I was at a web conference here in Seattle a few nights ago and the question came up about why new sites and new products are so rarely accessible.  Then my boss asked me the same question this morning when he asked me for my thoughts on the new Technology Bill of Rights of 2010.  The advocate in me wanted to scream out, “because it’s a civil right…” but I know from bitter experience that that response rarely gets taken seriously in corporate America.  It’s sad but true— even though the Target settlement gives corporate America ($) 6 million reasons to make their sites accessible, there hasn’t been a real stampede like seen in the world of privacy or security.

In preparing for the (awesome) eContent and Governance webinar that I gave with Dan Hubbell from Microsoft TWC yesterday, I found that the privacy folks recognize four basic risks that every company should consider before embarking on a new initiative or IT data management plan.  They are:

• Legal Compliance (“will we get sued?”)
• Reputation (“how will this affect how customers perceive us?”)
• Return on Investment (“will shareholders take their money elsewhere?”)
• Reticence (“are we being aggressive enough?”)

Information Privacy: Official Reference for the CIPP, pp. 107–08.  The last two factors— return on investment and reticence— often are at odds with the first two.  Take v1 (version 1) products for example.  They are rarely accessible precisely because of these last two factors.  Launching any new product is risky and it isn’t at all clear whether the investment will flop— if it does fail, then shareholders will demand to see managements’ head on a plate.  Yet, shareholders also demand seeing their companies take that risk (i.e. the reticence factor)— they just insist that management always get it right.  Boy, speak about an unforgiving audience!  Facing those pressures, it doesn’t really surprise me that v1 products are rarely accessible.

So are we to just give up hope and expect that v1 products will always be inaccessible?  Not necessarily, as demonstrated by products like the Apple Shuffle.  Let’s face it— features like VoiceOver and VoiceControl are designed for accessibility.  But, once forced to put it into the Shuffle, Apple just removed the UI entirely except for the accessibility features.  Suddenly, accessibility is part of the mainstream because it’s no longer touted as an accessibility feature at all.

I think that the future requires us to rethink the way that we market accessibility.  Universal design is all about designs that work for everyone— but we continually push it as a feature for people with disabilities.  While people with disabilities may be the most obvious beneficiaries, UD needs to be sold as just good design.  For instance, if the goals of the Technology Bill of Rights were being promoted for driver safety (e.g. one shouldn’t have to see the UI to use it— and requiring a voice/speech UI would save thousands of lives on the road each year), it would probably have a much greater chance of success.

Alternatively, all we need is to have someone like Steve Jobs remind us that it’s also cool design— and that we absolutely, positively need it as much as we need oxygen.  I’m already short of breath wondering how in the world I ever lived before the iPad— and it’s not even out yet.