Course:LIBR559A/Childres, D. J. (2007)

Citation: Childres, D. J. (2007). Improving the accessibility of web sites for visually impaired individuals. (Masters paper, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina). Retrieved from https://ils.unc.edu/MSpapers/3249.pdf

Objective(s): The purpose of this qualitative website evaluation study was to evaluate home pages and level-one pages of five Protection and Advocacy websites for web accessibility issues.

Sample: Five Protection and Advocacy (P&A) websites from five states whose websites from 2001 that could be accessed using the Internet Archives’ Wayback Machine were used.

Methodology: The websites were evaluated for: compliance with all three levels of priority of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0; a manual accessibility assessment; an automatic accessibility assessment; and an aesthetic appeal evaluation.

Main Results: The main results found included: First, for the manual assessment, the new websites did not improve over the old ones (Florida’s showed the most improvement); second, for the automatic accessibility assessment using an automatic accessibility tool, none of the old websites’ webpages (10 in total) passed validation; third, for the automatic assessment of accessibility of new websites, only one of the ten webpages passed validation. The home page of Florida's new website adhered to the most checkpoints. The level one pages of Florida and North Carolina adhered to the most checkpoints.

Discussion/Conclusion: The reasons why Florida's new website showed the most amount of improvement over its old website are: first, it did not use any tables (seven of the WCAG 1.0 checkpoints concern the appropriate use of tables); second, it allowed for users with screen reader technology to skip over the navigational menu by placing a link on each page of the website (increases efficiency for the user); third, it used access keys and the arrow keys for navigation instead of a mouse which is difficult for some users; and fourth, information about the accessibility of Florida’s new website is linked directly from the home page.

Pitfalls, Blind Spots, and Weaknesses of This Article: A limitation of this study is that only one automatic accessibility tool was used, so comparisons for accuracy of adherence to accessibility checkpoints across tools cannot be made. Given the diverse design of accessibility tools, it is likely that different results may be obtained across tools. This underscores the importance for evaluation researchers to be aware of how different automated accessibility tool(s) filter and utilize data when conducting assessments, and how this affects the results that they report. Another limitation of this study is that the websites that were examined did not contain multimedia or graphic images so the author encourages web developers to explore their use with ALT text and links that link to descriptions of images on websites.

Moreover, this article fails to discuss the power structure inherent in this study, the dominance of automation in assessing technology website accessibility. Behind the development of these automated accessibility tools are technology designers with privilege who have expertise that others do not possess. Just like anyone else these technology developers have biases that may influence the technologies they develop. As mentioned earlier, automated tools are designed to assess some web accessibility errors but not others. Who determines what accessibility errors are assessed and not assessed, and why? What impact does excluding assessment of some accessibility errors have on the user group(s) that desires to use this technology? Thus, inequality may be embedded in the design of technology to privilege those that can access it compared to those that cannot.

Theoretical Framework: The author implies the use of the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) with legal, social, and organizational factors influencing the progression and development of web accessibility. The author discusses Title II and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act that outline legal requirements of accessibility. The social factors that influenced the development of these laws included the disability rights movement that began in the 1960s. Organizations also started to change; for example, the American Library Association (ALA) developed a policy that “deals with libraries making all possible accommodations so that people with disabilities can access the [information] resources [and services they need].” Furthermore, the World Wide Web Consortium (WC3) developed the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) that outlines web accessibility guidelines for web designers.

Potential Contribution to The Scholarship of Social Studies of Library and Information and to The Practice of Librarianship:

This study highlights the importance of web accessibility for people with disabilities so they have the same access to information and support just like any other person. Accessibility will open doors and opportunities for people with disabilities in the different domains of life including the social studies of Library and Information and the practice of Librarianship whether as students, researchers or patrons.

Page Author: Karan Bola