Thursday , August 16 2018

A Review of Municipal Web sites for Accessibility:
a Computer-aided Evaluation Approach

Costin PRIBEANU1, Paul FOGARASSY-NESZLY2
1 I C I Bucharest
(National Institute for R & D in Informatics)

8-10 Averescu Blvd.
011455 Bucharest 1, Romania
pribeanu@ici.ro
2 BAUM Engineering,
8, Str. Traian Moşoiu, Arad 310175, Romania,
pf@baum.ro

Abstract: Although the access to information for disabled people is a priority at the European level, the web accessibility of public web sites is still a problem. The purpose of this paper is to present a preliminary review of municipal web sites in Romania. We took a computer-aided evaluation approach which is based on semi-automatic accessibility evaluation tool. The analysis of results reveals a relatively low web accessibility of municipal web sites and highlights some interesting aspects. Firstly, the web accessibility score computed by counting the accessibility errors is higher on the homepage than on other pages. Secondly, while some developers ignore many accessibility guidelines, there are several websites where some accessibility guidelines are not well understood.

Keywords: Accessibility, usability, heuristic evaluation, municipal web sites.

>>Full text
CITE THIS PAPER AS:
Costin PRIBEANU, Paul FOGARASSY-NESZLY, A Review of Municipal Web sites for Accessibility: a Computer-aided Evaluation Approach, Studies in Informatics and Control, ISSN 1220-1766, vol. 20 (3), pp. 265-272, 2011.

1. Introduction

The establishment of the information society in Romania requires granting an equal access to the information technologies for all citizens. Public web sites should address a wider segment of users with specific characteristics and increasing demands (Ivan et al, 2009). According to the ISO 25010 standard, the software product quality model has 8 quality characteristics. Accessibility is a sub characteristic of usability that includes disabilities related to age. It could be measured either as the extent to which a product could be used by people with disabilities or by the presence of product attributes supporting accessibility.

Most public web sites have barriers that affect the access to information for people with disabilities. In 1997 the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) launched the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) in order to improve the web accessibility for people with disabilities. Web accessibility means that people with disabilities can perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with the web.

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) provide a set of recommendations for making web content more accessible to users with disabilities. It is expected that by following these recommendations the web content will also be made more usable.

In 1999, W3C published the first version of accessibility guidelines (WCAG 1.0). The second version was published in 2008 (WCAG 2.0) and this is the reference recommended for use in accessibility policies. There are four key principles that underlie WCAG 2.0: perceivable, operable, understandable and robust. Three levels of conformance testing were defined: A (lowest), AA and AAA (highest).

On 12 June 2006, ministers of 34 member states signed the Riga Ministerial Declaration and decided that all public web sites are accessible by 2010. Although the access to information for people with disabilities was stated as a priority at European level, the web accessibility of public web sites is still a problem. According to a recent survey only 5.3% of public web sites comply with the minimum accessibility requirements (MeAC, 2007).

This paper aims to present a preliminary review of municipal web sites in Romania. A sample of 30 municipality web sites was evaluated for accessibility with a semi-automatic accessibility evaluation tool. The evaluation results were then analyzed with respect to WCAG 2 A requirements.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section we present existing approaches in web accessibility research and web accessibility situation and needs in Romania. The evaluation results are presented and analyzed in section 3. The paper ends with conclusion and future work in section 4.

REFERENCES

  1. ABASCAL, J., M. ARRUE, I. FAJARDO, N. GARAY, J. TOMAS, The Use of Guidelines to Automatically Verify Web Accessibility, Universal Access in the Information Society, vol. 3(1), 2004, pp. 71-79.
  1. ALECU, S., Accessibility Evaluation of a Web Application for Visually Impaired People, Revista Româna de Interactiune Om-Calculator 1 (Special Issue RoCHI 2008), 2008, pp. 15-18.
  2. ANPH (2010) Statistical Bulletin Q1. Autoritatea Naţională pentru Persoanele cu Handicap. Available at: http://www.anph.ro/eng/news.php?ida=15
  3. BIRSH, J. R., Research and Reading Disability. Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills, Baltimore, Maryland, Paul H. Brookes Publishing, 2005, p. 8.
  4. CZEPITA, D., E. LODYGOWSKA, Role of the Organ of Vision in the Course of Developmental Dyslexia. Klin Oczna, vol. 108(1-3), 2006, pp. 110-3.
  5. e-Europe 2002 Action Plan, prepared by the Council and the European Commission for the Feira European Council, 19-20 June 2000, published on June 14, 2000.
  6. e-Europe 2005 Action Plan, presented in view of the Sevilla European Council, 21/22 June 2002, published on May 28, 2002.
  7. FAGA, J. C., B. FAGAN, An Accessibility Study of State Legislative Web Sites, Government Information Quarterly, vol. 21, 2004, pp. 65-85.
  8. HACKETT, S., B. PARMANTO, Homepage Not Enough when Evaluating Web Site Accessibility, Internet Research, vol. 19(1), Emerald. 2008, pp. 78-87.
  9. KANE, S., J. SHULMAN, R. LADNER, T., SHOCKELY, A Web Accessibility Report Card for Top International University Web Sites, Proceedings of W4A2007, ACM, 2007, pp. 148-156.
  10. KUZMA, J., Accessibility Design Issues with UK E-Government Sites, Government Information Quarterly, vol. 27, 2010, pp. 141-146.
  11. ISAILA, N., I. SMEUREANU, The Accessibility of Information in Computer Assisted Learning Process for Persons with Disabilities, Proceedings of ECC’2010, 2010, pp. 139-142.
  12. ISO/IEC FCD 25010:2010. Software Engineering – Software Product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) – System and software quality models, JTC 1/SC 7 N4522, 2007
  13. IVAN, I., B. VINTILĂ, C. CIUREA, M. DOINEA, The Modern Development Cycle of Citizen Oriented Applications, Studies in Informatics and Control, vol. 18(3), 2009, pp. 263-270.
  14. LAZAR, J., A. DUDLEY-SPONAUGLE, K.-D. GREENIDGE, Improving Web Accessibility: A Study of Webmaster Perceptions, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 20, 2004, pp. 269-288.
  15. LESNEANU, I., D. D. IORDACHE, Testing with Visually Impaired Users of a Local Public Administration Web Site, Revista Româna de Interactiune Om-Calculator, vol. 3 (Special Issue RoCHI 2010), 2010, pp. 15-18.
  16. LEUTHOLD, S., J. BARGAS-AVILA, K. OPWIS, Beyond Web Content Accessibility Guidelines: Design of Enhanced Text User Interfaces for Blind Internet Users, International Journal for Human-Computer Studies, vol. 66, 2008, pp. 257-270.
  17. McCANDLISS, B. D., NOBLE K. G., The Development Of Reading Impairment: A Cognitive Neuroscience Model, Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, vol. 9(3), 2003, pp. 196-204.
  18. MeAC, Measuring progress of eAccessibility in Europe. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/library/studies/meac_study/index_en.htm, 2007.
  19. OLSEN, M. G., How Accessible is the Public European Web, http://www.mortengoodwin.net/publicationfiles/how_accessible_is_the_european_web.pdf, 2008.
  20. OSICEANU, M. E., GHIOC, S. The Role and the Importance of Adaptated Information Technology (AIT) in the Process of Social Integration of Persons with Disabilities, Revista Româna de Interactiune Om-Calculator, vol. 1(2), 2008, pp. 133-144.
  21. PĂDURE, M., The Accessibility of Elearning Platforms for the Visually Impaired Students, Revista Româna de Interactiune Om-Calculator, vol. 2 (Special Issue RoCHI 2009), 2009, pp. 25-30.
  22. Riga Ministerial Declaration (2006), Riga, Latvia. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/ict_riga_2006/doc/declaration_riga.pdf
  23. SUDUC, A. M., M. BIZOI, F. G., FILIP, User Awareness about Information System Usability, Studies in Informatics and Control, vol. 19(2), 2010, pp. 145-152.
  24. TAKAGI, H., S. KAWANAKA, M. KOBAYASHI, D. SATO, C. ASAKAWA, Collaborative Web Accessibility Improvement: Challenges and Possibilities, Proceedings of ACM SIACCESS, ACM, 2009, pp. 195-202.
  25. Total Validator. Available at: http://www.totalvalidator.com/
  26. US Section 508 (1998). Available at: http://www.section508.gov/
  27. WAI (1997) Web Accessibility Initiative, W3C. Available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/
  28. WCAG1 (1999) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, W3C, 1999. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
  29. WCAG2 (2008) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, W3C, 2008. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

https://doi.org/10.24846/v20i3y201107