Web Accessibility: A Digital Divide for Disabled People?

  • Alison Adam
  • David Kreps
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 208)


The focus of this paper is Web accessibility for disabled people. Much of the Web remains inaccessible or difficult to access by people across a spectrum of disabilities and this may have serious implications for the potential use of the Web for increasing social inclusion. The topic of disabled Web access is introduced through a consideration of four discourses: digital divide, social construction of disability, legal, and Web accessibility. The lack of dialogue between these permits a passive liberal approach toward disability discrimination to prevail and this political position has become inscribed in widely used automatic software tools resulting in a reinforcement of the view that Web site accessibility approval may, in many cases, be deemed an empty shell.


  1. Adam, A. Gender, Ethics and Information Technology, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.Google Scholar
  2. Akrich, M. “The De-scription of Technical Objects,” in W. E. Bijker and J. Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp. 205–224.Google Scholar
  3. Cook, A. M., and Hussey, S. Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practices, St Louis, MO: Mosby, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. Cooper, J., and Weaver, K. D. Gender and Computers: Understanding the Digital Divide, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003Google Scholar
  5. Council of Europe. “Council Resolution on the Implementation of the eEurope 200-5 Action Plan,” Brussels, January 2003 (http://www.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/2005/doc/all_about/resolution.doc).Google Scholar
  6. DRC. “Disability Discrimination Act: Code of Practice,” Disability Rights Commission, UK Parliament 2008_223, 2002 (http://www.drc-gb.org/thelaw/practice.asp).Google Scholar
  7. DRC. “The Web: Access and Inclusion for Disabled People,” Disability Rights Commission, London, 2004 (http://www.drc-gb.org/library/webaccessibility.asp).Google Scholar
  8. EU Parliament. “European Parliament Resolution on the Commission Communication eEurope 2002: Accessibility of Public Web Sites and their Content,” (COM(2001) 529-C5-0074/2002-2002/2032(COS)), European Union, 2002 (http://europa.eu.int/information_society/policy/accessibility/).Google Scholar
  9. Fulcher, G. Disabling Policies?, London: Falmer Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. Goggin, G., and Newell, C. “An End to Disabling Policies? Toward Enlightened Universal Service,” The Information Society (16), 2000, pp. 127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guo, B., Bricout, J. C., and Huang, J. “A Common Open Space or a Digital Divide? A Social Model Perspective on the Online Disability Community in China,” Disability & Society (20:1), 2005, pp. 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoque, K., and Noon, M. “Equal Opportunities Policy and Practice in Britain: Evaluating the ‘Empty Shell’ Hypothesis,” Work, Employment and Society (18:3), 2004, pp. 481–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kreps, D., and Adam, A. “Failing the Disabled Community? The Continuing Problem of Web Accessibility,” in P. Zaphiris and S. Kurniawan (eds.), Human Computer Interaction Research in Web Design and Evaluation, Hershey, PA: Ideas Group, 2006 (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  14. Loader, B. D. (ed.). Cyberspace Divide: Equality, Agency and Policy in the Information Society, London: Routledge, 1998.Google Scholar
  15. Marshall, S., Taylor, W., and You, X. (eds.). Closing the Digital Divide: Transforming Regional Economies and Communities with Information Technology, Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.Google Scholar
  16. Norris, P. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. Ritchie, H., and Blanck, P. “The Promise of the Internet for Disability: A Study of On-Line Services and Web Site Accessibility at Centers for Independent Living,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law (21), 2003, pp. 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Selwyn, N. “‘E-stablishing’ an Inclusive Society? Technology, Social Exclusion and UK Government Policy Making,” Journal of Social Policy (31:1), 2002, pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Selwyn, N. “Reconsidering Political and Popular Understandings of the Digital Divide,” New Media & Society (6:3), 2004, pp. 341–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Servon, L. J. Bridging the Digital Divide: Technology, Community and Public Policy, Maiden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.Google Scholar
  21. Trauth, E. M., Quesenberry, J. L., and Morgan, A. J. “Understanding the Under Representation of Women in IT: Toward a Theory of Individual Differences,” in M. Tanniru and S. Weisband (eds.), Proceedings of ACM SIGMIS’04, New York: ACM Press, 2004, pp. 114–119.Google Scholar
  22. U.S. Department of Commerce. “Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion,” Washington, DC: National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 2000 (available online at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn00/contents00.html).Google Scholar
  23. Winner, L. “Cyberlibertarian Myths and the Prospect for Community,” ACM Computers and Society (27:3), 1997, pp. 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Winner, L. “Do Artefacts Have Politics?,” in D. MacKenzie and J. Wajcman (eds.), The Social Shaping of Technology, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 1999, pp. 28–40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alison Adam
    • 1
  • David Kreps
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SalfordSalfordUK

Personalised recommendations