Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 434–450 | Cite as

Open to all? Nationwide evaluation of high-priority web accessibility considerations among higher education websites

  • Royce Kimmons
Article

Abstract

This study seeks to evaluate the basic Priority 1 web accessibility of all college and university websites in the US (n = 3141). Utilizing web scraping and automated content analysis, the study establishes that even in the case of high-priority, simple-to-address accessibility requirements, colleges and universities generally fail to make their sites accessible. Results should be used to determine reasonable and simple steps for moving toward accessible design in institutional websites, which is necessary to ensure that institutional resources can be open and useable by all.

Keywords

Web accessibility Search engine optimization Openness Data mining Web scraping 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

This study did not involve research on humans or animals.

References

  1. Beja, M. (2009). Advocates for the blind sue Arizona State U. over kindle use. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/advocates-for-the-blind-sue-arizona-state-u-over-kindle-use/7252
  2. Burgstahler, S. E. (2015). Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  3. Child, D. (2014). Text statistics. GitHub. Retrieved from https://github.com/DaveChild/Text-Statistics
  4. Do-It. (2014). Do colleges and universities agree as to whether they must adhere to Section 508 standards? Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/doit/do-colleges-and-universities-agree-whether-they-must-adhere-section-508-standards
  5. Hackett, S., Parmanto, B., & Zeng, X. (2007). A retrospective look at website accessibility over time. Behavior & Information Technology, 24(6), 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Harper, K. A., & DeWaters, J. (2008). A quest for website accessibility in higher education institutions. Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 160–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jaeger, P. T. (2006). Assessing Section 508 compliance on federal e-government web sites: A multi-method, user-centered evaluation of accessibility for persons with disabilities. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jaycox, M. (2011). As schools shift to Google Apps, blind students object. ArsTechnica. Retrieved from http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/04/as-schools-shift-to-google-apps-blind-students-object/
  9. Kane, S. K., Shulman, J. A., Shockley, T. J., & Ladner, R. E. (2007). A web accessibility report card for top international university web sites. In Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A) (pp. 148–156). Banff, CA: ACM.Google Scholar
  10. Kimmons, R. (2016). Expansive openness in teacher practice. Teachers College Record, 118(9), n9.Google Scholar
  11. Klein, D., Myhill, W., Hansen, L., Asby, G., Michaelson, S., & Blanck, P. (2003). Electronic doors to education: Study of high school website accessibility in Iowa. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 21(1), 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krach, S. K. (2007). Snapshot-Ten years after the law: A survey of the current status of university web accessibility. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(4), 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krach, S. K., & Milan, J. (2009). The other technological divide: K-12 web accessibility. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(2), 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Orzeck, K. (2015). Deaf advocates sue Harvard, MIT for better webcast captions. Law 360. Retrieved from http://www.law360.com/articles/621255/deaf-advocates-sue-harvard-mit-for-better-webcast-captions
  15. Parry, M. (2012). $150,000 settlement reached in blind Florida State students’ e-learning suit. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/150000-settlement-reached-in-blind-florida-state-students-e-learning-suit/35659
  16. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2010). Classification description. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/descriptions/basic.php
  17. The United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2014). HTML 508 checklist. HHS.gov. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/web/section-508/making-files-accessible/checklist/html/index.html
  18. The United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2015). Section 508. HHS.gov. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/web/section-508/
  19. The United States Department of Justice. (2013). Justice department settles with Louisiana Tech University over inaccessible course materials. The United States Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-louisiana-tech-university-over-inaccessible-course-materials
  20. The University of Texas at Austin. (2015). U.S. universities. The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from https://www.utexas.edu/world/univ/alpha/
  21. Thompson, T., Comden, D., Ferguson, S., Burgstahler, S., & Moore, E. (2013). Seeking predictors of web accessibility in U.S. higher education institutions. Information Technology and Disabilities Journal, 13(1), 18.Google Scholar
  22. W3C. (2015). Tables: Tips and tricks. Web Accessibility Tutorials. http://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/tables/tips/
  23. W3C. (n.d.). W3C checklist. W3C. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html
  24. WebAIM. (n.d.) WAVE: Web accessibility evaluation tool. WebAIM. Retrieved from http://wave.webaim.org/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations