Virtual Event Accessibility: A Blindness Perspective
How can a virtual event be made accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired?
When I began working on Sight Tech Global in June of this year, I was certain we would quickly determine the answer to this question. Given the numerous virtual event platforms and online ticketing systems available to event organizers, we anticipated that at least one would meet a reasonable level of accessibility for individuals utilizing screen readers or other web navigation tools.
Unfortunately, my initial assumption proved incorrect. Through my research and conversations with CEOs of various platforms, I frequently encountered responses such as “we are currently evaluating WCAG [Web Content Accessibility Guidelines] requirements” or “our developers intend to revise our front-end code when resources become available.” Essentially, these organizations, like many others online, had not prioritized coding their sites for accessibility from the outset – the most cost-effective and equitable approach, and one that aligns with ADA compliance.
This discovery raised a significant concern. We had already announced our event dates – December 2-3, 2020 – leaving us with no option to postpone. Dmitry Paperny, our designer, and I faced the challenge of developing a solution within a limited timeframe, with the crucial requirement that the virtual experience be fully functional for blind attendees, considering the event’s central focus on this community.
We resolved to apply Occam’s razor to the typical elements of virtual event experiences, focusing on the core necessities. We identified three essential components:
- live-stream video for the “main stage” presentations
- a clear and easily navigable, interactive agenda
- interactive video capabilities for the breakout sessions.
We also considered incorporating a social or networking component, but determined it was optional unless a simple, effective solution presented itself.
Our next consideration was identifying suitable third-party tools. Fortunately, both YouTube and Zoom consistently receive high marks for accessibility. Individuals who are blind are generally familiar with both platforms and often know the keyboard shortcuts for navigation. This insight initially came through informal discussions and was subsequently confirmed by extensive documentation available on YouTube and Zoom. Consequently, we selected YouTube for our main stage programming and Zoom for our breakout sessions. It was also beneficial that both YouTube and Zoom integrate seamlessly into websites, which became our planned approach.
The next step was determining where to host the overall event experience. We aimed to provide attendees with a single URL for access. Fortunately, we had already developed an accessible website to promote the event. Dmitry gained valuable experience during the design and coding process, including the importance of considering both blind and low-vision users. Therefore, we decided to integrate the event experience directly into our existing website – rather than utilizing a third-party event platform – by adding two new sections to the site navigation: Event (no longer live on the site) and Agenda.
The “Event” section consisted of a page containing the embedded YouTube live player, accompanied by text descriptions of the current and upcoming sessions, along with prominent links to the full Agenda. Some might question the rationale for placing the agenda on a separate page, suggesting it could complicate navigation. However, this decision stemmed from insights gained from our partner, Fable, a company specializing in usability testing for individuals with disabilities. As we repeatedly discovered, the key was to envision navigating with a screen reader, rather than relying on visual cues. Placing the agenda beneath the YouTube Player would create a disruptive experience – attempting to listen to the programming while simultaneously “reading” (listening to) the agenda below. A separate page for the agenda proved to be the optimal solution.
The Agenda page presented our most significant challenge due to its extensive information, filtering requirements, and varying “states” – indicating which agenda items were “playing now,” upcoming, or completed. Dmitry explored various approaches to dropdown filters and other details to enhance agenda page navigation, and we reviewed the design multiple times with Fable’s experts. We also took the unusual step of inviting our registered, blind event attendees to participate in a “practice event” a few days before the show to gather additional feedback. Nearly 200 people attended two practice sessions. We also invited screen reader specialists, including Sam Proulx from Fable and Matt King from Facebook, to answer questions and address the feedback.
It’s important to note that the three primary screen readers are JAWS, predominantly used by Windows users; VoiceOver, integrated into all Apple products; and NVDA, an open-source option for PCs running Microsoft Windows 7 SP1 and later. These screen readers function differently, and users range from experts proficient in hundreds of keyboard commands to those with more limited skills. Therefore, it’s crucial to have knowledgeable interlocutors who can distinguish between constructive suggestions and simple frustrations.
The format for our open house (sessions one and two) involved a Zoom meeting where we provided an overview of the event and demonstrated how the experience worked. We then provided links to the working Event page (with an active YouTube player) and the Agenda page, requesting attendees to test the functionality and share their feedback in the Zoom session. As with many aspects of this effort, the results were humbling. We had established a solid foundation, but overlooked certain nuances, such as the optimal order of information within an agenda item for someone who can only “hear” it.
The practice session also confirmed the value of offering live customer support during the event to assist attendees less familiar with screen readers. We partnered with Be My Eyes, a mobile app connecting blind users with sighted volunteers who utilize the user’s phone camera to troubleshoot issues. It’s akin to having someone look over your shoulder. We recruited 10 volunteers and trained them to address event-related questions, and Be My Eyes prioritized calls related to Sight Tech Global within their “event” section. Our event host, Will Butler, a vice-president at Be My Eyes, consistently reminded attendees to utilize Be My Eyes for assistance with the virtual experience.
A month before the event, we felt confident enough to add a social interaction feature. We learned that Slido’s basic Q&A features were compatible with screen readers, and Fable used the service for their projects. We integrated Slido into the program, but instead of embedding a Slido widget beneath the YouTube player – which might have been beneficial for sighted participants – we added a link from each agenda session to a standalone Slido page, allowing attendees to contribute comments and ask questions without interference from the agenda or livestream. This solution proved effective, resulting in over 750 comments and questions on Slido during the event.
As December 2nd arrived, we were prepared. However, despite meticulous planning, our live, closed-captioning unexpectedly failed shortly after the event began. We made the decision to pause the show until captioning could be restored, to ensure accessibility for deaf and hard-of-hearing attendees. After considerable effort, captioning was successfully reinstated. (Further details on captioning are provided below).
Aside from this issue, the production ran smoothly from both a programming and accessibility standpoint. How did we perform? Of the 2400+ registered attendees, 45% indicated they planned to use screen readers. A post-event survey of these attendees, with 95 responses, yielded an average experience score of 4.6/5. Regarding the programming itself, all attendees (157 responses) gave us a score of 4.7/5. We were delighted with these outcomes.
Regarding registration, we initially relied on an event registration platform that was “as good as it gets” for accessibility, based on what we had been told. This proved to be a mistake. Testing revealed that while potentially better than other options, the platform was still inadequate. Feedback from individuals attempting to register, coupled with a lower-than-expected registration rate among blind people, indicated that the site was disappointing. It was concerning to learn from one of our speakers that alt tags were missing from images (and could not be added) and that screen reader users had to navigate through extensive information to reach actionable links, such as “register.”
As with our website approach, we opted for simplification. We added a Google Form as an alternative registration option, as these forms are highly accessible. We immediately observed a significant increase in registrations, particularly among blind individuals. We were dismayed to realize that our initial registration choice had excluded the very people our event aimed to include.
We were able to utilize the Google Forms option because the event was free. If we had been collecting payment or registration fees, Google Forms would not have been a viable solution. We made the event free for several reasons. First, given our goal of making the event global and accessible to anyone interested in blindness, establishing a universally acceptable price point was challenging. Second, adding payment processing and a “log-in” feature to access the event would have introduced further accessibility complexities. With our approach, anyone with a link to the Agenda or Event page could attend without requiring a log-in or registration. We acknowledged that this would result in some uncertainty regarding attendance numbers – in fact, we had 30% more attendees than registrants – but we believed that sacrificing precise data was an acceptable trade-off for the accessibility benefits.
The primary takeaway from this experience is that event organizers must actively investigate and verify the accessibility of the event experience. Relying solely on platform or technology vendors is insufficient, unless they have a proven track record within the accessibility community, as demonstrated by YouTube and Zoom. It’s as crucial to ensure that the site or platform is coded correctly (to WCAG standards, using a tool like Google’s Lighthouse) as it is to conduct real-world testing with blind and low-vision users to confirm a positive experience. Ultimately, the user experience is what matters most.
Finally, while our event focused on accessibility for individuals who are blind or have low vision, we were committed to providing captions for those who would benefit. We prioritized high-quality, human-generated captions, working with VITAC for live Zoom and YouTube sessions and 3Play Media for on-demand versions and transcripts, which are now permanently archived. We also received requests for “plain text” (unformatted) transcripts in a downloadable format for Braille reader users, which we provided. You can find all these resources on pages like this one, which contain comprehensive information for each session and are linked from the corresponding section of the agenda.
