Accessibility Evaluation of Three Important Indian Websites

  • P. MounikaEmail author
  • Deval KariaEmail author
  • Kshitij Sharma
  • Pradipta Biswas
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 134)


India has 27 million citizens disabled in some form, which include visual, cognitive, and motor impairment among others. This paper evaluates accessibility of three important Indian websites using multiple tools. Conformance to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) was evaluated with a set of Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)-listed online tools. The Cambridge Simulator was used to evaluate accessibility with respect to visual and motor impairment. The websites of the following organizations were evaluated: Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC), Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc). The ticket booking sequence for the IRCTC website, real-time data access section for the CPCB website, and the student admission sequence in the IISc website were selected for assessment. Our evaluation found that the availability of insufficient color contrast was a common error in the IRCTC and CPCB websites, with several instances where the contrast ratio was below the stipulated value of 4.5. Additionally, all functionality of the content was not operable through a keyboard interface. The IRCTC website used too small font size as hyperlinks, which would be difficult to select for users with a spasm or tremor, caused by minor motor impairment. All websites have missing alternative text, required by screen readers to describe image and audio elements to visually impaired users. It was also noted that on many occasions designers used too small font size and interelement spacing for hyperlinks, despite having screen space for a larger font size and interelement spacing. The WCAG and Royal National Institute of Blind (RNIB) specify standards of a minimum font size for websites and we recommend designers follow similar guidelines for interelement spacing as well. In conclusion, the merits and limitation of the tools used for evaluation have been discussed.


WCAG guidelines WAI World Wide Web continuum Cambridge simulator GOMS model 


  1. 1.
    World Wide Web Consortium: Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 [online]. Available at: (2018). Accessed Apr 2018
  2. 2.
    Rigden, C.: ‘The Eye of the Beholder’-designing for colour-blind users. Br. Telecommun. Eng. 17, 291–295 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Wide Web Consortium: Understanding techniques for WCAG success criteria [online] Available at: (2018). Accessed Apr 2018
  4. 4.
    Biswas, P., Robinson, P., Langdon, P.: Designing inclusive interfaces through user modeling and simulation. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 28(1), 1–33 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia. Indian Institute of Science [online]. Available at: (2018). Accessed Nov 2017
  6. 6.
    Alexa: Traffic statistics [online]. Available at: (2018). Accessed Nov 2017
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Web Accessibility Initiative: Accessibility, usability, and inclusion: related aspects of a web for all [online]. Available at: (2018). Accessed Apr 2018
  9. 9.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO 9241-11:1998 [online]. Available at: (2018). Accessed Apr 2018
  10. 10.
    Sulaiman, N., Ghazali, M.: A systematic literature review of accessibility and usability framework for disabled users. Ipcsit. Com. 45, 185–189 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alharthi, R., Albalawi, R., Abdo, M., El Saddik, A.: A context-aware e-health framework for students with moderate intellectual and learning disabilities. In: Multimedia and Expo (ICME), 2011 IEEE International Conference on, (pp. 1–6). IEEE (July 2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Antunes, D.R., Guimaraes, C., García, L.S., Oliveira, L.E.S., Fernandes, S.: A framework to support development of sign language human-computer interaction: building tools for effective information access and inclusion of the deaf. In: Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), 2011 Fifth International Conference on, (pp. 1–12). IEEE (May 2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raufi, B., Ferati, M., Zenuni, X., Ajdari, J., Ismaili, F.: Methods and techniques of adaptive web accessibility for the blind and visually impaired. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 195, 1999–2007 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leporini, B., Paternò, F.: Applying web usability criteria for vision-impaired users: does it really improve task performance? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 24(1), 17–47 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hassan, S., Li, F.: Identifying web usability criteria: the S̓CANMIC ̓model. Department of Management Science, University of Strathclyde (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Wide Web Consortium: WAI-ARIA Overview [online]. Available at: (2018). Accessed Nov 2017
  17. 17.
    World Wide Web Consortium: Contrast (minimum): understanding SC 1.4.3 [online]. Available at: (2018). Accessed Nov 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations