World Wide Web

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 61–88 | Cite as

Web accessibility guidelines

A lesson from the evolving Web
Article

Abstract

The World Wide Web (Web) is in constant evolutionary change. This evolution occurs along many fronts and is led by infrastructure developers, Web designers, technologists, and users. These multiple stake–holders ensure that the Web is a heterogeneous entity, not just in the nature of the content, but in the technology and agents used to deliver and render that content. It is precisely this heterogeneity which gives the Web its strength and its weakness. A weakness in technology adoption leading to an increasing disconnect between the actual user experience and the expected experience of the technology stakeholders. We are interested in the human factors surrounding the evolution of the Web interface; and believe that the wait is always too long for new accessibility recommendations, guidelines, and technology to be adopted. In this case, we describe a ten-year longitudinal study comprising approximately 6,000 home pages. From this study we conclude that as a ‘rule-of-thumb’ mainstream technology is adopted at about 15% within the first three years, incremental version releases are adopted at about 10% within the first three years. However, sites which are most popular often exhibit enhanced adoption rates of between 10 and 15% over the same period. In addition, we see that accessibility guidelines are mostly ignored with only a 10% adoption rate after more than ten years. From this we infer that, for maximum accessibility adoption, guidelines might be supported and reflected in mainstream specifications instead of remaining only as a separate document.

Keywords

Web accessibility visual impairment measurement evolution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aizpurua, A., Arrue, M., Vigo, M., Abascal, J.: Transition of accessibility evaluation tools to new standards. In: W4A ’09: Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibililty (W4A), pp. 36–44. ACM, New York (2009). doi:10.1145/1535654.1535662 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, C.: The Long Tail, revised and updated edition. Hyperion, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arrue, M., Vigo, M., Abascal, J.: Including heterogeneous web accessibility guidelines in the development process. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 4940, 620–637 (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92698-6_37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asakawa, C.: What’s the web like if you can’t see it? In: W4A ’05: Proceedings of the 2005 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A), pp. 1–8. ACM Press, New York (2005). doi:10.1145/1061811.1061813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Asakawa, C., Lewis, C.: Home page reader: IBM’s talking web browser. In: Closing the Gap Conference Proceedings (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brambring, M.: Mobility and orientation processes of the blind. In: Warren, D.H., Strelow E.R. (eds.) Electronic Spatial Sensing for the Blind, pp. 493–508. Dordrecht, Lancaster (1984)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brewington, B.E., Cybenko, G.: How dynamic is the web? Comput. Networks 33(1–6), 257–276 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Jacobs, I., Reid, L.G., Vanderheiden, G.: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. W3C (2008). http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
  9. 9.
    Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Reid, L.G., Vanderheiden, G., White, J.: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. WWW (2008). http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
  10. 10.
    Chen, A.Q., Harper, S.: Web Evolution—Code and Experimental Guide. Technical report, University of Manchester (2008). URL http://hcw-eprints.cs.man.ac.uk/75/
  11. 11.
    Chen, A.Q., Harper, S.: Web Evolution—Method and Materials. Technical report, University of Manchester (2008). URL http://hcw-eprints.cs.man.ac.uk/74/
  12. 12.
    Chen, C.: Structuring and visualising the www by generalised similarity analysis. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, pp. 177–186. ACM Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen, C.L., Raman, T.V.: Axsjax: a talking translation bot using google im: bringing web-2.0 applications to life. In: W4A ’08: Proceedings of the 2008 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), pp. 54–56. ACM, New York (2008). doi:10.1145/1368044.1368056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cho, J., Garcia-Molina, H.: The evolution of the Web and implications for an incremental crawler. In: VLDB ’00: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 200–209. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cooper, M.: Accessibility of emerging rich Web technologies: Web 2.0 and the semantic Web. In: W4A ’07: Proceedings of the 2007 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), pp. 93–98. ACM, New York (2007). doi:10.1145/1243441.1243463 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fetterly, D., Manasse, M., Najork, M., Wiener, J.L.: A large-scale study of the evolution of Web pages. Software: Practice and Experience 34(2), 213–237 (2004). doi:10.1002/spe.577 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Disability Rights Commission: The Web: Access and Inclusion for Disabled People. Tech. rep., Disability Rights Commission (DRC), UK (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Douglis, F., Feldmann, A., Krishnamurthy, B., Mogul, J.: Rate of change and other metrics: a live study of the world wide web. In: USITS’97: Proceedings of the USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems on USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems, p. 14. USENIX Association, Berkeley (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Duffy, B.E., Turow, J.: Key Readings in Media Today: Mass Communication in Contexts. Routledge, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Furuta, R.: Hypertext paths and the WWW: experiences with Walden’s paths. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia. ACM, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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). doi:10.1145/1243441.1243442 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gulli, A., Signorini, A.: The indexable Web is more than 11.5 billion pages. In: WWW ’05: Special Interest Tracks and Posters of the 14th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 902–903. ACM, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gunderson, J., Jacobs, I.: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (1999). http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-USERAGENT/
  24. 24.
    Hackett, S., Parmanto, B., Zeng, X.: A retrospective look at website accessibility over time. Behav. Inf. Technol. 24(6), 407–417 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Harper, S., Goble, C., Stevens, R.: Traversing the Web: mobility heuristics for visually impaired surfers. In: Catarci, T., Mercella, M., Mylopoulos, J., Orlowska, M.E. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering (WISE’03), pp. 200–209. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ivory, M., Hearst, M.: The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces. ACM Comput. Surv. 33(4), 470–516 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ivory, M.Y., Megraw, R.: Evolution of Web site design patterns. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 23(4), 463–497 (2005). doi:10.1145/1095872.1095876 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lazar, J., Dudley-Sponaugle, A., Greenidge, K.D.: Improving Web accessibility: a study of webmaster perceptions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 20(2), 269–288 (2004). doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.018. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VDC-4BRKMR8-B/2/08cd39063d4902227cf6033cf824aca4 . The Compass of Human-Computer InteractionCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leporini, B., Paternò, F., Scorcia, A.: Flexible tool support for accessibility evaluation. Interact. Comput. 18(5), 869–890 (2006). doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2006.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lowe, D., Hall, W.: Hypermedia and the Web: An Engineering Approach. Wiley, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lunn, D., Harper, S., Bechhofer, S.: Combining sadie and axsjax to improve the accessibility of Web content. In: W4A ’09: Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibililty (W4A), pp. 75–78. ACM, New York (2009). doi:10.1145/1535654.1535672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mckeever, S.: Understanding web content management systems: evolution, lifecycle and market. Ind. Manage. Data Syst. 103(9), 686–692 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Myers, W.: BETSIE: BBC Education Text to Speech Internet Enhancer. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Education (2007). http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/betsie/
  34. 34.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1994)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ntoulas, A., Cho, J., Olston, C.: What’s new on the Web?: the evolution of the Web from a search engine perspective. In: WWW ’04: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 1–12. ACM, New York (2004). doi:10.1145/988672.988674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    O’Neill, E.T., Lavoie, B.F., Bennett, R.: Trends in the evolution of the public Web (1998–2002). D-Lib Magazine 9(4) (2003). Retrieved 11 October 2006 from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april03/lavoie/04lavoie.html
  37. 37.
    Paciello, M.: Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities. CMP Books, CMP Media LLC (2000)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Petrie, H., Hamilton, F., King, N.: Tension, what tension?: website accessibility and visual design. In: W4A ’04: Proceedings of the 2004 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A), pp. 13–18. ACM, New York (2004). doi:10.1145/990657.990660 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rabin, J., McCathieNevile, C.: Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 (2005). http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/
  40. 40.
    Raggett, D., Boumphrey, F., Altheim, M., Wugofski, T.: Reformulating HTML in XML (W3C Working Draft 5th December 1998). WWW (1998)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Raskin, J.: Looking for a humane interface: will computers ever become easy to use? Commun. ACM 40(2), 98–101 (1997). doi:10.1145/253671.253737 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Takagi, H., Asakawa, C., Fukuda, K., Maeda, J.: Accessibility designer: visualizing usability for the blind. In: ASSETS’04 pp. 177–184 (2004)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Thatcher, J., Burks, M., Heilmann, C., Henry, S., Kirkpatrick, A., Lawson, B., Regan, B., Rutter, R., Urban, M., Waddell, C.: Web Accessibility, Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    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). doi:10.1145/1243441.1243450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Toyoda, M., Kitsuregawa, M.: Extracting evolution of web communities from a series of web archives. In: HYPERTEXT ‘03: Proceedings of the Fourteenth ACM Conference on’Hypertext and Hypermedia, pp. 28–37. ACM, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Treviranus, J., McCathieNevile, C., Jacobs, I., Richards, J.: Authoring tool accessibility guidelines 1.0. In: World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (2000). http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/
  47. 47.
    Treviranus, J., McCathieNevile, C., Jacobs, I., Richards, J.: Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. WWW (2000)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Velasco, C.A., Verelst, T.: Raising awareness among designers accessibility issues. In: SIGCAPH Comput. Phys. Handicap., pp. 8–13 (2001). doi:10.1145/569320.569323
  49. 49.
    W3C-MWBP: W3C mobileOK Checker. W3C (2008)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    W3C-MWBP: W3C mobileOK Scheme 1.0. W3C (2008)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zucker, D.F.: What does ajax mean for you? Interactions 14(5), 10–12 (2007). doi:10.1145/1288515.1288523 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science, Information Management GroupUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations