Are there moral and ethical reasons to provide accessible content, and as ideals about accessibility to work towards as an ultimate end goal or measure of achievement? Here are 10 principles of open accessibility (as defined by the Open Book Futures project).
Access has not been fully provided to a research output unless it is Accessible.
Accessible means the research output is perceivable, operable, understandable and robust.
Scholarly communications professionals should seek to remove all barriers to access, including paywalls, accessibility barriers and others.
Research outputs should be Born Accessible by default, rather than accessible on demand or requiring a separate version that is available at a later time or through a different channel.
No accessibility standard can capture the accessibility needs profile of an individual; therefore, individual accessibility requests must be responded to.
Accessibility enables usability and is not just for the print disabled but is for everyone to customise their reading experience.
Accessibility enables machine readability and is not just for humans but for robustness/compatibility with all automated systems.
Accessibility helps a research output to reach its true audience, not just those who can perceive/operate/understand it, or access it.
Disabled people have economic disadvantages that Open Access initiatives focused on removing paywalls can help with.
Open Access has advantages in accessibility that closed access does not, in particular through the absence of DRM technology interfering with assistive technology, the prior consideration of copyright restrictions that might prevent producing accessible versions, and other lack of restrictions on re-use enabling maximised usability.
What do you think? Are there any principles you would add to this list?
Hi Anna, I was wondering about the definition of ‘robust’. If that means ‘permanent’ and ‘secured via long-term preservation’, it is fine, but perhaps it would be good to specify that, perhaps seprately. Access must be permanent and secure, I am sure you agree. About 9-10: yes OA can help here, but only if accessibility standards are adhered to, something that is not always easy to do as we discovered ourselves with the less accessible versions of DOAS (fixed now).
Hi, the word ‘robust’ has been used as that’s what it’s called in WCAG. It means ‘interoperability with assistive technology’. I’m not keen on it though!
And yes I’m presuming accessibility has all been achieved with the principles, they are very idealistic
Hi Anna, thanks for sharing these 10 principles, it’s a great starting point! Here are some reflections upon reading the list:
A bit too technical? Several principles (e.g., about formats, machine readability) focus heavily on the technical side. While these are crucial, accessibility isn’t just a technical problem, it’s also about people, practices, and power. Social, institutional, and cultural factors matter just as much.
What about language accessibility? One key gap is linguistic accessibility. A research output that is open but only available in English (or any single language) remains inaccessible to many. Accessibility should include multilingualism, whether through translations, summaries, or inclusive language practices.
Lack of clarity on responsibility: The list could maybe address who is responsible for implementing accessibility. Without clear roles and accountability (authors, publishers, platforms, funders?), the work risks falling through the cracks
Thanks so much for this feedback, we’re always looking to review, refine and & improve content!
Language accessibility is about understanding content (which is in the principles) and is beyond the legal minimum requirements. But publishers should always be encouraged to go beyond this minimum if it’s important to their research communities.
‘Who’ is addressed in the 10 steps rather than in the principles. But something in the principles around everyone has a role to play in producing accessible content is a good addition.
