Skip to main content
Log in

An exploratory study of the accessibility of state government Web sites

  • LONG PAPER
  • Published:
Universal Access in the Information Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper focuses on Web accessibility. Relevant legislation and judicial decisions are reviewed, and prior empirical research is presented. This study presents the results from the Web accessibility analysis of the home pages of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. It found that twenty-nine percent of the home pages do not meet the requirements for Conformance Level A Web accessibility. Only one state meets Conformance Level AA standards, which are the minimum standards recommended for Web accessibility, and no state meets Conformance Level AAA standards. This paper also discusses how to address common accessibility problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Some newer, tagged PDF documents are accessible to users with visual impairments who use screen readers.

  2. Available at http://www.bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp

  3. They will allow researchers to use Bobby™ on Web sites that are not controlled by the researcher provided that only summative results are published.

  4. The sites were analyzed during Spring 2004.

References

  1. Abascal J, Arrue M, Fajardo I, Garay, N, Tomas J (2004) The use of guidelines to automatically verify Web accessibility. Universal Access Inf Soc 3(1):71–79

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bohman P (2003) Introduction to Web accessibility. Available: http://www/Webaim.org/intro/ accessed 3 November 2004

  3. BrailleNet (2003). Des sites Web français de la vie quotidienne sont inaccessibles aux personnes handicapées (“Some French Web sites of the daily life are inaccessible by individuals with disabilities”). Available: http://www.braillenet.org/eval_30sites_France_10sept2003.htm accessed 4 March 2005

  4. Bray M, Flowers CP, Smith S, Algozzine RF (2003). Accessibility of elementary school’s Web sites for students with disabilities. Education 123(4):815–830

    Google Scholar 

  5. Craven J (2000) Electronic access for all: awareness in creating accessible Web sites for the university library. Disability and information systems in higher education (DISinHE). Available: http://www.dmag.org/resources/ casestudies/cravenfull.asp#1 accessed 17 September 2003

  6. Chisholm W, Vanderheiden G, Jacobs I (1999) Web content accessibility guidelines. Available: http://www.w3c.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ accessed 3 November 2004

  7. Ellison J (2004) Assessing the accessibility of fifty United States government Web pages: using Bobby to check on Uncle Sam. First Monday. 9(7). http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_7/ellison/index.html accessed 2 March 2005

  8. Goette T, Collier C (2004) Web site accessibility. Southeast Decision Sciences Institute. In: Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting, pp 321–323

  9. Guenther K (2002) Section 508 and your Web site. Online 26(2):71–75

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gutierrez CF, Loucopoulos C (2002) Web site accessibility: Do Fortune 500 companies comply? In: Proceedings of Decision Sciences Institute, pp 1415–1420

  11. How to read the Bobby online report (2003) Watchfire. Available online: http://www.bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp accessed 17 September 2003

  12. Jackson-Sanborn E, Oders-Harnish K, Warren N (2002) Web site accessibility: a study of six genres. Library Hi Tech 20(3):308–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lazar J, Beere P, Greenidge K, Nagappa Y (2003) Web accessibility in the Mid-Atlantic United States: a study of 50 homepages. Universal Access Inf Soc 2:331–341

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lilly EB, Van Fleet C (1999) Wired but not connected: accessibility of academic library home pages. Ref Librar 67/68:5–28

    Google Scholar 

  15. Marincu C, McMullin B (2004) A comparative assessment of Web accessibility and technical standards conformance in four EU states. First Monday 9(7). http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_7/marincu/index.html accessed 2 March 2005

  16. National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (1998) New review of NIDDR grantees Web sites. Res Exch 3(3):12–14

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pike GH (2003) Disability access and the Internet. Inf Today 20(2):19–20

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rowland C (1999) University-affiliated programs face Web accessibility issues. CPD News 22(3):1–5

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rowland C, Smith T (1999) Web site accessibility. The power of independence. Outreach Division, Center for Persons with Disabilities: Utah State University

  20. Schmetzke A (2001) Web accessibility at university libraries and library schools. Library Hi Tech 19(1):35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Waddell CD (2002) ‘Electronic curbcuts’ the ADA in cyberspace. Hum Rights J Sect Individ Rights Responsib 27(1):22–24

    Google Scholar 

  22. Walden B, Rowland C, Bohman P (2000) Year one report. Learning anytime anywhere for anyone. Unpublished report to the U.S. Department of Education FIPSE/LAAP

  23. West Darrell M (2004) State and Federal E-Government in the United States, 2004. Center for Public Policy, Brown University. http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt04us.pdf accessed 4 March 2005

  24. West Darrell M (2002) State and Federal E-Government in the United States, 2002. Center for Public Policy, Brown University. http://www.insidepolitics.org/Egovt02us.html accessed 2 March 2005

  25. When the Americans with Disabilities Act goes online: application of the ADAto the Internet and the Worldwide Web (2003). Position Paper of the National Council on Disability, 10 July 2003, Lex Frieden, Chairperson

  26. www.section508.gov accessed 3 November 2004

  27. Zavoina A (2001) “Curb cuts” for Website? American bankers association. ABA Banking J 93(8):53–55

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tanya Goette.

Appendix: Web content accessibility checkpoints [6]

Appendix: Web content accessibility checkpoints [6]

Priority 1 checkpoints

  1. 1.1

    Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via “alt”, “longdesc”, or in element content). This includes: images, graphical representations of text (including symbols), image map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects, ascii art, frames, scripts, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video.

  2. 1.2

    Provide redundant text links for each active region of a server-side image map.

  3. 1.3

    Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text equivalent of a visual track, provide an auditory description of the important information of the visual track of a multimedia presentation.

  4. 1.4

    For any time-based multimedia presentation (e.g., a movie or animation), synchronize equivalent alternatives (e.g., captions or auditory descriptions of the visual track) with the presentation.

  5. 2.1

    Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup.

  6. 4.1

    Clearly identify changes in the natural language of a document’s text and any text equivalents (e.g., captions).

  7. 5.1

    For data tables, identify row and column headers.

  8. 5.2

    For data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers, use markup to associate data cells and header cells.

  9. 6.1

    Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets. For example, when an HTML document is rendered without associated style sheets, it must still be possible to read the document.

  10. 6.2

    Ensure that equivalents for dynamic content are updated when the dynamic content changes.

  11. 6.3

    Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible page.

  12. 7.1

    Until user agents allow users to control flickering, avoid causing the screen to flicker.

  13. 9.1

    Provide client-side image maps instead of server-side image maps except where the regions cannot be defined with an available geometric shape.

  14. 11.4

    If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page.

  15. 12.1

    Title each frame to facilitate frame identification and navigation.

  16. 14.1

    Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site’s content.

Priority 2 checkpoints

  1. 2.2

    Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen. (Priority 2 for images, Priority 3 for text.)

  2. 3.1

    When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images to convey information.

  3. 3.2

    Create documents that validate to published formal grammars.

  4. 3.3

    Use style sheets to control layout and presentation.

  5. 3.4

    Use relative rather than absolute units in markup language attribute values and style sheet property values.

  6. 3.5

    Use header elements to convey document structure and use them according to specification.

  7. 3.6

    Mark up lists and list items properly.

  8. 3.7

    Mark up quotations. Do not use quotation markup for formatting effects such as indentation.

  9. 5.3

    Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized. Otherwise, if the table does not make sense, provide an alternative equivalent (which may be a linearized version).

  10. 5.4

    If a table is used for layout, do not use any structural markup for the purpose of visual formatting.

  11. 6.4

    For scripts and applets, ensure that event handlers are input device-independent.

  12. 6.5

    Ensure that dynamic content is accessible or provide an alternative presentation or page.

  13. 7.2

    Until user agents allow users to control blinking, avoid causing content to blink (i.e., change presentation at a regular rate, such as turning on and off).

  14. 7.3

    Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid movement in pages.

  15. 7.4

    Until user agents provide the ability to stop the refresh, do not create periodically auto-refreshing pages.

  16. 7.5

    Until user agents provide the ability to stop auto-redirect, do not use markup to redirect pages automatically. Instead, configure the server to perform redirects.

  17. 8.1

    Make programmatic elements such as scripts and applets directly accessible or compatible with assistive technologies. (Priority 1 if functionality is important and not presented elsewhere, otherwise Priority 2.)

  18. 9.2

    Ensure that any element that has its own interface can be operated in a device-independent manner.

  19. 9.3

    For scripts, specify logical event handlers rather than device-dependent event handlers.

  20. 10.1

    Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window without informing the user.

  21. 10.2

    Until user agents support explicit associations between labels and form controls, for all form controls with implicitly associated labels, ensure that the label is properly positioned.

  22. 11.1

    Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when supported.

  23. 11.2

    Avoid deprecated features of W3C technologies.

  24. 12.2

    Describe the purpose of frames and how frames relate to each other if it is not obvious by frame titles alone.

  25. 12.3

    Divide large blocks of information into more manageable groups where natural and appropriate.

  26. 12.4

    Associate labels explicitly with their controls.

  27. 13.1

    Clearly identify the target of each link.

  28. 13.2

    Provide metadata to add semantic information to pages and sites.

  29. 13.3

    Provide information about the general layout of a site (e.g., a site map or table of contents).

  30. 13.4

    Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent manner.

Priority 3 checkpoints

  1. 1.5

    Until user agents render text equivalents for client-side image map links, provide redundant text links for each active region of a client-side image map.

  2. 4.2

    Specify the expansion of each abbreviation or acronym in a document where it first occurs.

  3. 4.3

    Identify the primary natural language of a document.

  4. 5.5

    Provide summaries for tables.

  5. 5.6

    Provide abbreviations for header labels.

  6. 9.4

    Create a logical tab order through links, form controls, and objects.

  7. 9.5

    Provide keyboard shortcuts to important links (including those in client-side image maps), form controls, and groups of form controls.

  8. 10.3

    Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render side-by-side text correctly, provide a linear text alternative (on the current page or some other) for all tables that lay out text in parallel, word-wrapped columns.

  9. 10.4

    Until user agents handle empty controls correctly, include default, place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas.

  10. 10.5

    Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links.

  11. 11.3

    Provide information so that users may receive documents according to their preferences (e.g., language, content type, etc.).

  12. 13.5

    Provide navigation bars to highlight and give access to the navigation mechanism.

  13. 13.6

    Group related links, identify the group (for user agents), and, until user agents do so, provide a way to bypass the group.

  14. 13.7

    If search functions are provided, enable different types of searches for different skill levels and preferences.

  15. 13.8

    Place distinguishing information at the beginning of headings, paragraphs, lists, etc.

  16. 13.9

    Provide information about document collections (i.e., documents comprising multiple pages).

  17. 13.10

    Provide a means to skip over multi-line ASCII art.

  18. 14.2

    Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the page.

  19. 14.3

    Create a style of presentation that is consistent across pages.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goette, T., Collier, C. & White, J.D. An exploratory study of the accessibility of state government Web sites. Univ Access Inf Soc 5, 41–50 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-006-0023-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-006-0023-2

Keywords

Navigation