Missing form labels, empty buttons, links that go nowhere... Let's stop calling this "accessibility debt." This is just incomplete development. The real issue isn't that accessible code costs more to retrofit. It's that we're calling basic HTML requirements "extra work." A button without text? That's not accessibility debt - that's unfinished code. A form input without a label? That's not technical debt - that's skipping steps. A link that doesn't go anywhere? That's not an edge case - that's broken. These things should be in your Definition of Done already. Not because of WCAG, but because they're fundamental to how HTML works. When we frame basic semantic markup as "accessibility work," we make it sound optional. It's not. It's just good development. Start there. Get the fundamentals right. The rest gets easier once your team stops thinking of working buttons and labeled forms as "nice to have." #WebDevelopment #Accessibility #TechDebt
I couldn't agree more, Natalie. If everyone just used best practice, we'd already be most of the way there! And that applies to design, as much as development: best design practice is natively accessible – just like semantic HTML. Which should be the building block as a given!
I completely agree with this. Last year I gave a talk about how broken the Web's HTML is. I wanted to challenge people's perspective on whether it is really an easy language to work with if we keep getting it so wrong. Much of the discussions that followed came from an accessibility angle, and depressingly several argued valid HTML was redundant as they didn't have time to make their sites accessible. This was extremely depressing to hear. For me, developers should want to create good quality, robust code. That includes the HTML. It is not about accessibility, it is about doing it right so that everyone benefits. Things like form labels and valid links helps every single user of a website, not just those with accessibility needs.