|
|
Digital Democracy for All?
Assessing Web Accessibility in Ireland
|
|
Dr. Barry McMullin
RINCE, Dublin City
University
McMullin@eeng.dcu.ie
Introduction
The technology of the Internet holds tremendous promise
to significantly improve access to information, goods, and
services for many people with disabilities. Properly
engineering web sites can interoperate with dedicated
assistive technologies to flexibly address a wide range of
disabilities (W3C, 2001).
This is not rocket science: the basic requirements have been
internationally codified since 1999 in the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0 published by the
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C, 1999), and more
recently endorsed by the European Commission
(2001) and the Irish National Disability
Authority (2002).
WCAG defines three conformance levels: WCAG-A is a
minimum standard which a site must meet to be
considered accessible for any significant disability groups;
WCAG-AA is a "professional practice" standard, which all
sites should meet to be accessible to a broad range
of disability groups; finally WCAG-AAA is a "gold standard"
of maximum accessibility which some sites may choose to aim
for--for example, sites with a particular remit to serve
communities of people with disabilities.
Over the last two years, with the support of AIB
PLC, a project has been underway at the Research Institute for Networks and
Communications Engineering (RINCE) at DCU to
investigate the conformance of the Irish web to the WCAG
guidelines. Following the development of technical support
tools, a detailed accessibility study of over 159 separate
web sites operated by Irish organisations, spanning a wide
range of activities, information, and services, was
conducted in the Summer of 2002.
These sites were tested (using Bobby
Worldwide) for a selected set of 25 separate
characteristics, or potential defects, which are correlated
with the WCAG guidelines. This set is not exhaustive: it
cannot determine that any site positively meets the
guidelines; but failure on any of these tests definitively
demonstrates failure against the guidelines.
A comprehensive description of the study is available in
(McMullin,
2002): the current paper presents only a brief
summary.
Of the sample sites studied:
- 100% failed to meet the professional practice
WCAG-AA accessibility standard;
- At least 94% failed to meet even the minimum
WCAG-A accessibility standard;
- At least 90% failed to meet minimal conformance
with other generic technical standards for web
interoperability.
Of the 25 specific accessibility barriers studied, the
most pervasive (at WCAG-A and WCAG-AA standards) were as
follows:
- Use of rigid, "pixel perfect", display coding
techniques (98.7% of sites). Many users with even
moderately impaired vision need to be able to flexibly
scale the display of web pages; however, almost all sites
in this survey placed gratuitous technical barriers in the
way of this elementary accessibility aid.
- Missing text equivalents for images (90.6% of sites).
Many web sites rely on visual images to convey certain
information, or to control interaction with the site.
If so-called "text alternatives" are provided for
these images, then the site can still be equally
accessible for users who cannot perceive such images (Flavell,
2002). However, over 90% of sites omit this simple
technical aid.
- Defective HTML coding (89.9% of sites). The global
Internet relies on communication between millions of
independently designed and built components. It can
function effectively only if these components conform to
precise technical specifications. Deficiencies in
conforming to such standards reduce the overall
reliability and usability of the network for all users (Zeldman,
2001); but they have a greatly disproportionate impact
on users with disabilities, precisely because such users
commonly rely on specialist assistive technologies. Site
developers cannot explicitly test functionality against
the large, and constantly changing, array of such niche
technologies--therefore the only way to be confident about
interoperation is to ensure that sites comply with all
relevant technical interface specifications.
- Ambiguous or meaningless hypertext links (76.7% of
sites). Hypertext links are the key mechanism for web
navigation, virtually defining the distinctive web medium.
An essential web technique is therefore the rapid scanning
of pages for relevant links. Most users with normal vision
can do this quite easily; however, users with reduced
vision, or a variety of cognitive disabilities, find it
much more difficult. A particular mechanism which can
substantially compensate for such limitations is to
extract just the links from a page, and present
these for scanning in isolation. However, if the links are
then ambiguous or meaningless ("click here", "more", etc.)
then this mechanism fails, and the user must revert to
much slower sequential scanning of the entire page
text.
- Inaccessible online forms (69.8% of sites). Many web
services rely on user interaction--on users submitting
information (requests, orders, etc.) via online forms.
Effective interaction with forms raises a variety of
distinct issues for users with various disabilities, but
careful design of the forms can ensure that they are
accessible to the greatest possible variety of users.
Unfortunately, almost 70% of sites fail to observe these
design guidelines, with the result that users with
disabilities will have difficulties completing forms
correctly, or may even be unable to use the service
completely. This tends to be a particularly prevalent
issue for e-commerce sites--which, in turn, are sites
which are potentially of unique benefit to users
with disabilities which affect general mobility.
- Inaccessible device restrictions (69.2% of sites).
Most users access the web with very similar
equipment--some sort of visual display, a mouse and a
keyboard. However, users with particular disabilities may
be unable to use some of these effectively or at all.
Specifically, many users with visual or motor disability
cannot use a mouse; however, many web sites are designed
so that certain interactions are available only
via a mouse. Again, users with disabilities are abandoned
to a degraded, or unusable, service.
- Inaccessible HTML frames technology (34.0% of sites).
HTML "frames" allow a browser window to be divided into a
number of separate frames or sub-windows, each of which
can be loaded with separate information from the web site,
and which can typically be updated, scrolled, etc.,
independently of each other. It is therefore a primarily
visual concept, which potentially raises particular
difficulties for users with visual disabilities. In fact,
HTML frames is already an obsolescent web technology, due
to a variety of intrinsic technical deficiencies (Engelfriet,
1997b). However, if a site operator still
insists on using this technology, there are a variety of
guideline techniques to minimise the additional burden
imposed on users with disabilities (Engelfriet,
1997a). Unfortunately, a substantial number
of Irish web sites do still use frames, and do so
without implementing the appropriate
accessibility techniques.
Of course, many sites exhibited a combination of these
defects, and others. However, while this list identifies a
number of pervasive accessibility barriers, it is by no
means exhaustive. For technical reasons, many other
potential accessibility barriers were not even considered in
the current study: it is likely that at least some of these
would be as pervasive as some or all of the factors
identified above. In other words, bleak as the above picture
is, it is almost certainly an understatement of the
difficulties faced by users with disabilities in accessing
the Irish Web.
This list may be a useful starting point for web
site operators in considering the accessibility of their own
individual sites: but it is, of course, no substitute
for:
- a comprehensive accessibility audit against the
complete WCAG guidelines (W3C, 2002);
- effective evaluation and testing with real users;
- robust embedding of accessibility practices into
continuing web maintenance and development.
The primary motivation for this particular study was to
inform public policy development in Ireland. The
recommendations below are therefore specifically targeted at
the Irish national context; however, at least some of them
should have wider relevance in other jurisdictions.
- Public Awareness:
- A web accessibility awareness campaign, targeted
specifically at relevant policy and decision makers in
both public and private sectors, should be an immediate
priority. This should focus explicitly on the
incorporation of accessibility requirements into all
specifications, tender documents, etc., for web
services.
- New Tools and Technologies:
- Organisations developing software and tools for web
site development should ensure that these conform to
relevant standards and guidelines for producing accessible
contents and services. Organisations sourcing or
evaluating new web development tools should make
conformance to accessibility guidelines an essential
qualifying condition.
- Leading by Example:
- A detailed timetable should be immediately published
for all Irish Government Department Web sites to achieve
WCAG-AA conformance. Reports on progress against this
timetable should be issued regularly. A co-ordinated
project to achieve conformance across the wider public
sector should be centrally initiated and monitored.
Private sector organisations should initiate similar
comprehensive commitments to an accessible Irish Web.
- Education and Training:
- Training materials, courses, etc., relevant to
universal design should be developed and promoted by the
widest possible variety of organisations involved in
education and training. Professional bodies should require
that Universal Design be incorporated in the curriculum of
all relevant educational programmes.
- Legislation:
- There should be clear Irish legislation setting
explicit, comprehensive, and legally enforceable standards
for accessibility of all Web products and services to
users with disabilities.
- Further Research:
- Research and development of technologies to support
social inclusion in the information society should be
actively encouraged, and materially supported, by both
public and private sector agencies and organisations.
This study shows that, despite Ireland's justifiable
pride in its economic and technological development, despite
very laudable goals in documents such as the E-Europe
Action Plan (European Commission,
2001,2000), the
current commitment to accessibility of the Irish web for
users with disabilities is, at best, aspirational--and, at
worst, cynically inadequate.
This is doubly unfortunate. It is not just that web
technology is not being applied--as it could be--to
positively improve opportunities and capabilities for users
with disabilities; but on the contrary, as web services
become more pervasive and essential, to the extent that they
remain inaccessible this will actually impose progressively
more disadvantage and exclusion on groups with
disabilities in our society.
It is hoped that the results of this study will serve to highlight these issues,
and to further encourage the many agencies and organisations who are already
actively promoting and supporting voluntary improvements in web accessibility
in Ireland. Ultimately however, there must surely also be a role for compulsion--legislation
and regulation--to fully guarantee and vindicate the rights of all citizens
to equal treatment in a digital democracy.
- Engelfriet, A.
(1997a),
- `Using Frames and
Accessible Web Sites', Web Design Group.
(Accessed: 2 August 2002)
- Engelfriet, A.
(1997b),
- ` What's
Wrong With Frames?', Web Design Group.
(Accessed: 2 August 2002)
- European Commission
(2000),
- `
eEurope 2002: Action Plan'.
(Accessed: 17 October 2002)
- European Commission
(2001),
- `
eEurope 2002: Accessibility of Public Web Sites and their
Content: Communication from the Commission to the Council,
the European Parliament, the Economic and Social
Committee, and the Committee of Regions', Commission
of the European Communities.
Microsoft Word Format.
(Accessed: 17 October 2002)
- Flavell, A. J.
(2002),
- ` Use
of ALT Texts in IMGs'.
(Accessed: 20 April 2002)
- Irish
National Disability Authority (2002),
- `IT Accessibility
Guidelines'.
(Accessed: 17 October 2002)
- McMullin, B.
(2002),
- `
Users with Disability Need Not Apply? Web Accessibility in
Ireland, 2002', First Monday
7(12).
- W3C
(1999),
- `Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG)', World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C).
(Accessed: 20 April 2002)
- W3C
(2001),
- `How People
with Disabilities Use the Web', World Wide Web
Consortium (W3C).
(Working Draft).
(Accessed: 20 April 2002)
- W3C (2002),
- `Evaluating Web Sites for
Accessibility', World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
(Draft WAI Resource).
(Accessed: 9 April 2003)
- Zeldman, J.
(2001),
- `To Hell With
Bad Browsers!', A List Apart (99).
(Accessed: 17 October 2002)
Copyright Policy
Accessibility
Policy
Maintainer: eaccess@rince.ie
Retour actes du colloque / Back to the proceedings
