Accessibility of eGovernment Web Sites: Towards a Collaborative Retrofitting Approach
Accessibility benchmarking is efficient to raise awareness and initiate competition. However, traditional benchmarking is of little avail when it comes to removing barriers from eGovernment web sites in practice. Regulations and legal enforcement may be helpful in a long-term perspective. For more rapid progress both vendors and web site maintainers are willing to take short-term action towards improvements, provided that clear advise is available. The approach of the eGovernment Monitoring project (eGovMon) integrates benchmarking as a central activity in a user-driven project. In addition to benchmarking results, several other services and background information are provided to enable the users – in this case a group of Norwegian municipalities who want to improve the accessibility of their web sites – to gain real added value from benchmarking.
KeywordsContent Management System Alternative Text Accessibility Barrier Norwegian Municipality Traditional Benchmarking
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Nietzio, A., Olsen, M.G., Snaprud, M., Brynn, R.: eGovernment: New chance or new barrier people with disabilities? In: 8th International Conference on Electronic Government: Proceedings of ongoing research and projects of EGOV 2009, Trauner Druck: Linz, Schriftenreihe Informatik (2009)Google Scholar
- 3.Capgemini: Smarter, Faster, Better eGovernment (2009), http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarjking/egov_benchmark_2009.pdf (retrieved February 1, 2010)
- 4.Cullen, K., Kubitschke, L., Meyer, I.: Assessment of the status of eAccessibility in Europe (2007), http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/library/studies/meac_study/index_en.htm (retrieved November 4, 2009)
- 5.Cullen, K., Kubitschke, L., Boussios, T., Dolphion, C., Meyer, I.: Study report: 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 (2009), http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/library/studies/docs/access_comply_main.pdf (retrieved January 28, 2010)
- 6.Snaprud, M., Sawicka, A.: Large Scale Web Accessibility Evaluation - A European Perspective (2007), http://www.springerlink.com/content/f0l7754512717k01/
- 7.Agency for Public Management and eGovernment (Difi): Quality of public web sites (2009), http://www.norge.no/kvalitet/
- 8.Greeff, M., Kotzé, P.: A lightweight methodology to improve web accessibility. In: SAICSIT 2009: Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, pp. 30–39. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
- 10.Web Accessibility Benchmarking Cluster: Unified Web Evaluation Methodology, UWEM 1.2 (2007), http://www.wabcluster.org/uwem1_2/ (retrieved November 4, 2009)
- 11.World Wide Web Consortium: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. W3C Recommendation (May 5, 1999), http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ (retrieved November 4, 1999)
- 12.Casado Martínez, C., Martínez-Normand, L., Olsen, M.G.: Is it possible to predict the manual web accessibility result using the automatic result? In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) HCI (7). LNCS, vol. 5615, pp. 645–653. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
- 13.Brajnik, G.: Towards a sustainable web accessibility. In: Accessible Design in the Digital World, ADDW (2008)Google Scholar