Case 1: personalized websites

On the Web, as with clothing, one size (one size) is not really suitable for everyone. For example, people with cognitive disabilities can enjoy moderate or major websites that are radically different from those developed for the general public. People with low vision can enjoy websites specifically developed to meet their needs, large fonts, high contrast, narrower formats of pages, etc.. Some deaf people can enjoy the presence of signants avatars (animated people using sign language) and the blind can enjoy the pages with a simpler layout.

Some accessibility experts recommend specific developments for each type of disability. This type of specialization, if done properly, might address the different needs and preferences of users in a way that could not be made by a single site. Some use sophisticated methods to store user preferences in database. Some models use pre-made web pages to be used for each major category of disability. Some allow users to change style sheets "on the fly" when they display a Web page. Some of these techniques work. Others fail. In all cases, the intention is good.

Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of custom development is that it seeks to create Web content that is truly accessible to everyone. Custom developments are trying to do what a single website to rarely (if ever) meet the needs of each and ideally not only minimally.

Case 2: a single website

Despite the great possibilities of custom development, there are several problems with this approach. The biggest problem is that custom developments are difficult to create and maintain. There is a large investment of time and effort to develop different versions of websites for each of the major types of disabilities. The following questions must be addressed:

• If someone needs to update a page, this update will impact does the different versions?
• What if one version has icons and additional illustrations for people with cognitive disabilities? These icons and illustrations will they be updated along with the text is updated?
• That creates icons and illustrations on startup?
• Are there different versions of the text for different reading levels and abilities? How do these versions would they be updated?

These issues become very complex when in fact they are carefully studied.

Another problem with custom development is that it leaves out some types of disabilities. It is unrealistic to try to design a website for each type of disability. There are simply too many types of disabilities.

Finally, even people with the same type of disability often have different preferences. Some users of screen reader appreciate the navigation links at the top of the page. Others like the bottom of the page. Some people with low vision prefer a black background with yellow text expanded. Others prefer white backgrounds with black text enlarged. Some deaf people prefer to read the text. Others prefer to see sign language. It is impossible to say that development can take into account all preferences of each type of disability.

Conclusion

The objectives of the concept of custom development is laudable: to take into account everyone's needs. When resources are available, this approach may be useful for the benefit of the user. Most often, however, these additional resources are not available. A single website, developed to meet as many needs as possible people, is simply more convenient. Neither approach is easy. Both require planning, but the development of a single website is the most reasonable option.