Advertisement

Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 339–349 | Cite as

Municipal web sites accessibility and usability for blind users: preliminary results from a pilot study

  • Costin Pribeanu
  • Paul Fogarassy-Neszly
  • Aurel Pătru
Communication

Abstract

Despite the existing regulations and standards at national and international level, web content is still difficult to use, if not completely unusable, for visually impaired people. This paper presents the evaluation results for three municipal web sites. A combined method, based on conformance review and expert review, was employed. Overall, the results reveal a low conformance to WCAG2 and many accessibility and usability problems. The content is not properly structured, and this reduces usability even for sighted user. The analysis of the evaluation data suggests that many accessibility barriers could be avoided by adopting a user-centered approach during web design.

Keywords

Accessibility Accessibility barrier Conformance review Usability inspection Municipal web sites 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was carried on in the framework of the Eureka Cluster ITEA2 European project USIXML (08026) funded by UEFISCDI under the PNCDI II Innovation Program 294E.

References

  1. 1.
    Abascal, J., Arrue, M., Fajardo, I., Garay, N., Tomas, J.: The use of guidelines to automatically verify Web accessibility. Univers.Access.Inf.Soc. 3(1), 71–79 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ANPH Statistical Bulletin Q1. National Authority for Disabled Persons.(2011) Available at: http://www.anph.ro/admin/doc/upload/eng/21/Quarterly%20statistical%20Q3-2011.doc
  3. 3.
    Bastien, J.M.C. and Scapin, D.L. (1993) Evaluating a User Interface with Ergonomic Criteria INRIA Report, RoquencourtGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borodin, Y., Bighan, J., Dausch, G., Ramakrishnan, I.V. More than meets the eyw: a survey of screen reader browsing strategies. Proceedings of W4A 2010, ACM. Article No.5 (2010) doi: 10.1145/1805986.1806005
  5. 5.
    Brajnik, G., Web accessibility testing: When the method is the culprit. In In Proc. of ICCHP 156–163 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brajnik, G., Beyond conformance: The role of accessibility evaluation methods. Proc. of WISE 2008 Workshop, LNCS 5176, 63–80. (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cockton, G., Woolrych, A. Understanding inspection methods: lessons from an assessment of heuristic evaluation. Blandford, A., Vanderdonckt, J., Gray, P.D. (Eds.), Proceedings of People and Computers XV. Springer-Verlag, 171–182 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    COM 694. European i2010 initiative on e-Inclusion. Commission of the European Communities (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    COM 8044 Towards an accessible information society. Commission of the European Communities (2008) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cullen, K., Kubitschke, L., Meyer, I. Assessment of the status of eAccessibility in Europe. MeAC–Measuring Progress of eAccessibility in Europe (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cullen, K., Kubitschke, L., Boussios, T., Dolphin, C., Meyer, I. (2009). Study on Web accessibility in European countries: level of compliance with latest international accessibility specifications, notably WCAG 2.0, and approaches or plans to implement those specifications, European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fagan, J.C., Fagan, B.: An accessibility study of state legislative websites. Gov. Inf. Q 21, 65–85 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fuertes H., Gutierrez E., Martinez L. Developing HeraFFX for WCAG 2.0. Proc. W4A 2011, Article No. 3, (2011) doi: 10.1145/1969289.1969294
  14. 14.
    Iordache, D.D., Marinescu, R.D., Gheorghe-Moisii, M., Pribeanu, C. A case study in the formative usability evaluation of a local public administration website. Revista Romana de Interactiune Om-Calculator, 3(Special IssueRoCHI 2010). 23–28 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO/IEC FCD 25010:2010. Software Engineering–Software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)–System and software quality models, JTC 1/SC 7 N4522, 2007Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lazar, J.: Investigating the accessibility and usability of job applications for blind users. J. Usabilit. Stud. 7(2), 68–87 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuzma, J.: Accessibility design issues with UK e-government sites. Govern. Inform. Q. 27, 141–146 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leporini B. Google News: how user-friendly is it for the blind. Proc. ACM SIGDOC 2011, ACM, 241–248 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leuthold, S., Bargas-Avila, J., Opwis, K.: Beyond web content accessibility guidelines: Design of enhanced text user interfaces for blind internet users. Int. J. Human-Comp. Stud 66, 257–270 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marinescu, R.D. Municipal web sites accessibility: conformance evaluation against WCAG 2.0. Revista Romana de Interactiune Om-Calculator 5 (1), 55–72 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Molich, R., Nielsen, J.: Improving a human-computer dialogue. Commun. ACM 33(3), 338–348 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Academic Press, New York (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nielsen, J.“Heuristic evaluation”. Nielsen, J., and Mack, R.L. (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods, John Wiley & Sons, New York. (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nietzio, A., Olsen, M.G., Eibegger, M., Snaprud, M. Accessibility of eGovernment websites: towards a collaborative retrofitting approach. Computer Helping People with Special Needs, LNCS 6179, 468–475, Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Obrad, C., Petcu, D., Gherhes, V., Suciu, S.: Corporate Social Responsibility in Romanian Companies–between Perceptions and Reality. Amfiteatru. Economic XIII 29, 43–55 (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Olsen, M.G. How Accessible is the Public EuropeanWeb. (2008) Available at: http://www.mortengoodwin.net/publicationfiles/how_accessible_is_the_european_web.pdf. Accessed 27.01.2012
  27. 27.
    Pernice, K., Nielsen, J. (2001) Beyond ALT text: Making the web easy to use for users with disabilities. Nielsen Norman Group. Available at http://www.nngroup.com/reports/accessibility. Accessed: 10 January 2012
  28. 28.
    Pribeanu, C., Marinescu, R.D., Fogarassy-Neszly, P., Gheorghe-Moisii, M.: Web accessibility in Romania: the conformance of municipal websites to web content accessibility guidelines. Inform. Econom. J 16(1), 28–36 (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pribeanu, C., Marinescu, R.D., Iordache, D.D., Gheorghe-Moisii, M.: Exploring the usability of municipal web sites: A comparison based on expert evaluation results from four case studies. Inform. Econom. J 14(4), 87–96 (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Riga Ministerial Declaration, Riga, Latvia. (2006) Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/ict_riga_2006/doc/declaration_riga.pdf
  31. 31.
    Ruth-Jannek, D. An integrative accessibility engineering approach using multidimensional classifications of barriers in the web. Proceedings of W4A2007, ACM, 41–44 (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stephanidis, C., Akoumianakis D. A design code of practice for universal access: Methods and techniques. Proctor R, Wu, K. (Eds.) Human Factors in Web Design, LEA, 251–266. (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Takagi, H., Saito, S., Fukuda, K., Asakawa, C. Analysis of Navigability of web applications for improving blind usability. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol.14 no. 3, Art 13 (1–36) (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Total Validator. Available at: http://www.totalvalidator.com/
  35. 35.
    UsiXML: Uses Interface Extensible Markup Language, ITEA2 Project 08026, Available at: http://www.usixml.eu. Accessed 27.01.2012
  36. 36.
    Vanderdonckt J. Model driven engineering of user interfaces: promises, successes, failures and challenges. Proc. RoCHI 2008, MatrixRom, 1–10 (2008)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vigo, M., Brajnik, G.: Automatic web accessibility metrics: where we are and where we can go. Interact. Comput. 23, 137–155 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    WAI (1997) Web Accessibility Initiative, W3C. Available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/
  39. 39.
    Watanabe, T.: Experimental evaluation of usability and accessibility of heading elements. Disabil. Rehabil. 4(4), 236–247 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    WCAG1 (1999) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, W3C, 1999. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
  41. 41.
    WCAG2 (2008) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, W3C, 2008. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
  42. 42.
    Yesilada, Y., Brajnik, G., Harper, S.: Barriers to mobile and disabled web users. Interact. Comput. 23, 525–542 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Costin Pribeanu
    • 1
  • Paul Fogarassy-Neszly
    • 2
  • Aurel Pătru
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.National Institute for Research and Development in Informatics–ICI BucharestBucharestRomania
  2. 2.BAUM EngineeringAradRomania
  3. 3.School Center for Visually Disabled ChildrenAradRomania

Personalised recommendations