Help

Airtable Accessibility

11107 17
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Jamie_Stantonia
4 - Data Explorer
4 - Data Explorer

I am about to embark on a large research project with the Royal National Institute of the Blind and one of the requirements is that the format we hand over our research should be fully accessible. Given there is going to be a lot of research findings I was hoping to use Airtable, but is it accessible?

Thank you
J

17 Replies 17

@Michael_Cyr,

This is fascinating. I love these deeper explanations and welcome additional sharing of these stories to help Airtable developers do their best to create better accessibility.

Ah, so the vast apps that are not publically accessible – pretty much every Airtable app – are fundamentally exempt from accessibility standards unless such private accommodation is central to the work of employees who may require accessibility features to sustain parity with workers who do not require accessibility features.

Very interesting.

One last question - accessibility test results are generally gated to some degree by OS, browser version, and accessibility plugins. Just curious - did your tests exclude all the advantages available from these accessibility features?

Oops! I lied - one more question.

This makes sense and I can see how something like a large office suite (like Office365) would need to make this accommodation. But to be clear, when you tested Airtable were you testing the use of the platform to build a database or use a database?

Typically, there is no “public accommodation” extended to anyone concerning the crafting or configuration of a solution. However, once a solution is placed into production, many features are limited and sharing is yet again, vastly private. As such, the features of a solution can vastly vary as compared to the development platform itself. Does this matter in applying WCAG standards?

Yes, in my opinion, if one is using airtable to build an internal app only used by employees, then you have less exposure - until an employee shows up who needs the app to work with assistive technology. The problem at that point, if you’ve built the app on a fundamentally inaccessible platform, is what to do? Are you going to instantly move the app and its data to another platform? You can assign the employee other duties but risk a lawsuit. If a person with a disability APPLIES for a job, gets an inkling that airtable use is involved (either as developer or app user) and is turned down, for any reason, they may well make the claim that it was their inability to use airtable that cost them the job and sue. Hence, for a small company with a few employees the risk is much smaller than for a large corporation or institution.

We have 8000 employees and 50,000 students. We consider anything that is all-student-facing as constituting a public accommodation. However, if a technology is used by just one course, and there are no students with a disability in the course, we may give it a temporary exception. However, because students can join a course during add/drop, the faculty is in big trouble if such a student joins and the technology is not accessible. In that case there are two options 1) immediately provide an equally effective alternative (has to be approved by our Equal Opportunity office or 2) remove the technology from the course for ALL students. Given that courses are planned and developed months ahead of time, it’s really not practical to wait until a need arises.

Yes, I use the latest versions of Windows, MacOS, Chrome, firefox, Voiceover and NVDA for testing. I am not aware of any browser plugin or OS feature that fills in missing metadata and/or structure to makes a non-accessible app work with assistive technology such as keyboard-only navigation or a screen-reader. I believe that there is a product that the app owner might use as a sort of http proxy to sit in front of a non-compliant app and rewrite its output on the fly. However, it requires separate configuration for every page type/template of the underlying app and I don’t know if it can fix page structural issues or only add missing metadata for objects.

Good question… use-case context definitely matters. I tested database table creation and data entry, and consumption of a publicly shared db table view. Whenever testing against WCAG, or any standard, test results should include the functionality that was tested, if it was less than everything. We often see, especially when a company is in the process of fixing their product’s accessibility issues, that the public or end-user facing functionality is fixed first, while app configuration or administration is addressed later.

Does airtable include an API that would allow a developer to write their own user interface from scratch? If so, then the developer is in control of the interface and could theoretically make it accessible.

Excellent assessment! It’s nice to know the bounds of wiggle-room but also the risks that can lead to a lot of pain.

Yes, and companies such as Stacker have done exactly this.

I did hear back from airtable and they do not have any accessibility conformance information about their products, nor a timeline or roadmap, to share. In my experience (which is very broad) this puts them way behind the curve and while they said they are interested in accessibility, their actions speak otherwise.

Michael Cyr

There are many aspects of Airtable that fall into this pattern, and while there is little point in defending their [seeming] lack of resources or commitment for accessibility, I can certainly defend any business who has created an awesome tool and then got blindsided by acceptance and demand for their product. It’s not easy to transition from cool tool to perfection at scale, and especially where organizational adoption is gated by legal risks.

And what “curve” would that be? The curve of accessibility support for mature products and services?

I must ask, historically speaking, what was the ramp of WCAG adoption for products similar to Airtable? Was it as swift as your comments intimate it should be?

How many decades and billions in profit have been earned by Microsoft for its flagship Excel product for example - and yet, they still struggle with meeting WCAG standards. Anyone can build an Excel spreadsheet that does not meet standards and requires more work by the sheet creator.

For every accessibility standard that Airtable does not presently support, I can show you modern, well-respected tools that also do not meet WCAG v2.1. The accessibility debate is an interesting one, but meeting all standards seems to be fleeting at best and challenging even for mature products with virtually unlimited resources.

Airtable - like many software companies - probably view this challenge from purely economic perspectives.

  • Do we direct significant resources to meet WCAG standards?
  • Or, do we continue to address key market demands that will sustain our competitiveness and continue to satisfy our core user base?

At some point, they need to do both. But for now, they are apparently telegraphing a strategy that is not unlike most solutions that are experiencing early success and adoption by every-day business and organizational experts who need code-free tools to do their best work.

I suspect they also gauge their strategic decisions concerning accessibility as it relates to the target user demographic. By-and-large, demand for their product is vast among personal and small business users and I have a feeling that this customer segment is where they derive their core revenues. Sure - they want pervasive adoption in the enterprise and the big [potential] revenues that come from that segment. However, a tool like Airtable is not ideal for large businesses and accessibility is WAY down the list of reasons why it is not presently suitable for enterprise-wide adoption.

Any use of Airtable in enterprise settings is likely occurring for the same reasons dBASE was dragged from the hobbyist’s home PC into the workplace in 1985. It is no different than iPhone (one) making an appearance in corporate sales teams in 2007 where Blackberry was well-entrenched. It is no different than the procurement by enterprises to wrestle web technologies from the arms of global small businesses in the late 90’s and which fueled the dot-bomb era.

Neither dBASE nor iPhone nor HTML were suitable competitors to dominant technologies in use at enterprises at the time they made swift penetration. Airtable (and other code-free tools) are no different - they are disrupting the status-quo in enterprises; crashing the establishment-era application party and the defence mechanisms are beginning to kick in.

It’s unfortunate that an organization like yours is hamstrung by litigation risk from adopting such a great product like Airtable.

Agreed… it sucks that it’s not airtable that’s on the hook and instead institutions and companies that chose to use or base their products on airtable, or other inaccessible tech. Hence why all entities should have “accessibility review” as part of their technology adoption/procurement processes.

Yes, that’s the curve.

When accessibility was new (15 years ago) almost no one took it into account when building their products. Generally those extant companies/products started taking this all seriously 5 to 10 years ago. However, it’s still not unheard of for startups to ignore accessibility while trying to prove their business model. Problem is that more and more large buyers ARE considering accessibility conformance. Hence, accessibility is becoming a business case. I’m part of a movement building accessibility review processes and tools for higher ed, where lawsuits are rampant (see the recent MIT/Harvard/California Community Colleges/California State University/etc. cases and settlements).

There will likely NEVER be a product that 100% PREVENTS a content creator from doing something inaccessible. That should not be on the product manufacturer if they have given the content creator the tools to make their output accessible. For example when Word/Excel didn’t provide the option for graphics alternate text, it was on Microsoft. Now that the feature is there, any inaccessible document, due to lack of alternate text, is on the content creator - especially since Office also provides a built-in accessibility checker.

You’re raising a false dichotomy fallacy. Yes, I agree that it’s hard to have a 100% accessible product. But you can say the same thing about information security. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a 100% secure information technology product. Every additional “9” increase, e.g., 99.99999%., after a certain point, doubles the cost. However, there are vast resources spent on information security, plenty of government and industry standards, and no one questions their value or the value of getting as close as possible.

No one is paying huge settlements for failing to meet esoteric AAA level standards. They are in trouble for the BASICS, lack of keyboard accessibility, lack of alt-text, lack of captioning, lack of structure/navigation tags, bad-contrast, etc.

dbase, like the PC revolution itself, and airtable (if you’re saying its adoption in enterprises is similar) are examples of niche markets that went viral because of their perceived business value. Paradigm shifts usually comes from OUTSIDE the mainstream, in this case, Enterprise IT. The problems arise when those products then move into enterprise level processes where they introduce information security, reliability, availability, capacity, and accessibility., risks. Businesses have to weigh the value of such innovations while maintaining adequate controls to protect themselves and their stakeholders.

The risk we manage is not just to us financially/legally, but to real people with disabilities who end up being excluded from educational opportunities because someone built and made available, often for free, an “attractive nuisance” that some faculty member, unwitting of the issues, adopts for their course.

I work with A LOT of manufacturers of IT products. Airtable’s response was at the lower end of the curve of responsibility for, and interest in, accessibility. It reminds me of a lot of companies I worked with 10 years ago. If they were more responsive and committed we would probably allow some use of it, assuming that improvements would be forthcoming. But the low level of compliance and their attitude doesn’t let us do that.

Lastly, I recently got a call from a company, that I had pushed on accessibility a few years ago. They called to thank me because their primary market was higher ed, they hadn’t really understood the important of accessibility, and after I pushed them, they started getting more and more demands for accessibility - which they wouldn’t have been prepared to meet if I hadn’t pushed them. They were thanking me for helping their business outcomes. That was cool.

ScottWorld
18 - Pluto
18 - Pluto

Airtable is not accessible, but FileMaker is.

FileMaker has specifically ensured that their product is accessible.

Check out the PDF files on the bottom of this page, and feel free to contact me if you would like me to put you in touch with some great FileMaker developers.