Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 505–515 | Cite as

Accessibility of Turkish university Web sites

  • Serhat KurtEmail author


In 2010, the author of this paper conducted an evaluation of the accessibility level of the home pages of Turkish Universities (Kurt in Univers Access Inf Soc 10(1):101–110, 2011). That investigation, which utilized a variety of different evaluative techniques, as recommended by the World Wide Web Consortium, found that none of the reviewed home pages met the minimum criteria for Web accessibility. In 2015, the author completed a follow-up audit of the same universities’ home pages, using a similar methodological approach. The goal of the audit was to determine whether Web site accessibility had increased or improved during the intervening 5-year period. This paper, which details the results of the second study, demonstrates that in general accessibility levels have actually decreased slightly. Each of the university Web sites reviewed contains at least one of a variety of components that makes it inaccessible to some users. Of these, the most prominent is neglecting to provide equivalent text alternative for content that has been presented in non-text formats, although doing so would be a relatively simple matter.


University Web sites Web accessibility Turkish universities Turkey 


  1. 1.
    Alexander, D.: How accessible are university websites? Retrieved Feb 21, 2009, from (2003)
  2. 2.
    Alexander, D., Rippon S.: University website accessibility revisited. Retrieved May 24, 2009, from (2007)
  3. 3.
    Axtell, R., Dixon, J.M.: Voyager 2000: a review of accessibility for persons with visual disabilities. Library Hi Tech 20(2), 141–171 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bailey, J., Burd, E.: Web Accessibility Evolution in the United Kingdom. In: Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Symposium on Web Site Evolution—Volume 00 (September 26, 2005). WSE. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 79–86. Washington, DC (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bowen, J.P.: Web access to cultural heritage for the disabled. In: Hemsley, J.R., Cappellini, V., Stanke, G. (eds.) Digital Applications for Cultural and Heritage Institutions: Selected Papers from the EVA Conferences, pp. 215–225. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Comeaux, D., Schmetzke, A.: Web accessibility trends in university libraries and library schools. Library Hi Tech 25(4), 457–477 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Comscore.: Mobile internet usage skyrockets in past 4 years to overtake desktop as most used digital platform. Retrieved Aug 24, 2015, from (2015)
  8. 8.
    Espadinha, C., Pereira, L., Da Silva, F., Lopes, J.: Accessibility of Portuguese public universities’ sites. Disabil. Rehabil. 33(6), 475–485 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flowers, C.P., Bray, M., Algozzine, R.F.: Accessibility of special education program home pages. J. Spec. Educ. Technol. 14(2), 21–26 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fujitsu.: ColorDoctor. Retrieved May 25, 2009, from (n.d.)
  11. 11.
    Harper, K.A., DeWaters, J.: A quest for website accessibility in higher education institutions. Internet High. Educ. 11(3–4), 160–164 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jaeger, P.T.: Assessing Section 508 compliance on federal e-government Web sites: a multi-method, user-centered evaluation of accessibility for persons with disabilities. Gov. Inf. Q. 23(2), 169–190 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jackson-Sanborn, E., Odess-Harnish, K., Warren, N.: Web site accessibility: a study of six genres. Library Hi Tech 20(3), 308–317 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson, K., Brown, S., Amtmann, D., Thompson, T.: Web accessibility in post-secondary education: legal and policy considerations. Inf. Technol. Disabil. 9, 2 (2003).
  15. 15.
    Kane, S.K., Shulman, J.A., Shockley, T.J., Ladner, R.E.: A web accessibility report card for top international university web sites. In: Proceedings of the 2007 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4a) (Banff, Canada, May 07–08, 2007). W4A ‘07, vol. 225. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kurt, S.: The accessibility of university web sites: the case of Turkish universities. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 10(1), 101–110 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lazar, J., Beere, P., Greenidge, K., Nagappa, Y.: Web accessibility in the Mid-Atlantic United States: a study of 50 home pages. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. J. 2(4), 331–341 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Market Share.: Screen resolutions. Retrieved May 29, 2009, from (2009)
  19. 19.
    McMullin, B.: WARP: web accessibility reporting project Ireland 2002 baseline study. Retrieved October 25, 2015, from (2002)
  20. 20.
    Ministry of Family and Social Policies (MFSP).: Web Erişilebilirlik Kılavuzlar. (2014)
  21. 21.
    Nielsen, J.: Designing web usability. New Riders Publishing, Indianapolis (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nielsen, J.: Screen resolution and page layout. Retrieved April 19, 2009, from (2006)
  23. 23.
    O’Grady, L.: Accessibility compliance rates of consumer-oriented Canadian health care Web sites. Med. Inform. Internet Med. 30(4), 287–295 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parmanto, B., Zeng, X.: Metric for web accessibility evaluation. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 56(13), 1394–1404 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Potter, A.: Accessibility of Alabama government Web sites. J. Gov. Inf. 29, 303–317 (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pederick, C.: Web developer. Retrieved Jan 13, 2009, from (n.d.)
  27. 27.
    Rowland, C.: Accessibility of the internet in postsecondary education: meeting the challenge. (2000)
  28. 28.
    Schmetzke, A.: Web accessibility at university libraries and library schools. Library Hi Tech 19(1), 35–49 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shi, Y.: The accessibility of chinese local government web sites: an exploratory study. Gov. Inf. Q. 24(2), 377–403 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    StatCounter.: Screen resolution alert for Web developers. Retrieved July 10, 2015, from (2012)
  31. 31.
    Stewart, R., Narendra, V., Schmetzke, A.: Accessibility and usability of online library databases. Library Hi Tech 23(2), 265–286 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Turkish Higher Education Council (THEC).: Kategoriler Üniversiteler. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from,com_alphacontent/section,27/Itemid,181/lang,tr_TR (n.d)
  33. 33.
    Thompson, T., Burgstahler, S., Comden, D.: Research on web accessibility in higher education. J. Inf. Technol. Disabil. 9(2) (2003). Retrieved Oct 10, 2013, from
  34. 34.
    Thompson, T., Burgstahler, S., Moore, E.: Accessibility of higher education websites in the Northwestern US: current status and response to third party outreach. In: Proceedings of The First International Conference on Technology-Based Learning with Disability. Retrieved Oct 17, 2012 from (2007)
  35. 35.
    Thompson, T., Burgstahler, S., Moore, E., Gunderson, J., Hoyt, N.: International research on web accessibility for persons with disabilities. In: Khosrow-Pour, M. (ed.) Managing Worldwide Operations and Communications with Information Technology. Information Resources Management Association, Hershey (2007). Retrieved Oct 03, 2015, at
  36. 36.
    Thompson, T., Comden, D., Ferguson, S., Burgstahler, S., Moore, E.J.: Seeking predictors of web accessibility in US higher education institutions. Inf. Technol. Disabil. 13(1), 18 (2013)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    United States Access Board.: Section 508 standards for electronic and information technology. (2000)
  38. 38.
    Wijayaratne, A., Singh, D.: Is there space in cyberspace for distance learners with special needs in Asia? A review of the level of web accessibility of institutional and library homepages of AAOU members. Int. Inf. Libr. Rev. 42(1), 40–49 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).: Techniques for accessibility evaluation and repair tools. Retrieved Feb 11, 2009, from (2000)
  40. 40.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).: Introduction to web accessibility. Retrieved June 11, 2015 (2005a)
  41. 41.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).: Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Retrieved April 15, 2015 (2008a)
  42. 42.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).: Validity and accessibility. Retrieved May 11, 2009, from (2005b)
  43. 43.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).: Help and FAQ for the markup validator. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from (n.d.)
  44. 44.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).: Web accessibility evaluation tools: overview. Retrieved April 19, 2009, from (2006)
  45. 45.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).: Preliminary review of web sites for accessibility. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from (2008b)
  46. 46.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).: Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Retrieved April 15, 2009, from (2008c)
  47. 47.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).: Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) overview. Retrieved May 2, 2009, from (2009)
  48. 48.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).: Web accessibility evaluation tools list. Retrieved April 14, 2015, from (2014)
  49. 49.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).: Accessibility features of CSS. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from (1999)
  50. 50.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).: Web accessibility QuickTips WCAG 2 at a glance. Retrieved May 10, 2014, from (2011)
  51. 51.
    Zaphiris, P., Ellis, R.D.: Website usability and content accessibility of the top USA universities. In: Proceedings of WebNet 2001 World Conference on the WWW and Internet (WebNet) (Orlando, FL, USA, October 23–27, 2001). WebNet 2001, pp. 1380–1385. AACE, Orlando (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied SciencesKonya Necmettin Erbakan UniversityKonyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations