities projects in many other countries now requires web accessibility.

Despite the importance of web accessibility, some websites and Digital Humanities projects may not be accessible because of the nature of what they are trying to accomplish, or because of their content.

I now want to discuss the impacts that inaccessible Digital Humanities projects may have. Most Digital Humanities projects are accessible although they may have features or layout issues that make them difficult for users with accessibility requirements. These projects have accessibility issues that may be explained by their aims or content, however, I believe they can easily be made more accessible.

The Musical Passage project aims to show what the music sung by slaves in Jamaica in the 1680s would have sounded like. The project has sheet music for some songs that would have been sung by slaves. The aim for the user is to hover the curser over various parts of the sheet music to hear what that part sounds like. The accessibility issue arises when using text-to-speech software. The sheet music is shown as an image which the curser cannot hover over. Thus blind or visually impaired users are unable to engage with the music. I believe this could be made more accessible by having links to the full songs that the user can listen to.

The Internet Medieval Sourcebook is one of the oldest digital Humanities projects. It is used by many medievalists or students of the Middle Ages, including myself. Despite my love for this project it has one major accessibility issue that detracts from its value. The sourcebook is very difficult to navigate. This is because there are only links or plain text on the webpages. This means that users with various disabilities struggle to work their way through the website and find it difficult to find what they are looking for. This issue can easily be solved by adding headings or menus to the website which would drasticly increase its navigability.

There is one very accessible Digital Humanities project I would like to commend. This is Epistolae: Medieval Women’s Letters. This project has headings for easy navigation, has its text on the webpage itself as opposed to images, and has logical organisation. This website is a pleasure to use. I do want to note that epistolae’s accessibility is most likely due to its institutional backing which the other two projects do not necessarily have. I do not know how most Digital Humanists approach their projects, but I do hope that we all realise that accessibility isn’t just a box that needs to be ticked, but that having accessible projects allows for a larger and more engaged audience