Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 185–199 | Cite as

The uptake of Web 2.0 technologies, and its impact on visually disabled users

  • Andy Brown
  • Caroline Jay
  • Alex Q. Chen
  • Simon Harper
Long Paper

Abstract

World Wide Web (Web) documents, once delivered in a form that remained constant whilst viewed, are now often dynamic, with sections of a page able to change independently, either automatically or as a result of user interaction. In order to make these updates, and hence their host pages, accessible, it is necessary to detect when the update occurs and how it has changed the page, before determining how, when and what to present to the user. This can only be achieved with an understanding of both the technologies used to achieve dynamic updates and the human factors influencing how people use them. After proposing a user-centred classification of dynamic updates, this paper surveys the current state of technology from two perspectives: that of the developer, and those of visually disabled users. For the former group, the paper introduces some of the technologies that are currently available for implementing dynamic Web pages, before reporting on the results of experiments analysing current and historical Web pages to determine the extent of use of these technologies ‘in the wild’ and the trends in their uptake. The analysis shows that for the most popular 500 sites, JavaScript is used in 93%, Flash in 27% and about one-third (30%) use XMLHttpRequest, a technology used to generate dynamic updates. Uptake of XMLHttpRequest is approximately 2.3% per year across a random selection of 500 sites and is probably higher in the most popular sites. When examining dynamic updates from the perspective of visually disabled users, first an investigation is reported into which technologies (Web Browser and assistive technologies) are currently used by this group in the UK: Internet Explorer and JAWS are clear favourites. Then, the paper describes the results of an experiment, and supporting anecdotal evidence, which suggests that, at best, most users can currently reach updated content, but they must do so manually, and are rarely given any indication that any update has occurred. With technologies enabling dynamic updating of content currently deployed in about 30% of the most popular sites, and increasing annually, action is urgently required if visually disabled users are to be able to use the Web. The paper concludes by discussing some of the issues involved in making these updates accessible.

Keywords

Web accessibility Visually impaired Screen readers Dynamic content 

References

  1. 1.
    Bigham, J.P., Prince, C.M.: Webanywhere: a screen reader on-the-go. In: Assets ’07: Proceedings of the 9th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp 225–226. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown, A., Jay, C., Harper, S.: Audio representation of auto-suggest lists. In: W4A’09: Proceedings of the 2009 Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), pp 58–61 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burks, M.R., Lauke, P.H., Thatcher, J., Rutter, R., Waddell, C.: Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance. Friends of Ed (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buzzi, M., Leporini, B.: Editing wikipedia content by screen reader: easier interaction with the accessible rich internet applications suite. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 4(4), 264–275 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, A.Q., Harper, S.: Web Evolution: Method and Materials. Technical Report, University of Manchester. http://wel-eprints.cs.man.ac.uk/74 (2008)
  6. 6.
    Gibson, B.: Enabling an accessible Web 2.0. In: W4A ’07: Proceedings of the 2007 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), pp 1–6. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gregor, P., Sloan, D., Newell, A.F.: Disability and technology: building barriers or creating opportunities? Adv. Comput. 4, 283–346 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jay, C., Brown, A.: User Review Document: Results of Initial Sighted User Investigations. Technical Report, University of Manchester. http://wel-eprints.cs.manchester.ac.uk/49/ (2008)
  9. 9.
    Jingling, L., Yeh, S.L.: New objects do not capture attention without a top-down setting: evidence from an inattentional blindness task. Vis. Cogn. 15(6), 661–684 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Reilly, T.: What is Web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Commun. Strateg. 1, 17–37 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ramen, T.V.: Specialized browsers. In: Harper, S., Yesilada , Y. (eds.) Web Accessibility: A Foundation for Research, Chap 12, pp. 195–213. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Richards, J.T., Hanson, V.L.: Web accessibility: a broader view. In: WWW ’04: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp 72–79. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thiessen, P., Chen, C.: Ajax live regions: chat as a case example. In: W4A ’07: Proceedings of the 2007 International Cross-disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), pp 7–14. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thiessen, P., Chen, C.: ARIA live regions: an introduction to channels. J. Access Serv. 6(1), 215–230 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thiessen, P., Russell, E.: Wai-aria live regions and channels: reefchat as a case example. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 4(4), 276–287 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Web Accessibility in Mind: Screen reader user survey results. http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey2 (2009a)
  17. 17.
    Web Accessibility in Mind: Survey of preferences of screen readers users. http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey (2009b)
  18. 18.
    Zajicek, M.: Web 2.0: hype or happiness? In: W4A ’07: Proceedings of the 2007 International Cross-disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), pp 35–39. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andy Brown
    • 1
  • Caroline Jay
    • 1
  • Alex Q. Chen
    • 1
  • Simon Harper
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations