Webmaster Accessibility
Content
C o m pu ters rs in H u m a nBehavi nBehavi or 2 0 (2 00 4)26 9– 28 8 www.elsevi er.com/loca te /c o m p h u m te be h
Im prov pr ov ingw ingw e b acce ac ce ssibility: ss ibility: a study of webmaster perceptions onathan Laza r*, A l fr e d a D u d l e -S on a u l e , Abstract
Large percentages of of websitescontinue to be inaccessibleto peo plew ith disab ilities. a n d w eb m as te rsin Since too ls an d g uid elin esar e ava ilab leto he lp de sig n ersan in makingtheir nclearwh y so m any sites con tinueto be inacc essible.In I n this w eb sit es accessible,it is u nclearwh pape r,w e present the ‘‘Web Accessibili AccessibilityIntegrat tyIntegration ionModel,’’ which highli highlightsthe ghtsthe multipl multiple e points points within within web dev elop m en twh w h ere ac ce ssib ilityca ilityca n be inco rpor ate d or forgotten.It It is unc erta inwh inwh y we b- mastersdo not use the var ious tools an d guid eline s surveywas created, created,and tha t cu rre nt lyar lyar e av aila blefor blefor making web sitesaccessi A surveywas sitesaccessible. ble. indic in dic atingthei ati ngtheirr kn ow ledg le dg eon the th e top ic of w data was collectedfrom collectedfrom 175webmasters, of w e b F indingsand ac ce ss ibilityan d the rea so nsfor nsfor their actions rela tedto we b ac ces sibility.Findingsand futuredirectionsfor res ea rc hare dis cu ss ed . # 2003ElsevierLtd. All rightsreserved.
1.
Introd Introduc uc tion
inf orm m ation, t ion , an d th e us e rpop ulaion io t n of Th T h e w o rld rl d w id ew e b p ro vid vi d e s aw e a lth lt hof infor th e w eb is dive rse,includ rse,includng i users of all a g e s ,educ ,educ atio at ional le vels, and le v els of of the e w e b have va rious rio us comput ing experi ence (S h neid er erm m n, n a, 2 0 00). Many usersof th isa bilities inc lud e se ns or y(e.g.he (e .g.hearing aring and vision ), types of dis abilities . Th ese d isab pair is a bililit itie ies) s) im pai m oto r (e.g.li (e.g.lim mited us e of hands)and cognitive (e.g.learning d isa ties u se variou sform s of as sis tive m e ns. t Theseusers with disabilities tiv ete ch nolog y to allow allow themto themto br ow sew sew eb site s.As s.As sis tivetec tivetec hn olog l og ies inc lud eha rdware an d soft
04-2255;fax: f ax:+1-410-7 * Correspon ding authors. T l. +1-410-7 04-3868.
270
J. Lazar et al. / Computers in Hu m anBe anBe ha vio r20 2 0 (2 00 4)269 –
Users with disabilities can can only utilize a website if it is designedto b e c o m p atible with the variou sassistive ive te ch nolog lo g ie s.A w eb site tha t is s uffi c iently flexible to be called an a c c e ssib ib le w e b s ite (Slatin used by all of th es eas sistiv ist ivete ete ch n o log log ies ie s is calledan &
R us ush, h, 2003 2003). ). An acce acce ss iblew iblew eb site site is ve ry similar similar to an a cce cc e ss ible ib leb u ilding . An a cc e ssib ib le b u ildng i offerscurb cuts,ramps,and e le vators to rs to allow a person with te t e throughth throughth e bu ild ilding i withease.An a c c e ssible disa di sa bilities iliti es to enterandnaviga ib le web site o ffe rssim rssim ilar functionality. Acce Ac cessib ility is not ju s t a h igh-le igh-le ve lth lt h e or etica l goal. C u rrent re ntly ly , th e rea re guidelines lin es that th at w eb deve deve lop ers r s ca n follow follow so tha t their th eir w eb site scan b e a ccess ible For . or F in sta st ance , the th e Web We b A cc essib ssi bility ilit y Initiative prov prov ide s gu ideline s, called th e Web C onten onten t A cces cc essi sib bility ili ty Guid Gu ide elines lin es (WCAG) to helpdevelope rs maketheirwe b sites es G o v e rnment ment o ff e r s similar a c c e ssib ib le (h ttp ://w :// w w .w 3 .org .o rg /w ai). ai) The . The United United S ta tes gu ideline sto we b de ve lop rs, res, w hichare inclu de din th e S ec tio n5 08in 08 in itiative ( h t t p:/ / w ww.sec tion 50 8.go v). A copy of th e S e c tion io n 50 8g u id elin e s is includedin Appendix io n , a u tom to mated ate d s o ftwa tw a reto o lsar ls ar e a v a ila b leto leto help fi n da cc e ssib ili ility ty A. In a d d ition flaws in w ebs ite sb e fo reth reth e sites sites a re p u b licly ly p o st ed Th T . h e s esoftw soft w a reto reto o lsin ls in c lu d e Bobby, RAMP, InF In F ocus, us , and A -Pr -P romp om p t (Ivory, Mankoff, & Le, 2 0 03) . In a d d itio it ion, new lo p ment ment tools (s ( s u chas chas D re amWea ve r an d Fron Fron tPa ge ) versions on s of w e b d e v e lop include es . G iven iven th t h at th e toolsthatassistdevelope rs rs with a cc e ssibili ib ility ty-r -re lated leated is s ues. guidelines stw ebs ite s w o uldbe ac ce sible.In s ible.In and too lsare the re,it s ee m sho peful th a tm o stw fact, for governmentinfor m an yg ove rnmen ts m ake w eb acc es sibi lity a requirementfor n ment inform ation on th e w eb The . The United United Stat St ates, es, E ng lan la n d ,Ca ,C a na da, Po rtu rt u g al, l, and Australia require sometypes of go of go ve rnmen t in form form atio at ion n to b e a c c e ssib i b le (Slatin & Rush, 2 0 03) . Un fortuna rtu na ely, e t ly, most websites are not cu rr e ntly a cc e ssible ib le .Re ce n tstu dies ie s point out th at larg la rg ep er ce n tag t ag es(7 0 –98%, 8% , d epen ding di ng on t h e c a t e g ory ry of site) of web sitesare not a c c e ssib ce , in rece re ce n tst u dies, p riv rivat ate e and non-profit ib le . For in s t a nce, websites(La websites(Lazar zar B ee re G re e nidg e, & Nagappa, Nagappa,2003 2003), ), for fo r-pr o fi t co m m e rce rce web
J. Lazar et al. / Computers in Hu m anBe ha vio r2 0 (2 00 4)269 –
2. Web Accessibility Integration
2 71
Model
W eb accessibility le ve lsar e low, ye t th e tools and gu idelinese xistto he lp.Th us, it remains unclearwh y this is the case. To help in understan ding th e pro blem, th e re searcherscreated a m od el,ca l ed the W eb Ac cessib ility Integratio nM odel, which highlights th e va rio usinflu en ce son the access ibi lity, or inac cessibility ,of a we b site . The hop eis thatthis m odel will helpspurotherresear chersto in ve stigat eall of th e diff ere nta n gle sof ac ce ssibilityan d to learnhow to makesitesmore accessible. 2.1 . Societa l fou ndatio ns
Society pla ce sva lueon differe ntsk illsets. Ho w muchis web accessibilityv alued? It varies. Ac cessib ility , or designin gcom puter s for people with disabilities, is not a stan dard part of an y national c urricu lum in Computer Scien ce(CS), Information i train ing in Syst ems (IS), or In fo rmatio n Technolo gy(IT)(La zar, 2002). In ad diton, ac ce ssibilityfor currentIT workers is ra re outside of gove rn ment. At the sa m etime , policy and law in m an ycoun triese nco ura gew eb ac ce s ibilit y, and in fact, accessib le or chan ge the pa tternsof education. This is co nflicting: in
2 72
J. Lazar et al. / Computers in Hu m anBe ha vio r2 0 (2 00 4)269 –
accessibility ,is in factmissing,b ut accessibilityis note dby gove rnment as a societal 2 .2. Stakeh old erperceptions
Societalfo undation sh elp to influencethe stake ho ldersinvolved in a specific w eb site de ve lop m ent pr oje ct. The people who de cid ewh ether a site will be built for d evelopersand the c lients. It is like ly that if acc essibilityor not are the w eb neither of th esegro ups of pe op leare aw areof or passionateab ou tw eba ccessibilit y, then a 2.3.Web d evelopment
The societalfoundationsand stakehol der perceptio n s in fluence th e actual w eb dev elop m ent. Th ere is anothe r im pact on both initial site de sig nand subseque nt re -d esign :gu id elinesand tools. Thes egu idelinesa nd tools helpn ot only we bdeve lopers and w ebmaste rs with guidance,but also theseguidelinesand tools help providethe current‘‘workin g definition’’ for w eb acc essib ility. W eb deve lopers and w ebmastersar e lik ely to follo w the too ls an d guide line sthat are ava il able to them. Good, well-written g uideline s, and powerfu l s oftw are tools are likely to help im prove le vels of ac ce ssibility.Poorly-w ritten, confu sing guid elin es, andhard to use or un clearsoftw aretoo lsare like ly to ke epsitesfrom be coming accessible.
3. Research methodology
A surv eyw asdev elop edwithquestio , ns askingwe bm as ters about theirknowledge of w eb acc essibility and the ir pe rce ptions of when and why web sites should or should not be acc essible.Th e go al of thissurveywas to be explora tory in nature. Web acc essibility is not a topic that has been re searched in greatdepth. While guidelines for web acce s ibilit y exist, research s urround ing th e eff ectiven es sof th os eg uid elines , how IT workers inter actwith thoseguidelines,and reasonsfor im plem e nting ac ce ssibility dono t exist
J. Lazar et al. / Computers in Hu m anBe ha vio r2 0 (2 00 4)269 –
2 73
surveywasth enposte don the w eb .Gu ide line sfor good websurveyusability were followed (Lazar & Preece,1 999). Info rm ation ab ou tthe su rveywas distribu tedto a numberof lis ts erve rs(in the fields of IS, CS, Managem ent In fo rmatio n S ys tems, and Library Science)t hatincludewebmas ters,an d w ebmaste rstha tw ere kn ow n to th e t e. Sinc ethe go al of th e su rv eyw as re se arch team w ereal so in vitedto participa not to create population estima t es, a diverse sa m ple, ra therth an a random sam ple,
4.
Results
Sincethis is a paper focu singon the topic of accessibi lity, th e re se arch ers decided to pre se ntdata in tabula r format,evenif th e sa m eda ta is availablein graphical 4.1. Demographics
Of the 17 5respo ndets, nts n 103in dicated th at the yw erem ale, and 72 responde indicated th at theyw er efemale. Table 1 and Fig. 2 reportthesedata. Table 2 an Table 1 Respo ndents by Gender
Number
Male Female
1 03 72
2 74
J. Lazar et al. / Computers in Hu m anBe ha vio r2 0 (2 00 4)269 –
Fig. 3 re port the ageof su rveyrespond en ts.Of the resp on dets, n sevenre ported that the yar ebetw ee n18 –2 4ye arsold , 86 rep orted tha ttheyarebetw ee n25 –3 5y ea rsold, 47 rep orted tha tthe ya rebetw ee n36–4 5yea rsold, 2 9 respo ndnts e reported that they a re4 6–6 0ye arsold , five res ponde nt srepo tred th atth eya reb etween 60–7 0ye arsold, an d on e re sp on de nt repo tred that theya re above 70 ye ar sold. Table 3 and Fig. 4 ad d res sth e ex pe irencelevelreported by surveyresponden ts. In terest ing ly,no one consid e re d him self /h erself a novice use r,w hile 11 9 re sp on dets n indicatedthat they are com pu terex pe trs, an d 56 indicated that th ey ar e interm edate i co m pute r users. 4 .2. Respo ns esto ma insu rve yqu es tion s
Q ue stions 1–9 are close d-en dedquesti ons, fo cu sing o n curren tand fu ture we b site ac ce s ibility, w eb m as ter knowledge, and w ebmas ter e xp erience with various ie s for each question, and Fig. 7 so ftw are too sl . Table 6 displays th e frequenc displays th e data graphically. Table 2 Age grou p Age group
Number
18–24 25–35 36–45 46–60 60–70 70+
7 86 47 29 5 1
J. Lazar et al. / Computers in Hu m anBe ha vio r2 0 (2 00 4)269 –
2 75
Table 3 Computer Computing
Number
Expert Intermed i ate
11 9 56
Table 4 Locationof
Locatio
Number
United States Internatio nal
79 25 71
of Fig. 4. Comp utingexperience
J. Lazar et al. / Computers in Hu m anBe ha vio r2 0 (2 00 4)269 –
2 87
Yes No
Not Sure 7 . Have you ever used a non-w eb-based acce s ib ility tool, e.g., A-Prompt, INFOCUS, PageScreamer? Yes No
Not Sure 8. Ha ve yo u ev ertestedyo urw ebsite using a sc reenre ad er ?(A scre enread er reads th e te xt out lo ud in compute r-synthes ized spee ch.) No
Not Sure 9. Do esyourorg anizatio n have any plansto m ake your w ebsite accessib le to u sers with visu alim pa irments in th e future ? No
Not Sure 1 0 . Are you familiar with any of the follow ingacc essibility guidelin esfr om th e Web Accessibility Initiative? (Checkall thatapply): Authoring Tool Accessibility User AgentAccessibility Not fa miliar with any ac ce ssib ility gu id elines 11. W ha td o you th ink is the biggest ch all engeof makinga w ebsite accessib le for us erswith vis ua limp airm ents ?Explain. 12. Who do yo u th ink sh ould be re spon sible for makinga w eb siteaccess ible for System sAnalyst/Engineer Programmer Help Desk Manager Disability Compliance Office Why? 1 3 . What factors w ou ld influen ceyou to make your currentsite (gover nment, co rporate ,and/or pe rsonal) ac ce ssib lefor userswithvisualim pairments?
14 .When yo um akeup da testo yo urw eb sit e, do yo u cons ide rthefa cto rof making 1 5. Do you considerethics in planning an d/orup datin g yo ur curren t w e bsites? Why or Why not?
2 88
J. Lazar et al. / Computers in Hu m anBe ha vio r2 0 (2 00 4)269 –
References
Ceaparu,I., & Shneider man , B . (2 0 0 2 ).Improvi ng We b-b ase dcivic info rm atio naccess:a ca sestu dyof th e of the IEEE Internatio 5 0 US States.P roceedings nal Symposium on Te ch nol ogya nd S ociey, t 275– 282. ). Dudley-Sp o naugle,A., & Lazar, J. (2 0 0 3 The et hic alim plic ation s of webaccessibilityfor users with ce Manage ment Association 2003 disabilities. Procee dingsof the InformationResour Internatio nal Conferen ce, 1 0 9 – 111. a tools to improvewebsiteusageby users Ivory,M., Mankoff, J., & Le, A. (2003).U s i ng a u t o mted with y, 1(3),1 9 5 – 263. div erseab ilities.IT andSociet Jo hnso n,D. (2001).C o m p u t e er thic s(3rded .).Up per Sad dleRive r, NJ: Pre nticeHall. Lazar, J. (200 2).I nteg ratingaccessibi lity into the inf orm a t ion sys tem s cu rric ulu m. Proceedingsof the Internatio nal A ss oc ia tio nfo r C o m p u t eIn r fo rm ati onSys te m s, 373–379 . ity in the mid -Atlantic Laza r,J., Bee re,P., Gre enidg e,K., & Nagappa, Y. (2003).Webaccessibil United States:a studyof 50 we bsites.Un iver sal Ac ce ssin theIn for ma tion S o ciet y,2 (4 ),1–1 1. Lazar, J., Greenidge,K. (2003).O ne year older,but not nece ssarilywiser:an eva luationof homepage accessibili ty p ro blems ov ertime(u nd erre vie w) . ng and im ple menting we b-b as edsu rve ys.Jou rn al of Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (1999).D esigni Computer Informa tion Sy st e m s, 39(4 ),63 –6 7 . Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (2 0 0 1 ).Using electronicsurveysto evaluatenetworkedresources:from idea to implementati tion services: on. In C. McClure, & J. B erto t (E d s. ),Evaluatingnetworkedinforma Medford,NJ: Inform ation Today. techniq ues,p olicy,andissu es(pp .137–1 54). ties. Lawrence,KS: CMP Books. Paciello,M. (2000).Webaccessibilityfor peo plewithdisa bili ter ms. Ne w Yor k: The McGraw-Hill Pence,G. (2 0 0 0 ).A dict iona ryof co m m onph iloso ph ical Companies . Sharff,R., & Dusek,V. (Eds .).( 20 03 ).Ph ilos o p hy of te ch no log y: th e technologic al conditio n. Malden, MA:
Im prov pr ov ingw ingw e b acce ac ce ssibility: ss ibility: a study of webmaster perceptions onathan Laza r*, A l fr e d a D u d l e -S on a u l e , Abstract
Large percentages of of websitescontinue to be inaccessibleto peo plew ith disab ilities. a n d w eb m as te rsin Since too ls an d g uid elin esar e ava ilab leto he lp de sig n ersan in makingtheir nclearwh y so m any sites con tinueto be inacc essible.In I n this w eb sit es accessible,it is u nclearwh pape r,w e present the ‘‘Web Accessibili AccessibilityIntegrat tyIntegration ionModel,’’ which highli highlightsthe ghtsthe multipl multiple e points points within within web dev elop m en twh w h ere ac ce ssib ilityca ilityca n be inco rpor ate d or forgotten.It It is unc erta inwh inwh y we b- mastersdo not use the var ious tools an d guid eline s surveywas created, created,and tha t cu rre nt lyar lyar e av aila blefor blefor making web sitesaccessi A surveywas sitesaccessible. ble. indic in dic atingthei ati ngtheirr kn ow ledg le dg eon the th e top ic of w data was collectedfrom collectedfrom 175webmasters, of w e b F indingsand ac ce ss ibilityan d the rea so nsfor nsfor their actions rela tedto we b ac ces sibility.Findingsand futuredirectionsfor res ea rc hare dis cu ss ed . # 2003ElsevierLtd. All rightsreserved.
1.
Introd Introduc uc tion
inf orm m ation, t ion , an d th e us e rpop ulaion io t n of Th T h e w o rld rl d w id ew e b p ro vid vi d e s aw e a lth lt hof infor th e w eb is dive rse,includ rse,includng i users of all a g e s ,educ ,educ atio at ional le vels, and le v els of of the e w e b have va rious rio us comput ing experi ence (S h neid er erm m n, n a, 2 0 00). Many usersof th isa bilities inc lud e se ns or y(e.g.he (e .g.hearing aring and vision ), types of dis abilities . Th ese d isab pair is a bililit itie ies) s) im pai m oto r (e.g.li (e.g.lim mited us e of hands)and cognitive (e.g.learning d isa ties u se variou sform s of as sis tive m e ns. t Theseusers with disabilities tiv ete ch nolog y to allow allow themto themto br ow sew sew eb site s.As s.As sis tivetec tivetec hn olog l og ies inc lud eha rdware an d soft
04-2255;fax: f ax:+1-410-7 * Correspon ding authors. T l. +1-410-7 04-3868.
270
J. Lazar et al. / Computers in Hu m anBe anBe ha vio r20 2 0 (2 00 4)269 –
Users with disabilities can can only utilize a website if it is designedto b e c o m p atible with the variou sassistive ive te ch nolog lo g ie s.A w eb site tha t is s uffi c iently flexible to be called an a c c e ssib ib le w e b s ite (Slatin used by all of th es eas sistiv ist ivete ete ch n o log log ies ie s is calledan &
R us ush, h, 2003 2003). ). An acce acce ss iblew iblew eb site site is ve ry similar similar to an a cce cc e ss ible ib leb u ilding . An a cc e ssib ib le b u ildng i offerscurb cuts,ramps,and e le vators to rs to allow a person with te t e throughth throughth e bu ild ilding i withease.An a c c e ssible disa di sa bilities iliti es to enterandnaviga ib le web site o ffe rssim rssim ilar functionality. Acce Ac cessib ility is not ju s t a h igh-le igh-le ve lth lt h e or etica l goal. C u rrent re ntly ly , th e rea re guidelines lin es that th at w eb deve deve lop ers r s ca n follow follow so tha t their th eir w eb site scan b e a ccess ible For . or F in sta st ance , the th e Web We b A cc essib ssi bility ilit y Initiative prov prov ide s gu ideline s, called th e Web C onten onten t A cces cc essi sib bility ili ty Guid Gu ide elines lin es (WCAG) to helpdevelope rs maketheirwe b sites es G o v e rnment ment o ff e r s similar a c c e ssib ib le (h ttp ://w :// w w .w 3 .org .o rg /w ai). ai) The . The United United S ta tes gu ideline sto we b de ve lop rs, res, w hichare inclu de din th e S ec tio n5 08in 08 in itiative ( h t t p:/ / w ww.sec tion 50 8.go v). A copy of th e S e c tion io n 50 8g u id elin e s is includedin Appendix io n , a u tom to mated ate d s o ftwa tw a reto o lsar ls ar e a v a ila b leto leto help fi n da cc e ssib ili ility ty A. In a d d ition flaws in w ebs ite sb e fo reth reth e sites sites a re p u b licly ly p o st ed Th T . h e s esoftw soft w a reto reto o lsin ls in c lu d e Bobby, RAMP, InF In F ocus, us , and A -Pr -P romp om p t (Ivory, Mankoff, & Le, 2 0 03) . In a d d itio it ion, new lo p ment ment tools (s ( s u chas chas D re amWea ve r an d Fron Fron tPa ge ) versions on s of w e b d e v e lop include es . G iven iven th t h at th e toolsthatassistdevelope rs rs with a cc e ssibili ib ility ty-r -re lated leated is s ues. guidelines stw ebs ite s w o uldbe ac ce sible.In s ible.In and too lsare the re,it s ee m sho peful th a tm o stw fact, for governmentinfor m an yg ove rnmen ts m ake w eb acc es sibi lity a requirementfor n ment inform ation on th e w eb The . The United United Stat St ates, es, E ng lan la n d ,Ca ,C a na da, Po rtu rt u g al, l, and Australia require sometypes of go of go ve rnmen t in form form atio at ion n to b e a c c e ssib i b le (Slatin & Rush, 2 0 03) . Un fortuna rtu na ely, e t ly, most websites are not cu rr e ntly a cc e ssible ib le .Re ce n tstu dies ie s point out th at larg la rg ep er ce n tag t ag es(7 0 –98%, 8% , d epen ding di ng on t h e c a t e g ory ry of site) of web sitesare not a c c e ssib ce , in rece re ce n tst u dies, p riv rivat ate e and non-profit ib le . For in s t a nce, websites(La websites(Lazar zar B ee re G re e nidg e, & Nagappa, Nagappa,2003 2003), ), for fo r-pr o fi t co m m e rce rce web
J. Lazar et al. / Computers in Hu m anBe ha vio r2 0 (2 00 4)269 –
2. Web Accessibility Integration
2 71
Model
W eb accessibility le ve lsar e low, ye t th e tools and gu idelinese xistto he lp.Th us, it remains unclearwh y this is the case. To help in understan ding th e pro blem, th e re searcherscreated a m od el,ca l ed the W eb Ac cessib ility Integratio nM odel, which highlights th e va rio usinflu en ce son the access ibi lity, or inac cessibility ,of a we b site . The hop eis thatthis m odel will helpspurotherresear chersto in ve stigat eall of th e diff ere nta n gle sof ac ce ssibilityan d to learnhow to makesitesmore accessible. 2.1 . Societa l fou ndatio ns
Society pla ce sva lueon differe ntsk illsets. Ho w muchis web accessibilityv alued? It varies. Ac cessib ility , or designin gcom puter s for people with disabilities, is not a stan dard part of an y national c urricu lum in Computer Scien ce(CS), Information i train ing in Syst ems (IS), or In fo rmatio n Technolo gy(IT)(La zar, 2002). In ad diton, ac ce ssibilityfor currentIT workers is ra re outside of gove rn ment. At the sa m etime , policy and law in m an ycoun triese nco ura gew eb ac ce s ibilit y, and in fact, accessib le or chan ge the pa tternsof education. This is co nflicting: in
2 72
J. Lazar et al. / Computers in Hu m anBe ha vio r2 0 (2 00 4)269 –
accessibility ,is in factmissing,b ut accessibilityis note dby gove rnment as a societal 2 .2. Stakeh old erperceptions
Societalfo undation sh elp to influencethe stake ho ldersinvolved in a specific w eb site de ve lop m ent pr oje ct. The people who de cid ewh ether a site will be built for d evelopersand the c lients. It is like ly that if acc essibilityor not are the w eb neither of th esegro ups of pe op leare aw areof or passionateab ou tw eba ccessibilit y, then a 2.3.Web d evelopment
The societalfoundationsand stakehol der perceptio n s in fluence th e actual w eb dev elop m ent. Th ere is anothe r im pact on both initial site de sig nand subseque nt re -d esign :gu id elinesand tools. Thes egu idelinesa nd tools helpn ot only we bdeve lopers and w ebmaste rs with guidance,but also theseguidelinesand tools help providethe current‘‘workin g definition’’ for w eb acc essib ility. W eb deve lopers and w ebmastersar e lik ely to follo w the too ls an d guide line sthat are ava il able to them. Good, well-written g uideline s, and powerfu l s oftw are tools are likely to help im prove le vels of ac ce ssibility.Poorly-w ritten, confu sing guid elin es, andhard to use or un clearsoftw aretoo lsare like ly to ke epsitesfrom be coming accessible.
3. Research methodology
A surv eyw asdev elop edwithquestio , ns askingwe bm as ters about theirknowledge of w eb acc essibility and the ir pe rce ptions of when and why web sites should or should not be acc essible.Th e go al of thissurveywas to be explora tory in nature. Web acc essibility is not a topic that has been re searched in greatdepth. While guidelines for web acce s ibilit y exist, research s urround ing th e eff ectiven es sof th os eg uid elines , how IT workers inter actwith thoseguidelines,and reasonsfor im plem e nting ac ce ssibility dono t exist
J. Lazar et al. / Computers in Hu m anBe ha vio r2 0 (2 00 4)269 –
2 73
surveywasth enposte don the w eb .Gu ide line sfor good websurveyusability were followed (Lazar & Preece,1 999). Info rm ation ab ou tthe su rveywas distribu tedto a numberof lis ts erve rs(in the fields of IS, CS, Managem ent In fo rmatio n S ys tems, and Library Science)t hatincludewebmas ters,an d w ebmaste rstha tw ere kn ow n to th e t e. Sinc ethe go al of th e su rv eyw as re se arch team w ereal so in vitedto participa not to create population estima t es, a diverse sa m ple, ra therth an a random sam ple,
4.
Results
Sincethis is a paper focu singon the topic of accessibi lity, th e re se arch ers decided to pre se ntdata in tabula r format,evenif th e sa m eda ta is availablein graphical 4.1. Demographics
Of the 17 5respo ndets, nts n 103in dicated th at the yw erem ale, and 72 responde indicated th at theyw er efemale. Table 1 and Fig. 2 reportthesedata. Table 2 an Table 1 Respo ndents by Gender
Number
Male Female
1 03 72
2 74
J. Lazar et al. / Computers in Hu m anBe ha vio r2 0 (2 00 4)269 –
Fig. 3 re port the ageof su rveyrespond en ts.Of the resp on dets, n sevenre ported that the yar ebetw ee n18 –2 4ye arsold , 86 rep orted tha ttheyarebetw ee n25 –3 5y ea rsold, 47 rep orted tha tthe ya rebetw ee n36–4 5yea rsold, 2 9 respo ndnts e reported that they a re4 6–6 0ye arsold , five res ponde nt srepo tred th atth eya reb etween 60–7 0ye arsold, an d on e re sp on de nt repo tred that theya re above 70 ye ar sold. Table 3 and Fig. 4 ad d res sth e ex pe irencelevelreported by surveyresponden ts. In terest ing ly,no one consid e re d him self /h erself a novice use r,w hile 11 9 re sp on dets n indicatedthat they are com pu terex pe trs, an d 56 indicated that th ey ar e interm edate i co m pute r users. 4 .2. Respo ns esto ma insu rve yqu es tion s
Q ue stions 1–9 are close d-en dedquesti ons, fo cu sing o n curren tand fu ture we b site ac ce s ibility, w eb m as ter knowledge, and w ebmas ter e xp erience with various ie s for each question, and Fig. 7 so ftw are too sl . Table 6 displays th e frequenc displays th e data graphically. Table 2 Age grou p Age group
Number
18–24 25–35 36–45 46–60 60–70 70+
7 86 47 29 5 1
J. Lazar et al. / Computers in Hu m anBe ha vio r2 0 (2 00 4)269 –
2 75
Table 3 Computer Computing
Number
Expert Intermed i ate
11 9 56
Table 4 Locationof
Locatio
Number
United States Internatio nal
79 25 71
of Fig. 4. Comp utingexperience
J. Lazar et al. / Computers in Hu m anBe ha vio r2 0 (2 00 4)269 –
2 87
Yes No
Not Sure 7 . Have you ever used a non-w eb-based acce s ib ility tool, e.g., A-Prompt, INFOCUS, PageScreamer? Yes No
Not Sure 8. Ha ve yo u ev ertestedyo urw ebsite using a sc reenre ad er ?(A scre enread er reads th e te xt out lo ud in compute r-synthes ized spee ch.) No
Not Sure 9. Do esyourorg anizatio n have any plansto m ake your w ebsite accessib le to u sers with visu alim pa irments in th e future ? No
Not Sure 1 0 . Are you familiar with any of the follow ingacc essibility guidelin esfr om th e Web Accessibility Initiative? (Checkall thatapply): Authoring Tool Accessibility User AgentAccessibility Not fa miliar with any ac ce ssib ility gu id elines 11. W ha td o you th ink is the biggest ch all engeof makinga w ebsite accessib le for us erswith vis ua limp airm ents ?Explain. 12. Who do yo u th ink sh ould be re spon sible for makinga w eb siteaccess ible for System sAnalyst/Engineer Programmer Help Desk Manager Disability Compliance Office Why? 1 3 . What factors w ou ld influen ceyou to make your currentsite (gover nment, co rporate ,and/or pe rsonal) ac ce ssib lefor userswithvisualim pairments?
14 .When yo um akeup da testo yo urw eb sit e, do yo u cons ide rthefa cto rof making 1 5. Do you considerethics in planning an d/orup datin g yo ur curren t w e bsites? Why or Why not?
2 88
J. Lazar et al. / Computers in Hu m anBe ha vio r2 0 (2 00 4)269 –
References
Ceaparu,I., & Shneider man , B . (2 0 0 2 ).Improvi ng We b-b ase dcivic info rm atio naccess:a ca sestu dyof th e of the IEEE Internatio 5 0 US States.P roceedings nal Symposium on Te ch nol ogya nd S ociey, t 275– 282. ). Dudley-Sp o naugle,A., & Lazar, J. (2 0 0 3 The et hic alim plic ation s of webaccessibilityfor users with ce Manage ment Association 2003 disabilities. Procee dingsof the InformationResour Internatio nal Conferen ce, 1 0 9 – 111. a tools to improvewebsiteusageby users Ivory,M., Mankoff, J., & Le, A. (2003).U s i ng a u t o mted with y, 1(3),1 9 5 – 263. div erseab ilities.IT andSociet Jo hnso n,D. (2001).C o m p u t e er thic s(3rded .).Up per Sad dleRive r, NJ: Pre nticeHall. Lazar, J. (200 2).I nteg ratingaccessibi lity into the inf orm a t ion sys tem s cu rric ulu m. Proceedingsof the Internatio nal A ss oc ia tio nfo r C o m p u t eIn r fo rm ati onSys te m s, 373–379 . ity in the mid -Atlantic Laza r,J., Bee re,P., Gre enidg e,K., & Nagappa, Y. (2003).Webaccessibil United States:a studyof 50 we bsites.Un iver sal Ac ce ssin theIn for ma tion S o ciet y,2 (4 ),1–1 1. Lazar, J., Greenidge,K. (2003).O ne year older,but not nece ssarilywiser:an eva luationof homepage accessibili ty p ro blems ov ertime(u nd erre vie w) . ng and im ple menting we b-b as edsu rve ys.Jou rn al of Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (1999).D esigni Computer Informa tion Sy st e m s, 39(4 ),63 –6 7 . Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (2 0 0 1 ).Using electronicsurveysto evaluatenetworkedresources:from idea to implementati tion services: on. In C. McClure, & J. B erto t (E d s. ),Evaluatingnetworkedinforma Medford,NJ: Inform ation Today. techniq ues,p olicy,andissu es(pp .137–1 54). ties. Lawrence,KS: CMP Books. Paciello,M. (2000).Webaccessibilityfor peo plewithdisa bili ter ms. Ne w Yor k: The McGraw-Hill Pence,G. (2 0 0 0 ).A dict iona ryof co m m onph iloso ph ical Companies . Sharff,R., & Dusek,V. (Eds .).( 20 03 ).Ph ilos o p hy of te ch no log y: th e technologic al conditio n. Malden, MA:
