Print and Online Resources About Web Accessibility ...

Viewer
Transcript

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SUMMARY 䉬

Discusses 122 print and online sources related to Web accessibility, including practical advice, empirical studies, forums, and news sources 䉬 Concludes with a short discussion of trends in accessibility research

Print and Online Resources About Web Accessibility:

An Annotated Bibliography JO MACKIEWICZ

INTRODUCTION

T

his annotated bibliography of resources about Web accessibility is geared toward professionals in technical communication who create and maintain Web sites. Given that audience and purpose, most of the resources cited in this bibliography focus on practical matters, such as designing a data table that can be read effectively by a screen reader or making sure that a Web page meets the accessibility standards of a particular country. However, this annotated bibliography also ventures beyond “how-to” sources that are directly applicable to accessible Web design. It summarizes recent studies from academic journals and conference proceedings, particularly studies that investigate the extent to which Web sites are accessible and that test the effectiveness of assistive technologies. This bibliography is organized into the following sections: 䉬 Understanding accessibility standards 䉬 Implementing accessibility: Comprehensive resources 䉬 Implementing accessibility: Resources about specific standards 䉬 Discussing accessibility in forums 䉬 Testing Web page accessibility 䉬 Keeping up with accessibility news 䉬 Investigating the accessibility of existing Web sites 䉬 Discerning the needs of different users 䉬 Understanding assistive technologies The resources included here were found by searching academic indexes for articles related to Web accessibility and then by locating relevant sources from those articles’ reference lists. Sources were also found through Internet and Web searches, and through a query to the AccessAbility Special Interest Group of the Society for Technical Communication. Resources in each section or subsection are listed in alphabetical order. The bibliography concludes by identifying and discussing sources of information about Web accessibility that

are not yet available and by outlining trends in Web accessibility research.

UNDERSTANDING ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS Most of the sources listed in this section explain the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG 1.0), the guidelines around which most countries develop their national standards for accessibility. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) published the WCAG 1.0 in 1999. However, in 2004, the W3C’s Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) began work on an updated set of guidelines—WCAG 2.0. Another important set of guidelines is the United States government’s standards, which are stated in Section 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Also listed here are some of the best online sources for understanding the accessibility standards of individual countries, as well as those developed by international organizations such as the European Union. 1. Access Board. 2002. Section 508. http://www.section508.gov. The U.S. government’s portal site for Section 508 provides updated information about standards and technologies, and it links to forums. It is particularly useful to people who work for U.S. government agencies.

2. Access Board. 2002. Section 508 standards. http://www. section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction ⫽ Content&ID ⫽12. Section 508, Part 1194 of Rehabilitation Act regulates Web sites developed in the United States. This site lists Section 508 standards.

Manuscript received 22 June 2005; revised 23 August 2005; accepted 25 August 2005. Volume 53, Number 1, February 2006 • TechnicalCOMMUNICATION

79

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Print and Online Resources About Web Accessibility:

Mackiewicz

3. Digital Media Access Group. 2005. Digital Media Access Group. http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/projects/dmag.

8. Thatcher, J. 2005. Side by side WCAG vs. 508. http:// jimthatcher.com/sidebyside.htm.

This comprehensive Web site links to current, online articles and lists other sources about accessibility and usability, including reports of case studies.

Jim Thatcher, an accessibility expert who worked at IBM for 37 years, clearly compares the WCAG 1.0 with Section 508 on his Web site.

4. Disability Rights Commission. 2002. Code of practice: Rights of access. London: The Stationary Office. http:// www.drc-gb.org/open4all/law/code.asp.

9. WebAIM. 2005. Laws and standards. http://www. webaim.org/coordination/law/.

In the United Kingdom, the law relevant to Web accessibility is Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), which was revised in October 2004 and now mandates that all goods, facilities, and services be accessible. The DDA mentions Web sites specifically. The entire 175-page Code of practice is linked to the Part III code page of the Disability Rights Commission’s Web site and is available online at http://www.drc-gb.org/ open4all/law/code.asp.

WebAIM is a non-profit organization that supplies information and tools for creating accessible Web sites. One of the most useful features of WebAIM’s site is its delineation of accessibility standards and initiatives in various countries, including the policies of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Besides consolidating standards from different countries, WebAIM’s site provides information on techniques and tools for implementing and evaluating accessibility, and it maintains a forum for discussing accessibility.

5. Europe’s Information Society. 2005. eInclusion and eaccessibility. http://europa.eu.int/information_society/policy/ accessibility/index_en.htm.

10. Webcredible. 2004. Web accessibility guide. http:// www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/webaccessibility-guide.shtml.

The Information Society of the European Union is harmonizing the accessibility standards of member countries, and this site is part of that effort. European Union standards are based on WCAG 1.0, and new initiatives are developed with WCAG 2.0 in mind.

This white paper summarizes the relevant points of the Disability Rights Commission’s Code of Practice (see item 4).

6. Jaeger, P. T. 2004. Beyond Section 508: The spectrum of legal requirements for accessible e-government Web sites in the United States. Journal of government information 30:518 –533.

11. World Wide Web Consortium. 1999. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/ WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/.

Jaeger explains the U.S. laws, such as Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, that apply to Web accessibility, particularly e-government Web sites. He also discusses Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the E-government Act, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

On this Web page, the W3C lists and explains its 14 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG 1.0). Each guideline includes several checkpoints, that is, means of implementing each guideline. All checkpoints are labeled with a priority number: 1, 2, or 3. Web sites that meet Priority 1 checkpoints reach a basic level of accessibility compliance and are labeled “A.” Sites that meet Priority 1 and 2 checkpoints receive a “Double A” rating. Sites in complete compliance with all checkpoints—Priority 1, 2, and 3—receive a “Triple A” compliance rating.

7. Meinhardt, U. 2005. Accessibility legislation—An insight. http://www.sapdesignguild.org/editions/edition9/policies. asp.

12. World Wide Web Consortium. 2005. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group. http://www.w3. org/WAI/GL.

This online article, published by the SAP Design Guild, is one of the best resources for understanding accessibility policies in countries all over the world. It explains standards of more than 20 countries, including Argentina, Turkey, and India.

A working group is updating from the WCAG from 1.0 to 2.0. This site shows the latest available draft of WCAG 2.0, as well as public comments about the draft.

80

TechnicalCOMMUNICATION • Volume 53, Number 1, February 2006

13. World Wide Web Consortium. 2005. Policies related to

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Mackiewicz

Print and Online Resources About Web Accessibility:

Web accessibility. http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy. One of the best resources for researching the policies other than those of the United States and the United Kingdom is the W3C’s list of national policies. This Web site lists relevant legislation, ministries, or documents for other countries, including Australia, India, and Japan.

IMPLEMENTING ACCESSIBILITY: COMPREHENSIVE RESOURCES Print books

The best-selling print books on Web accessibility are often mentioned in discussion forums and cited in articles. Five of the most popular print books are listed below. Their book sales rankings on Amazon.com as of July 2005 are listed in parentheses. 14. Clark, J. 2002. Building accessible Websites (with CDROM). Berkeley, CA: New Riders Press. (155,544) 15. Mueller, J. P., and J. Mueller. 2003. Accessibility for everybody: Understanding the Section 508 accessibility requirements. Berkeley, CA: Apress. (336,706) 16. Paciello, M. 2000. Web accessibility for people with disabilities. Gilroy, CA: CMP Books. (366,062) 17. Slatin, J. M., and S. Rush. 2002. Maximum accessibility: Making your Web site more usable for everyone. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Professional. (236,792) 18. Thatcher, J., C. Waddell, S. Henry, S. Swierenga, M. Urban, M. Burks, and P. Bohman. 2003. Constructing accessible Websites. Berkeley, CA: Apress. (236,415) Online books

At least two authors have made their books about Web accessibility available for free on the Web. 19. Clark, J. 2002. Building accessible Websites. http:// joeclark.org/book. Joe Clark’s book (item 14) is available for free online, although no graphics are included in the online version.

20. Pilgrim, M. 2002. Dive into accessibility: 30 days to a more accessible Web site. http://diveintoaccessibility.org. Mark Pilgrim’s free online book explains why accessibility is important and provides 25 tips for making Web sites accessible. This resource is presented in relation to the needs of five fictional users with a range of physical, mental, and technological disabilities. The book has

been translated into Chinese, French, and Polish, and additional translations are in progress. Web sites

Although numerous Web sites delineate Section 508 or WCAG 1.0, fewer explain in detail and exemplify how developers can implement those guidelines. Some of the best Web sites for detail and exemplification are those listed below. 21. DO-IT, University of Washington. 2003. World wide access: Accessible Web design. http://www.washington.edu/ doit/Video/www.html. The University of Washington is home to DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology). This resource supplies video and supporting materials for making technology, including Web sites, accessible.

22. IBM. 2004. Web accessibility. http://www-306.ibm. com/able/guidelines/web/accessweb.html. The site, developed by IBM’s Accessibility Center, lists 16 accessibility checkpoints and links each checkpoint to detailed explanation and examples. This site also explains the rationale behind each checkpoint, provides techniques for implementing the checkpoint, and gives ways to test each checkpoint. This site also links to more techniques and tools for creating accessible Web pages.

23. Letourneau, C., and G. Freed. 2000. Welcome to the curriculum for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag-curric. Perhaps the best way to understand the W3C’s “Techniques” document (item 28) is to read Chuck Letourneau and Geoff Freed’s helpful tutorial, created for the W3C’s Web Accessibility Initiative. The site relates to the WCAG 1.0 and describes how to implement the guidelines.

24. National Center on Accessible Information Technology in Education. 2004. AccessIT. http://www.washington.edu/ accessit/index.php. This Web site includes case studies of Web sites, a comparison of accessible and inaccessible Web sites, and up-to-date articles.

25. Thatcher, J. 2005. JimThatcher.com. http://www. JimThatcher.com. Thatcher spent the last 15 of his 37 years at IBM making technology accessible. His site provides a free online tutorial for creating accessible Web sites. Besides exemVolume 53, Number 1, February 2006 • TechnicalCOMMUNICATION

81

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Print and Online Resources About Web Accessibility:

Mackiewicz

plifying and illustrating how to create accessible Web pages, Thatcher also discusses what not to do when trying to develop an accessible Web site (http:// jimthatcher.com/whatnot.htm).

31. Moss, T. 2005. Writing effective ALT text for images. WebProNews,http://www.webpronews.com/webdevelopment/ sitedesign/wpn-26–20050405WritingEffectiveALTTextForImages. html.

26. University of Arizona. 2005. Web accessibility. http:// www.arizona.edu/uaweb/accessible/index.php.

Moss discusses how the type and purpose of non-text elements affects the ALT text and attributes those elements should receive.

The University of Arizona site provides tutorials for ALT tags, frames, and other items covered in the WCAG 1.0.

27. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 2003. Web accessibility 101. http://www.doit.wisc.edu/accessibility/onlinecourse/start.htm.

Equivalent alternatives for multimedia presentation

32. Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access. 2003. Accesselearning. http://www.accesselearning.net. This tutorial about distance education is particularly useful because it shows how to make video, PDF, and other downloads accessible.

The Division of Information Technology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison offers an online course on Section 508 compliance. The site contains a short preand post-test, and provides detailed discussion and examples for implementing accessibility.

33. Clark, J. 2004. Best practices in online captioning. http://joeclark.org/access/captioning/bpoc.

28. World Wide Web Consortium. 1999. Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/ 1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS-19990505.

This site, based on Clark’s work on a university research project, is useful because it also discusses best practices for special cases, like multilingual or subtitled media.

The W3C’s “Techniques” document explains and exemplifies techniques for creating accessible Web sites. People who are new to accessibility, though, may want to examine some of the other Web sites in this section first, such as item 22. Other sites are easier to understand.

IMPLEMENTING ACCESSIBILITY: RESOURCES ABOUT SPECIFIC GUIDELINES This section lists some useful online articles that are related to specific accessibility standards, such as using ALT text. The University of Minnesota Duluth’s site (item 29) links to far more online articles and other sources of information about specific standards: 29. University of Minnesota Duluth. 2005. Accessibility. http://www.d.umn.edu/itss/support/Training/Online/ Web design/accessibility.html.

Information conveyed with other elements besides color

34. Arditi, A. 2005. Effective color contrast. Lighthouse International. http://www.lighthouse.org/color_contrast.htm. Arditi explains guidelines for using hue, lightness, and saturation for more accessible Web pages.

35. Haslam, T. 2005. Understanding color and accessibility. Evolt.org.http://www.evolt.org/article/rdf/4,090/60,472/index. htm. This article reviews resources related to color and accessibility. The article links to many other sources of information, including articles on changes from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0, color contrast, and testing Web pages for color. Effective tables

Text equivalents for non-text elements

30. Byrne, J. 2003. How to make non-text elements accessible—-Some notes. DevWebPro, http://www. devwebpro.com/devwebpro39 – 20030613Howtomakenontextelementsaccessiblesomenotes. html. Byrne explains how to write effective ALT attributes and text, depending on the purpose of the non-text element, rather than simply stating that developers should use ALT elements. 82

TechnicalCOMMUNICATION • Volume 53, Number 1, February 2006

36. Byrne, J. 2002. Table manners: Creating accessible tables for both layout and data. Making connections unit. http://www.mcu.org.uk/articles/tables.html. This informative article rationally discusses the arguments against using tables for layout but also acknowledges reasons that some people might choose them for that purpose.

37. Johansson, R. 2004. Bring on the tables. 456 Berea Street.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Mackiewicz

Print and Online Resources About Web Accessibility:

http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200,410/bring_on_ the_tables. In this article, Johansson and readers who respond to him discuss creating table headers and captions and linking headers to data. The article comes from Roger Johansson’s excellent Web site about Web standards, design, usability, and accessibility, 456 Berea Street (http://www.456bereastreet.com).

43. Ellis, J. 2003. Accessible Flash parts 1 and 2. Sitepoint. http://www.sitepoint.com/article/accessible-flash-parts-1–2. In this two-part article, Ellis provides a good starting point for people who are new to the challenge of making Flash accessible.

44. Johnson, D. 2004. Accessible PDF. Planet PDF. http: //www.planetpdf.com/enterprise/learningcenter.asp? ContainerID ⫽ 1,505.

Forms accessible to assistive technology

38. Faulkner, S. 2004. Techniques for making forms more accessible. Web Standards Group, 25 October, Melbourne, Australia. http://www.nils.org.au/ais/web/resources/ WSG_Oct_04/toc.html.

Johnson writes for Planet PDF about making PDF documents accessible. This site links to seven articles about accessible PDFs. Text titles for frames provided

Faulkner explains and exemplifies labeling, grouping, and tab order. He also lists tutorials and software for creating accessible forms.

45. Durham University. 2004. Using frames accessibly. http://www.dur.ac.uk/its/services/web/accessibility/ guidelines/priority1/frames/.

39. Hinds, K. 2004. Making your forms more accessible and usable. Digital Media Access Group. http://www.computing. dundee.ac.uk/projects/dmag/resources/design_articles/ forms.asp.

The Information Technology Service of Durham University has created a useful site that explains how to use the “noframes” code and why frames may not “degrade gracefully” in some browsers. This site shows how to write descriptive names for frames and how to structure each page with a frameset document to maintain navigation usability.

Hinds uses a number of examples to show how to create accessible form layout and usable form structure.

40. Hudson, R. 2004. Accessible forms. Web usability. http://www.usability.com.au/resources/forms.cfm. Hudson explains labeling and grouping form elements, setting tab order, and other issues related to form accessibility. Text-only page provided

41. Moss, T. 2004. Separate text-only version? No thanks! w3reports. http://www.w3reports.com/index.php?itemid⫽599. Most people agree that Web designers should provide text-only pages but that they shouldn’t rely on those pages for accessibility compliance. This article discusses how Web designers should use text-only pages. Alternatives to applets, plug-ins, and other applications

Web designers have been discussing and debating the best ways to make Flash and other applications accessible to all users. Macromedia’s Flash has drawn quite a bit of criticism. 42. Ragus, D. 2000. Flash is evil. dack.com. http://www. dack.com/web/flash_evil.html. Other authors offer advice rather than criticism.

46. HTMLSource. 2005. Frames. http://www.yourhtmlsource. com/frames/. This tutorial discusses basic and advanced use of frames and also explains the debate about them.

47. University of Bath. 2004. The problem with frames. http://internal.bath.ac.uk/web/accessibility/frames.html. This site also shows how to implement the text titles guideline. Script identified with text that can be read by assistive technology

48. Koch, P. 2005. JavaScript and accessibility. QuirksMode. org. http://www.quirksmode.org/js/accessibility.html. Koch maintains QuirksMode.org (http://www. quirksmode.org), where he shares Cascading Style Sheet and JavaScript tips. On this page, he discusses the importance of accounting for a script’s purpose in deciding whether alternative text is needed. Flicker frequency below 2 Hz or above 55 Hz

49. Jarrett, C. 2004. Blink, scroll, flicker: Three ways to ruin your Web site. Usability news. http://www.usabilitynews. Volume 53, Number 1, February 2006 • TechnicalCOMMUNICATION

83

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Print and Online Resources About Web Accessibility:

com/news/article1618.asp. Jarrett discusses motion in Web pages, including flickering elements, and cites scholarly sources.

50. National Center for Accessible Media. n.d. Examples of flickering images. http://ncam.wgbh.org/richmedia/media/ flicker_demo.html. This site shows a flicker demo that would “cause problems” for people with photosensitive epilepsy. Documents readable without a stylesheet

51. Byrne, J. 2003. CSS accessibility problems: Is markup dead? Making connections unit. http://www.mcu.org.uk/ articles/cssaccessproblems.html. Byrne discusses neutral or inappropriate markup in Web sites that use Cascading Style Sheets.

Mackiewicz

DISCUSSING ACCESSIBILITY IN FORUMS Quite a few Web sites contain forums for queries and tips on accessibility. Few of these forums receive heavy traffic. 56. Accessify Forum. 2005. Accessify Forum.com. http:// www.accessifyforum.com. This discussion forum is content-rich, and it is wellorganized into specialized forums such as “Legal issues and standards.” A recent thread, for example, discussed whether the U.K.’s Royal National Institute for the Blind had settled suits under the Disabilities Discrimination Act. Because the site is frequently used, it remains current; indeed, it contains a “News and resources” forum.

57. Society for Technical Communication. 2005. AccessAbility SIG. http://www.stcsig.org/sn/index.shtml.

52. Duke University Libraries. n.d. CSS and accessibility. http://www.lib.duke.edu/its/css/palooza/accessibility.htm.

The AccessAbility SIG, STC’s special interest group that studies and discusses accessibility issues, runs a discussion forum. New posts can be received in an e-mailed daily digest.

In this Web page, Information Technology Services at Duke University Libraries explains the benefits of using Cascading Style Sheets and the rules for using them to enhance accessibility.

58. WebAIM. 2005. “Web accessibility e-mail discussion forum,” http://www.webaim.org/discussion.

53. McIver, L. 2004. Why using CSS improves accessibility. Digital Media Access Group. http://www.computing.dundee. ac.uk/projects/dmag/resources/design_articles/csstoimprove. asp. McIver explains the benefits of using Cascading Style Sheets, such as cleaner code and enhanced screen reading. Client-side image maps instead of server-side image maps

54. Thomason, L. 2002. Accessibility tip: Designing accessible navigation part 1. NetMechanic, http://www.netmechanic. com/news/vol5/accessibility_no1.htm. Thomason explains how to create accessible image maps, pointing out the need to use alternative text and text links.

55. Web Access Centre. 2004. Image maps. http://www.rnib. org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/PublicWebsite/ public_imagemaps.hcsp. The Web Access Centre, part of the U.K.’s Royal National Institute for the Blind, devotes a page to accessible image maps. 84

TechnicalCOMMUNICATION • Volume 53, Number 1, February 2006

WebAIM’s forum is archived, and readers can receive new posts to the forum as an e-mailed daily digest.

KEEPING UP WITH ACCESSIBILITY NEWS A few Web sites relay articles and announcements related to Web accessibility. 59. AccessibleNet. 2005. Web accessibility news. http:// www.accessiblenet.org/103. The news section of AccessibleNet’s site receives feeds from myriad media sources, including the BBC and Internetnews.com.

60. Guild of Accessible Web Designers. 2005. GWADS: Guild of Accessible Web Designers. http://www.gawds.org. This site is an excellent resource for learning about the latest developments in accessibility. It contains news, RSS feeds, and a cool “accessible site of the month.”

61. Information Technology Technical Assistances and Training Center. 2005. News. http://www.ittatc.org. This site contains news about product development, upcoming events, and laws in the United States.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Mackiewicz

Print and Online Resources About Web Accessibility:

TESTING OF WEB PAGE ACCESSIBILITY This section lists resources for testing accessibility with automated tools. It also lists studies that have gauged accessibility through tests involving human participants—that is, non-automated testing. Jim Thatcher overviews the benefits and drawbacks of automated and non-automated analyses in the following page on his Web site: 62. Thatcher, J. 2005. Evaluation and repair: Testing for 508 Web accessibility. http://www.jimthatcher.com/testing. htm. This section also lists some popular resources for conducting usability testing, a process that can be used to increase a Web site’s accessibility. Automated tools

Although automated tools for testing accessibility are growing more sophisticated, in most cases, experts recommend using two or three automated tools instead of just one to determine the extent to which a Web site meets accessibility standards. Most of the accessibility testing programs listed below test one Web page, as opposed to an entire Web site, but they are free. 63. Special Needs Chapter of the Internet Society and HiSoftware. 2004. Cynthia says portal. http://www.cynthiasays. com. This program tests both Section 508 and WCAG 1.0 compliance. The program allows the user to set his or her own level of compliance: WCAG 1.0 Priority 1, 2, or 3 (see item 11). In addition, it evaluates the quality of alternative text. The report it generates is more informative than the others, containing suggestions for revising the tested page.

64. University of Toronto and University of WisconsinMadison. n.d. A-Prompt Web accessibility verifier. http:// aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca. A-Prompt is available in both English and French. Like Cynthia Says (item 63), it allows the user to set a WCAG Priority 1, 2, or 3 level of compliance. It also checks Section 508 compliance.

65. UsableNet. 2005. LIFT. http://www.usablenet.com. LIFT provides feedback by e-mail on five pages instead of just one. Therefore, this program provides greater breadth of analysis than the other free programs. In addition, the report that LIFT generates links to explanations of the delineated errors.

66. Watchfire Corporation. 2004. Watchfire WebXACT. http://webxact.watchfire.com. This program, often referred to as “Bobby,” its older name, allows testing of single Web pages for accessibility, as well as for privacy and quality (such as broken links).

67. WebAIM. 2005. WAVE 3.0 accessibility tool. http:// wave.webaim.org/index.jsp. This site tests single pages for adherence to the WCAG 1.0. This test overlays the Web page being tested with easy-to-decipher icons and allows users to install a WAVE toolbar on their browser.

68. World Wide Web Consortium. 2005. Markup validation service. http://validator.w3.org/. This site checks the code of Web sites for how well their HTML or XHTML code conforms to W3C’s recommendations. Non-automated tests

Besides automated tests of accessibility, analysis of how easily and effectively people can use different sites is also important. Non-automated evaluation often involves asking people to navigate a site using assistive technologies, such as screen readers, screen magnifiers, speech recognition software, and color blindness simulators. This section lists articles that report results of studies that have tested these technologies, as well as the results of studies that have employed surveys and expert evaluations, to gauge accessibility. The first four of the articles listed below (items 69 –72) come from a special issue of Library hi tech that focuses on accessibility. The special issue was edited by Axel Schmetzke, who is an expert in accessibility of library databases and who is with the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point. 69. Axtell, R., and J. M. Dixon. 2002. Voyager 2000: A review of accessibility for persons with visual disabilities. Library hi tech 20:141–171. 70. Byerley, S. L., and M. B. Chambers. 2002. Accessibility and usability of Web-based library databases for non-visual users. Library hi tech 20:169 –178. 71. Horwath, J. 2002. Evaluating opportunities for expanded information access: A study of the accessibility of four online databases. Library hi tech 20:199 –206. 72. Riley, C. A. 2002. Libraries, aggregator databases, screen readers and clients with disabilities. Library hi tech 20:179 – 187. Volume 53, Number 1, February 2006 • TechnicalCOMMUNICATION

85

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Print and Online Resources About Web Accessibility:

73. Thompson, T., S. Burgstahler, and D. Comden. 2003. Research on Web accessibility in higher education. Information technology and disabilities, 9. http://www.rit.edu/ ⬃easi/itd/itdv09n2/thompson.htm. Usability testing

Many Web developers and researchers agree that accessibility and usability are inextricably interconnected. When it comes to testing Web sites in studies involving human participants, this interconnection is especially evident. Most textbooks and guides for learning about how to create effective and valid studies of people using Web sites are sources that explain usability testing in general rather than accessibility testing in particular. One exception to this rule is Mike Paciello’s presentation at the CSUN 2005 Conference: 74. Paciello, M. 2005. Enhancing accessibility through usability inspections and usability testing. CSUN 20th Annual International Conference, 14 –19 March, in Los Angeles, CA. http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/csun/050,314/ default.cfm?id ⫽ 5,439&type ⫽ wmhigh. Paciello connects usability testing to accessibility. This Webcast of his presentation itself models accessibility for users with hearing impairments, captioning the talk below the video presentation.

Other sources on usability testing are useful because they explain how to plan and implement tests of Web sites that involve human participants. Among other topics, these popular sources discuss finding study participants, generating valid procedures and surveys, and analyzing results. 75. Barnum, C. M. 2002. Usability testing and research. New York, NY: Longman. 76. Brinck, T., D. Gergle, and S. D. Wood. 2002. Usability for the Web: Designing Web sites that work. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 77. Isaacs, E., and A. Walendowski. 2001. Designing from both sides of the screen. Berkeley, CA: New Riders Press. 78. Krug, S. 2002. Don’t make me think: A common sense approach to Web usability. Berkeley, CA: New Riders Press. 79. Nielsen, J. 2002. Coordinating user interfaces for consistency. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 80. Rosson, M., and J. Carroll. 2002. Usability engineering: Scenario-based development of human-computer interaction. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 86

TechnicalCOMMUNICATION • Volume 53, Number 1, February 2006

Mackiewicz

81. Rubin, J. 1994. Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 82. Spool, J., T. Scanlon, C. Snyder, and T. DeAngelo. 1999. Web site usability. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1999. 83. Stone, D., C. Jarrett, M. Woodroffe, and S. Minocha. 2005. User interface design and evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman. 84. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2005. Usability.gov. http://www.usability.gov. 85. Usability Professionals’ Association. 2005. The Usability Professionals’ Association. http://www.usability.gov.

INVESTIGATING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF EXISTING WEB SITES This section lists recent research that tested the accessibility of Web sites created by organizations, such as universities and governments. The literature reviews in these articles lead to many other studies of Web site accessibility. Business sites

86. Gutierrez, C. F., and J. C. Windsor. 2005. An evaluation of Fortune 500 company home pages for disability-access. International journal of electronic business 3:137–153. This study examines the Web sites of Fortune 500 companies to determine the extent to which the sites are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 508.

87. Romano, N. C. 2002. Customer relationship management for the Web-access challenged: Inaccessibility of Fortune 100 business Web sites. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference On System Sciences (HICSS ’02). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 2296 –2307. This study found that 71% of Fortune 100 company Web sites had accessibility problems. However, the accessibility problems stemmed from a small number of error types. Higher education sites

88. Bray, M., and Flowers, C. 2001. Web accessibility of community colleges’ Web pages. ICTE Tallahassee 2001. http://www.icte.org/T01_Library/T01_207.pdf. The authors used the Bobby program to test the accessibility of 253 community college Web pages. Over 77% contained at least one WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative) Priority 1 error. The most common Priority 1 error was

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Mackiewicz

Print and Online Resources About Web Accessibility:

failing to provide alternative text for visual elements, such as images.

89. Thompson, T., S. Burgstahler, and D. Comden. 2003. Research on Web accessibility in higher education. Information technology and disabilities, 9. http://www.rit.edu/ ⬃easi/itd/itdv09n2/thompson.htm. Noting that developers have found some shortcomings in the Bobby program, the authors propose and test a non-automated method for analyzing accessibility on 102 university Web sites. Their analysis of the university Web sites revealed a mean score of 2.26 on a 0 – 4 scale of accessibility. They also found that the results of their manual analysis correlated with the scores generated by the Bobby program.

and mobility impairments. Overall, because of accessibility problems, participants were unable to perform 24% of the tasks that they attempted to carry out. Participants with vision impairments experienced the most accessibility problems. Besides gauging the accessibility of Web sites and relaying the findings, the Disability Rights Commission also recommends ways to improve the accessibility of sites for people with disabilities. These recommendations are aimed at several audiences, including providers of support services, Web developers, Web site owners, and operating system designers.

93. Ritchie, H., and P. Blanck. 2003. The promise of the Internet for disability: A study of online services and Web site accessibility at Centers for Independent Living. Behavioral sciences and the law 21:5–26.

Government sites

90. Fagen, J. Condit, and B. Fagen. 2004. An accessibility study of state legislative Web sites. Government information quarterly 21:65– 85. The authors tested the Web sites of all 50 U.S. state legislatures for accessibility. Specifically, they used the Bobby program to test 1) main legislature pages, 2) house pages, and 3) senate pages. Two-thirds of main legislature pages had accessibility errors. The main pages of house and senate pages revealed similar results. The main WAI Priority 1 error on the Web sites was a lack of ALT tags for visual elements.

91. Potter, A. 2002. Accessibility of Alabama government Web sites. Journal of government information 29:303–317. The author tested Alabama government Web sites with the Bobby program. Only 12 of 63 sites were compliment with WAI’s Priority 1 standards. Only one site was compliant with Priority 1 and 2 standards. The most frequent error was lack of ALT tags for visuals; 44 (70%) of the sites contained such an error.

This article examines the Web presences of 200 Centers for Independent Living (CIL). Specifically, the authors examine the services and programs that the CIL offer through the Web, and test the accessibility of the Web sites using the Bobby program. The authors found that 80% of the Web sites contained just one WAI Priority 1 error—an absence of ALT tags on at least one image. Of those sites, 52% contained two or fewer errors.

94. Zeng, X., and B. Parmanto. 2004. Web content accessibility of consumer health information Web sites for people with disabilities: A cross sectional evaluation. Journal of medical Internet research 6 (2). http://www.jmir.org/2004/ 2/e19. The authors measured the accessibility of 108 Web sites that related consumer health information. They constructed a framework to measure the sites’ “Web Accessibility Barriers.” They found government and education Web sites to be more accessible than portal or corporate Web sites. They also found that the accessibility of the sites correlated with their Google ranking.

Other sites

DISCERNING THE NEEDS OF DIFFERENT USERS

92. Disability Rights Commission. 2004. The Web: Access and inclusion for disabled people. http://www.drc-gb.org/ publicationsandreports/report.asp.

Users who are blind and vision-impaired

This comprehensive study, conducted by the Disability Rights Commission, tested Web sites from five sectors: government, business, e-commerce, entertainment, and Web services. Automated tools were used to test 1,000 home pages, finding that 81% violated Priority 1 checkpoints. In addition, 100 of the home pages were tested by human participants with vision, hearing, cognitive,

95. Bruggeman, H., and G. E. Legge. 2002. Psychophysics of reading-XIX: Hypertext search and retrieval with low vision. Proceedings of the IEEE 90:94 –103. Seeing the entire screen is important for reading Web pages, but screen magnifiers decrease the proportion of the screen that is visible at one time to enlarge text. The tradeoff means that low-vision people using magnifiers may have trouble reading Web pages. The authors performed two experiments. Experiment 1 compared the perVolume 53, Number 1, February 2006 • TechnicalCOMMUNICATION

87

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Print and Online Resources About Web Accessibility:

formance of a group of users with low vision using screen magnifiers and a group of users without vision impairment working without screen readers. Performance was measured through time taken and nodes transversed. In skimming for information retrieval, the performance of users with low vision averaged 20% of the performance of the group without vision impairment. Experiment 2 tested the effect of Web page layout on low-vision performance. Users’ searches were slowed by Web layout with links in unpredictable locations. The authors argue for predictable and more standardized layout.

96. Harper, S. C. Goble, and R. Stevens. 2003. Traversing the Web: Mobility for visually impaired surfers. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering (WISE ’03). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 200 –208. The authors argue for Web design that enhances mobility through hypertext environments for users with low vision. They outline heuristics to enhance mobility, such as fragmenting Web pages, concisely describing the page and site, and active cueing of important information. The authors observed users with and without visual impairment moving through a test page that was designed in accordance with the heuristics. Users reported greater understanding of site and page structure, though fragmentation increased clicking.

97. Lighthouse International. 2005. Publications & research. http://publications.lighthouse.org/Publications/Research/ CategoriesResearch.cfm. This Web page lists numerous studies of accessibility carried out by researchers at Lighthouse International, particularly Aries Arditi, for users who are visually impaired, blind, or older. Many articles on Web accessibility are available at Lighthouse International’s Web site (www.lighthouse.org).

98. Liu, S., W. Ma, D. Schalow, and K. Spruill. 2004. Improving Web access for visually impaired users. IT professional 6 (3): 28 –33. This short article presents a case study of a server-based approach to accessibility. The National Institutes of Health Senior Health site (www.nihseniorhealth.gov) contains assistive technologies—text magnification, color contrast, and text narration—at the server. A serverbased approach could alleviate users’ software expense and users’ need to master assistive technologies.

99. Macı´as, M., and F. Sa´nchez. 2001. Improving web ac88

TechnicalCOMMUNICATION • Volume 53, Number 1, February 2006

Mackiewicz

cessibility for visually handicapped people using KAI. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Web Site Evolution (WSE 2001). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 49 –54. This article describes a software tool, KAI (Accessibility Kit for the Internet) that classifies Web page components and presents them according to users’ preferences. KAI uses BML (Blind Markup Language), which follows the specifications of XML. It allows users with vision impairments to access Web content selectively, rather than sequentially.

100. Maeda, J., K. Fukuda, H. Takagi, and C. Asakawa. 2004. Web accessibility technology at the IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory. IBM journal of research and development 48:735–748. This article describes accessibility technologies developed by the IBM Tokyo Research Laboraatory: Home Page Reader, transcoding technology, Accessibility Designer, and Accessibility Observer. The article focuses on Accessibility Designer, which allows Web developers to test accessibility in two modes: one for users with low vision and one for users who are blind. The latter mode tests usability, particularly navigability, of screen readers.

101. Theofanos, M. F., and J. Redish. 2003. Guidelines for accessible—and usable—Web sites: Observing users who work with screenreaders. Interactions 10 (6): 38 –51. This article delineates 32 guidelines for creating accessible Web sites, such as ”Start links with relevant key words“ (45). An expanded version that explains the research methods and results in more detail is available at http://www.redish.net/content/papers/InteractionsPaperAuthorsVer.pdf. In short, the authors observed 16 people with blindness using JAWS and WindowEyes screen readers to navigate Web pages and fill out online forms. The researchers present their findings, including the observations that screenreader users scan Web pages and that screenreaders work well but occasionally mispronounce words. The researchers also provide guidelines for creating pages that are more accessible and inviting to screen reader users.

102. Theofanos, M. F., and J. Redish. 2003. Observing users who listen to Web sites. Usability interface 9 (4). www.stcsig.org/usability/newsletter/0,304-observing.html. This short article summarizes the research findings that are explained in detail in item 101.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Mackiewicz

Print and Online Resources About Web Accessibility:

103. Theofanos, M. F., and J. Redish. 2004. Helping lowvision and other users with Web sites that meet their needs: Is one site for all feasible? Technical communication 52: 9 –20. The researchers observed 10 participants with low vision using ZoomText, a software product that enlarges text, to complete 10 scenarios (as in usability tests). The article reports observations of how users worked with Web sites (for example, users were not able to see the scroll bar on a magnified screen) and how Web developers can implement findings (such as outlining tabs with a black border).

play video games. The participants reported that using the handheld computer was less tiring than using a mouse or a keyboard.

107. Steriadis, C. E., and P. Constantinou. 2003. Designing human-computer interfaces for quadriplegic people. ACM transactions on computer-human interaction. 10:87–118. This article presents a method for developing a flexible computer interface with improved appearance for users who are quadriplegic. The method combines ”wifsids“ (widgits for single-switch input devices) and scanning devices to determine users’ input selections more accurately.

Users who are deaf or hearing-impaired

Users with cognitive impairments

104. Bennett, S., J. Hewitt, D. Kraithman, and C. Britton. 2002. Making chalk and talk accessible. Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Universal Usability. New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 119 –125.

108. Hudson, R., R. Weakley, and P. Firminger. 2005. An accessibility frontier: Cognitive disabilities and learning difficulties. Web usability. http://www.usability.com.au/ resources/cognitive.cfm.

This article explains an authoring tool, SMIRK, developed at the University of Hertfordshire. SMIRK was designed to make ”chalk and talk“ presentations, especially academic lectures, accessible to people with hearing impairments. The tool captions video and audio recordings, as well as other multimedia. It was designed for easy use by academics, enabling them more than one ”take“ as they caption their lectures.

This article explains how developers can tailor content for different audiences, present content in a more accessible format, and design more effective site navigation systems. Its reference section lists other useful articles about accessible Web sites and cognitive impairment.

105. Berry, D. 2001. Requirements for maintaining Web access for hearing-impaired individuals. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Web site Evolution (WSE 2001). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 42– 48. http://se.uwaterloo.ca/⬃dberry/FTP_SITE/reprints. journals.conferences/WSE_paper.html. The author, who is hearing-impaired, delineates abilities and classifications of hearing-impaired people, compares the needs of users who are hearing-impaired to those who are vision-impaired, and recommends computer interfaces that output and accept both sound and text.

109. Seeman, L. 2002. Inclusion of cognitive disabilities in the Web accessibility movement. UB access. http://www. ubaccess.com/cog.html. This short paper discusses why and how Web developers should account for users with cognitive impairments when they consider the accessibility of their Web sites, just as they account for users with vision, hearing, and mobility impairments. Particularly interesting is the author’s observation that the WCAG 1.0 priority system allows compliance related to cognitive impairments to be treated as a lower priority than others. Users who are older or aging

110. AARP. n.d. Older, wiser, wired. http://www.aarp.org/ olderwiserwired.

Users with mobility impairments

106. Myers, B. A., J. O. Wobbrock, S. Yang, B. Yeung, J. Nichols, and R. Miller. 2002. Using handhelds to help people with motor impairments. Proceedings of the Annual ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies (ASSETS 2002). New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 89 –96. The researchers observed 4 people with muscular dystrophy using a handheld computer as an input device, as opposed to a mouse or keyboard, to check e-mail and

This Web site links to a wealth of information about computers and users who are older. Specifically, it links to a report, ”Designing Web sites for older users,“ by Chisnell, Lee, and Redish. It also contains a 67-page annotated bibliography of resources, a useful set of heuristics for designing sites for these users, and a review of 50 sites.

111. Hanson, V. L., and J. T. Richards. 2005. Achieving a more useable World Wide Web. Behavior & information Volume 53, Number 1, February 2006 • TechnicalCOMMUNICATION

89

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Print and Online Resources About Web Accessibility:

technology 24:231–246. This article reports a study that tested two systems for making Web sites more accessible to older users by altering Web page presentation and content. The first system that was tested, a proxy server that transformed content for accessibility, was found to be unfeasible. The first system was revised into a client-side system, called Web Adaptation Technology. The revised system was able to transform Web pages for increased accessibility and to improve user experience.

112. Lippincott, G. 2004. Gray matters: Where are the technical communicators in research and design for aging audiences? IEEE transactions of professional communication 47:157–170. This article describes the challenges of meeting the accessibility needs of users who are older, given the myriad accessibility problems that are often associated with age, if not specifically generated by it. The article reviews research, including cognitive psychology research, that investigates or discusses the extent to which technical communication, especially online communication, accounts for the needs of users who are older and the ways that technical communication can meet these needs.

113. van der Meij, H., and M. Gellevij. 2002. Effects of pictures, age, and experience on learning to use a computer program. Technical communication 49:330 –338. This article reports the findings of a study that tested the effects of two computer manuals on the training of participants of varying computer experience and age, particularly on the training of older users. The two variables in the manuals that were manipulated were 1) screen captures and 2) pictures of the input device—a mouse or a keyboard. Variances on training time, motivation to train, and learning outcomes were measured, but the researchers found no significant differences in any of these. However, the researchers found that use of screen captures reduced the impact of age-related impairments. They suggest manuals that employ both screenshots and pictures of input devices.

Mackiewicz

MAGic and screen readers like the widely used JAWS program.

115. NewvisionTechnology.com. 2004. Screen magnifiers. http://www.magnifiers.org/index.shtml. This site simulates screen magnifiers, provides news related to visual impairments, and reviews assistive technology products.

116. SAP Design Guild. 2005. Assistive technology—The bridge between computers and disabled users. http://www. sapdesignguild.org/editions/edition9/assist.asp. This site discusses and links to a variety of assistive technologies, including Braille displays and alternative keyboards.

A number of simulation sites allow Web designers to see, hear, and feel what it is like to have an impairment that impedes using a computer. A few of the most popular are listed below. 117. HTML Writer’s Guild. 2001. Colorblind Web page filter. http://colorfilter.wickline.org. This site simulates the effects of seven varieties of colorblindness on any Web page. It allows several other filtering options as well. For example, filtering of images can be disabled.

118. Rowland, C. 2002. Improving Web accessibility for individuals with disabilities. Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications. http://www.wcet.info/projects/laap/ webcast/webcast.asp. This conference presentation by the director of WebAIM offers some other ideas for simulating impairment. For example, Rowland suggests watching multimedia from the NOVA program (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova) with and without captions to simulate hearing impairment and using the tab key to access local weather on CNN⬘s Web site (www.cnn.com) to simulate motor impairment.

119. Vischeck. 2003. Vischeck. http://www.vischeck.com. Vischeck’s site simulates three types of colorblindness.

UNDERSTANDING ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES 114. Microsoft. 2005. Accessibility: Technology for everyone. http://www.microsoft.com/enable/default.aspx.

120. WebAIM. 2005. WebAIM simulations. http://www. webaim.org/simulations.

This site lists and describes assistive technologies for a variety of impairments and allows for searches of different assistive products, including screen magnifiers like

WebAIM’s site includes several simulations, including one of low-vision reading, using screen reader, and distracted reading (simulating a cognitive impairment).

90

TechnicalCOMMUNICATION • Volume 53, Number 1, February 2006

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Mackiewicz

Print and Online Resources About Web Accessibility:

CONCLUSION

searchers broaden their range of testing methods. Specifically, it seems that accessibility testing is broadening beyond testing for WCAG 1.0 compliance using software such as WebXACT (Bobby) or LIFT, to testing that assesses users’ performances and surveys users’ responses. Nevertheless, there is definitely a need for empirical research that tests accessibility and usability of Web content via assistive technologies, along the lines of Bruggeman and Legge’s research on reading performance with a screen magnifier (item 95). Another important line of research tests users’ performance with Web sites that users can set to their preferences. An example of such research is Liu and colleagues’ case study (item 98), which showed how a server-based approach can allow users to set magnification and other variables according to their own preference without relying on assistive software. It is possible to imagine other studies that gauge people’s performance using Web sites that adjust to their preferences. For example, it is possible to imagine a Web site that offers the choice of an interface that facilitates use of a specialized input device, like the handheld computer tested by Myers and colleagues (item 106). And it is now possible to imagine studies of users’ performance when reading Web sites with content that has been organized and formatted according to their preferences. In short, a theme running through most of the research articles examined here is the need for Web sites and other information technology that flexes to meet myriad users’ needs. As Theofanos and Redish write, “In our picture of the future, everyone using any device of technology could have the information offered to meet their individualized specifications” (item 103, p. 18). It seems that many people working to make the Web accessible have a similar picture in mind. TC

Clearly, there are numerous print and online sources that help Web designers to understand accessibility standards and to create accessible Web sites. However, this bibliography reveals some gaps in the resources and research related to accessibility. One pressing matter is the need to study ways of helping Web developers and stakeholders to apply accessibility standards. According to one study, it is not always a lack of awareness or skill that keeps Webmasters from implementing standards: 121. Lazar, J., A. Dudley-Sponaugle, and K. Greenidge. 2004. Improving Web accessibility: A study of Webmaster perceptions. Computers in human behavior 20:269 –288. In this study, the authors surveyed 175 Webmasters and found that a lack of time, software tools, managerial support, and client support, in addition to lack of training, hindered implementing accessibility standards. This study points out hurdles to accessibility that are not discussed as often as some others, but further research could investigate ways to overcome these hurdles.

Perhaps most obvious gap in accessibility research is the lack of information about accessibility standards in many South American, African, and Asian countries. Also, some countries listed on WebAIM’s “Laws and standards” page (item 9) and on the W3C’s ”Policies related to Web accessibility“ site (item 13) have adopted the WCAG 1.0 as their default standards. However, it is difficult to determine the extent to which countries’ national laws, economies, business cultures, and technological infrastructure might affect how they implement the WCAG 1.0 and prepare for the WCAG 2.0. Further research could investigate the extent to which individual countries are setting and implementing standards for Web accessibility. Another gap in resources related to Web accessibility is a lack of nuanced discussion about accessibility’s relationship to usability. One exception is Alexander’s online article, which coherently and concisely outlines the relationship and cites expert sources: 122. Alexander, D. 2005. What is the relationship between usability and accessibility, and what should it be? Dey Alexander. http://deyalexander.com/presentations/usabilityaccessibility. It seems that the interconnections between accessibility and usability will become more apparent as accessibility re-

JO MACKIEWICZ received her PhD in applied linguistics from Georgetown University. She is an assistant professor in the Lewis Department of Humanities at Illinois Institute of Technology, where she teaches technical editing, document design, and linguistics. Her research applies linguistics to technical communication, and her research interests include the readability and clarity of text and graphic elements. She has published in Journal of technical writing and communication, Technical communication, IEEE transactions on professional communication, and Business communication quarterly. She serves as a reviewer for IEEE transactions on professional communication and is the book review editor of Business communication quarterly. With Kathryn Riley, she is co-authoring a book called Visual composing. Contact: [email protected].

Volume 53, Number 1, February 2006 • TechnicalCOMMUNICATION

91