skip to main content
research-article
Free access

The state of corporate website accessibility

Published: 01 September 2009 Publication History

Abstract

Web accessibility continues to have important social, legal and economic implications for ecommerce. Over 50 million Americans have disabilities and so do around 600 million world-wide (www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-17.pdf; www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/busstat.htm). Disabilities include a vast range of issues: cognition, vision, motor skills, and hearing. The disabled comprise 19.3% of the U.S. population, more than any other minority group, including the next largest group---Hispanics (14.9%).
This growing population commands significant discretionary funds. The U.S. Department of Labor estimates those with disabilities control $175 billion (www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/ek98/provide.htm) exceeding twice that of teens and 17 times that of tweens (8--12 year-olds), currently the most sought after demographic groups (www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-17.pdf). This untapped, growing market exceeds most company's estimations.
In this study, we extend a previous CACM paper that surveyed accessibility at a snapshot in time with historical and additional perspectives on accessibility of Fortune 100 (F100) Web sites. The initial study revealed that over 80% of the F100's websites were potentially inaccessible to people with visual disabilities. Companies have become more aware of accessibility in recent years, which leads one to wonder whether the predominance of inaccessible websites continues or if companies have actually begun to seriously address website accessibility.
Researchers have called for accessibility reviews over time. Following these suggestions, in addition to the initial study sample this study adds three additional data sets for a total of four: 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2005. The F100 Web sites were chosen for the usual reasons this population is studied, but also because we expect the largest and most profitable companies to be the most likely to have the resources and personnel to ensure website accessibility.
The unit of analysis was the top-level home page for each Web site. This is an optimistic approach as companies may put their best foot forward here and then fail to consider accessibility for lower level pages. Deeper level analyses are possible but beyond the scope of this study.
All samples were analyzed with the Watchfire® Bobby™ 5.0 Web accessibility validation tool. The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) guidelines were used to review all error types: Priority 1 (developers must satisfy), Priority 2 (developers should satisfy), and Priority 3 (developers may satisfy) (Table 1). WAI guidelines are a good starting point from which to evaluate Web accessibility and they are quickly becoming the global standard. WAI guidelines focus predominantly on problems encountered by blind users and therefore following only these guidelines will not always ensure accessibility for all disabled people. Given the breadth of existing disabilities it is difficult to evaluate all possible limitations to website accessibility. For this reason and to remain consistent with the previous study, this research concentrates on the WAI guidelines and thus issues that primarily impact visually impaired users.
Automatically identified errors are important, yet many Web site accessibility problems must be checked manually by users or developers. For example, as the first criteria under Priority 1 suggests in Table 1, an accessible website should "provide alternative text for all images." Automated checkers cannot determine if the alternative text provided is meaningful to the user. Similarly, blind users often encounter problems with unlabeled "forms" that would allow them to enter information that could be searched, such as an author or title to a book. Further, 'user checks' may be more important than automatically validated errors because they can hide more subtle, yet potentially more problematic issues. We ran an automated user check analysis to determine the types and numbers of user checks for all sample years (Table 2).

References

[1]
Hackett, S., B. Parmanto and X. Zeng (2004). Accessibility of Internet Web sites through time. in A. Sears, Ed. Proceedings of the ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and accessibility, (Atlanta, GA, Oct. 18--20, 2004), ACM Press, NY, 32--39.
[2]
Jaeger, P. T. Telecommunications policy and individuals with disabilities: Issues of accessibility and social inclusion in the policy and research agenda. Telecommunications Policy 30, 2, (2006), 112--124.
[3]
10-14-2003, British HCI Group <http://www.bcs-hci.org.uk/>. <http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article1321.asp>
[4]
Law, C., J. Jacko, and P. Edwards. Programmer-Focused Website Accessibility Evaluations. 7th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility Assets '05. (Oct. 9--12, 2005 Baltimore, MD), ACM Press, NY, 20--27.
[5]
Lazar, J., A. Dudley-Sponaugle and K.-D. Greenidge. Improving web accessibility: a study of webmaster perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior 20, 2, (2004) 269--288.
[6]
Loiacono, E., Cyberaccess: Web accessibility and corporate America. Comm. ACM 47, (2004), 83--87.
[7]
Miller, S. Hispanics replace African Americans as largest U.S. minority group. The U.S. Department of State International Information Programs; <usinfo.state.gov/usa/diversity/a012303.htm>
[8]
Paciello, M. Testing usability for all: Using assistive technology in user tests. Accessibility Content Magazine 1, 1, (2005), 6--7.
[9]
Reimer, S. Teens have a lot of spending power; <http://www.jsonline.com/lifestyle/people/jan04/197442.asp> (Last accessed 31 July, 2005.)
[10]
Romano, N. C., Jr. Customer relationship management for the Web-access challenged: Inaccessibility of the fortune 250 business Web sites. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 7, (Winter 2002--2003), 83--119.
[11]
Schwaig, K. S., Kane, G. C. and Storey, V. C. Privacy, fair information practices and the fortune 500: The Virtual Reality Compliance. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems 36, 1, (2005), 49--63.
[12]
Sullivan, T. and R. Matson. Barriers to use: usability and content accessibility on the Web's most popular sites. J. Thomas, Ed. Proceedings of the Conference on Universal Usability. (Arlington, VA, 2000), ACM Press, NY, 139--144.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)The Pitfalls of the Certificate-Based User Authentication Scheme on Korean Public WebsitesJournal of Cases on Information Technology10.4018/JCIT.35501526:1(1-19)Online publication date: 17-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Context-Aware Image Descriptions for Web AccessibilityProceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility10.1145/3663548.3675658(1-17)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024
  • (2024)An analysis of U.S. website accessibility court cases: are standalone websites subject to ADA requirements?Universal Access in the Information Society10.1007/s10209-023-01080-0Online publication date: 3-Jan-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Communications of the ACM
Communications of the ACM  Volume 52, Issue 9
The Status of the P versus NP Problem
September 2009
139 pages
ISSN:0001-0782
EISSN:1557-7317
DOI:10.1145/1562164
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 September 2009
Published in CACM Volume 52, Issue 9

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Popular
  • Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)330
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)46
Reflects downloads up to 18 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)The Pitfalls of the Certificate-Based User Authentication Scheme on Korean Public WebsitesJournal of Cases on Information Technology10.4018/JCIT.35501526:1(1-19)Online publication date: 17-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Context-Aware Image Descriptions for Web AccessibilityProceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility10.1145/3663548.3675658(1-17)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024
  • (2024)An analysis of U.S. website accessibility court cases: are standalone websites subject to ADA requirements?Universal Access in the Information Society10.1007/s10209-023-01080-0Online publication date: 3-Jan-2024
  • (2023)The Accessibility and Usability of Online Job Applications for Screen Reader UsersJournal of Visual Impairment & Blindness10.1177/0145482X231216757117:6(479-490)Online publication date: 7-Dec-2023
  • (2022)Evaluating Accessibility and Usability of Airline WebsitesApp and Website Accessibility Developments and Compliance Strategies10.4018/978-1-7998-7848-3.ch010(254-271)Online publication date: 2022
  • (2022)Accessibility Evaluation of Turkish E-Commerce WebsitesApp and Website Accessibility Developments and Compliance Strategies10.4018/978-1-7998-7848-3.ch007(169-187)Online publication date: 2022
  • (2022)Accessible Design is Mediated by Job Support Structures and Knowledge Gained Through Design Career PathwaysProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35555886:CSCW2(1-24)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2022
  • (2022)Website Builders Still Contribute To Inaccessible Web DesignProceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility10.1145/3517428.3550368(1-4)Online publication date: 23-Oct-2022
  • (2022)What's in an ALT Tag? Exploring Caption Content Priorities through Collaborative CaptioningACM Transactions on Accessible Computing10.1145/350765915:1(1-32)Online publication date: 4-Mar-2022
  • (2022)Government website accessibility: a cross-country analysis of G7 and BRICS countriesUniversal Access in the Information Society10.1007/s10209-021-00804-421:3(609-624)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2022
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Magazine Site

View this article on the magazine site (external)

Magazine Site

Login options

Full Access

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media