Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Web Accessibility and Web Developer Attitudes Towards Accessibility in Mozambique

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Design Methods and User Experience (HCII 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12768))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

People with disabilities are found to be severely affected by barriers in websites and other web services. This paper aims to study the web accessibility issues in Mozambique and to review the factors that contribute to it. The case study is based on results from 2 perspectives: first, automatic evaluation of five prominent national websites, and second through fieldwork, interviewing and interacting with web developers in Mozambique. The study found that none of the websites are WCAG 2.1 compatible and the web developers, in general, do not consider web accessibility in their products and services. The underlying factors responsible for web inaccessibility are found out to be extrinsic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this paper we use the term “web developers” to collectively refer to software developers, web developers, web programmers, web designers, webmasters, web makers etc. used as the research participants in this research.

  2. 2.

    The disability or functional limitations, or disablement process is the result produced between the exchange of individual restricted functional abilities with the demands of the society and environment [11].

  3. 3.

    The definition of disability differs from the social model to the medical model to other models in practice. Neither in this report nor my wider disability research, do I reject the idea that disability is powerfully shaped by social forces.

  4. 4.

    “Universal Design is the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. “Universal design” shall not exclude assistive devices for particular groups of persons with disabilities where this is needed [40]”.

  5. 5.

    A list of state parties to UNCRPD, can be found at https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-15&chapter=4.

  6. 6.

    “Disability is an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with other” [15]. The current convention proposed by the UN emphasizes to “promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity” [15].

  7. 7.

    Web accessibility means that people with disabilities can use the Web. More specifically, web accessibility means that people with disabilities can perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with the Web [41].

  8. 8.

    https://www.similarweb.com/.

  9. 9.

    https://achecker.ca/checker/index.php?lang=eng [42].

  10. 10.

    https://www.powermapper.com/products/sortsite/checks/accessibility-checks/ [43].

  11. 11.

    https://wave.webaim.org/ [44].

References

  1. Noh, K.-R., Jeong, E.-S., You, Y.-B., Moon, S.-J., Kang, M.-B.: A study on the current status and strategies for improvement of web accessibility compliance of public institutions. J. Open Innov.: Technol., Mark., Complex. 1(1), 1–17 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-015-0001-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lopes, R., Gomes, D., Carriço, L.: Web not for all: a large scale study of web accessibility (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1805986.1806001

  3. Kamal, I.W., Alsmadi, I.M., Wahsheh, H.A., Al-Kabi, M.N.: Evaluating web accessibility metrics for Jordanian universities. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 7(7), 113–122 (2016). https://doi.org/10.14569/ijacsa.2016.070716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Costa, D., Fernandes, N., Neves, S., Duarte, C., Hijón-Neira, R., Carriço, L.: Web accessibility in Africa: a study of three African domains. In: Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2013. LNCS, vol. 8117, pp. 331–338. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40483-2_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Wright, K.Q.: Disability in Africa | African Studies Centre Leiden (2018). https://www.ascleiden.nl/content/webdossiers/disability-africa. Accessed 26 Mar 2020

  6. Sida: Disability Rights in Mozambique, no. December, p. 7 (2014). http://www.sida.se/globalassets/sida/eng/partners/human-rights-based-approach/disability/rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-mozambique.pdf

  7. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C): Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). https://www.w3.org/WAI/. Accessed 10 Dec 2020

  8. Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI): Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/. Accessed 11 Dec 2020

  9. Shinohara, K., Bennett, C.L., Wobbrock, J.O.: How designing for people with and without disabilities shapes student design thinking. In: ASSETS 2016 - Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 229–237 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2982142.2982158

  10. Paciello, M.: Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2000)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Eide, A.H., Kamaleri, Y.: Living conditions of people with disabilities in Mozambique, no. January 2009

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sankhi, P., Sandnes, F.E.: A glimpse into smartphone screen reader use among blind teenagers in rural Nepal. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol., pp. 1–7, September 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1818298

  13. Slatin, J.M., Rush, S.: Maximum accessibility: making your web site more usable for everyone. Addison-Wesley Professional (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kurt, S.: The accessibility of university web sites: the case of Turkish universities. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 10(1), 101–110 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-010-0190-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. United Nations, Toolkit on disability for Africa. Div. Soc. Policy Dev., pp. 1–40 (2016). http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/disability/Toolkit/Intro-UN-CRPD.pdf

  16. INE, IV Recenseamento Geral da População e Habitação, 2017 Resultados Definitivos – Moçambique. Inst. Nac. Estatística, Maputo-Moçambique, pp. 16–21 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lopes, E.C.U.: Mozambique. Afr. Disabil. Rts. YB 1, 245 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lord, J., Stein, M.A.: Prospects and practices for CRPD implementation in Africa. Afr. Disabil. Rts. YB 1, 97 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  19. DO-IT, What is the difference between accessible, usable, and universal design? The Faculty Room (2013). https://www.washington.edu/doit/what-difference-between-accessible-usable-and-universal-design. Accessed 10 Sep 2018

  20. Web Accessibility Initiative, Web Accessibility Perspectives: Explore the Impact and Benefits for Everyone | Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) | W3C. https://www.w3.org/WAI/perspective-videos/ Accessed 10 Dec 2020

  21. Fuglerud, K.S., Halbach, T., Tjøstheim, I.: Cost-benefit analysis of universal design. Lit. Rev. Suggest. Futur. Work. Oslo Nor. Regnesentral (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Assembly, G.: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly (2007). https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CRPD/CRPD_ENG.pdf. Accessed: 10 Dec 2020

  23. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment no. 2 (2014) on Article 9: Accessibility - CRPD/C/GC/2, vol. 03313, p. 14 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Abuaddous, H.Y., Jali, M.Z., Basir, N.: Web accessibility challenges. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 7(10), 172–181 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  25. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C): Web Accessibility Laws & Policies | Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) | W3C. https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/. Accessed 11 Dec 2020

  26. Persson, H., Åhman, H., Yngling, A.A., Gulliksen, J.: Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: different concepts—one goal? On the concept of accessibility—historical, methodological and philosophical aspects. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 14(4), 505–526 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0358-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sloan, D., Horton, S.: Global considerations in creating an organizational web accessibility policy. In: Proceedings of the 11th Web for All Conference, pp. 1–4 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kuzma, J., Yen, D., Oestreicher, K.: Global e-government web accessibility: an empirical examination of EU, Asian and African sites (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Isaacs, S.: Survey of ICT in Education in Mozambique, pp. 1–12 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  30. IST-Africa, Current ICT Initiatives and projects - Republic of Mozambique. http://www.ist-africa.org/home/default.asp?page=doc-by-id&docid=5563. Accessed 11 Dec 2020

  31. Baguma, R., Wanyama, T., Bommel, P.V., Ogao, P.: Web accessibility in Uganda: a study of webmaster perceptions. In: proceedings of the 3rd Annual International Conference on Computing and ICT Research (SREC 2007), pp. 183–197 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sharma, G.: Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. Int. J. Appl. Res. 3(7), 749–752 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Taherdoost, H.: Sampling methods in research methodology; how to choose a sampling technique for research. How Choose Sampl. Tech. Res. (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  34. David, B., Resnik, J.D.: What is ethics in research and why is it important. Natl. Inst. Environ. Heal. Sci. (2011). https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/

  35. Tindana, P.O., Kass, N., Akweongo, P.: The informed consent process in a rural African setting: a case study of the Kassena-Nankana district of Northern Ghana. IRB Ethics Hum. Res. 28(3), 1–6 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  36. De. Vries, J., et al.: Ethical issues in human genomics research in developing countries. BMC Med. Ethics 12(1), 1–10 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Vigo, M., Brown, J., Conway, V.: Benchmarking web accessibility evaluation tools: measuring the harm of sole reliance on automated tests. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility. pp. 1–10 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Marks, D.: Models of disability. Disabil. Rehabil. 19(3), 85–91 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. Toks, O.: Universal access wheel: towards achieving access to ICT in Africa. South African J. Inf. Commun., no. 4, (2004). https://doi.org/10.23962/10539/19818

  40. United Nations: Division for Social Policy and Development Disability. Article 2 - Definitions | United Nations Enable (2006). https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-2-definitions.html. Accessed: 11 Dec 2020

  41. Henry, S.L.: Understanding Web Accessibility. In: Web Accessibility. Apress (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4302-0188-5_1

  42. AChecker: IDI Web Accessibility Checker: Web Accessibility Checker. AChecker Web Services (2012). https://achecker.ca/checker/index.php?lang=eng. Accessed 11 Dec 2020

  43. SortSite - Accessibility Checker and Validator, “Accessibility Checker: Test WCAG 2.1 & Section 508 Compliance. https://www.powermapper.com/products/sortsite/checks/accessibility-checks/. Accessed 11 Dec 2020

  44. WebAIM, WebAIM: WAVE Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool, Webaim.Org (2013). https://wave.webaim.org/. Accessed 11 Dec 2020

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway

    Suraj Gupta, Terje Gjøsæter & G. Anthony Giannoumis

  2. University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

    Terje Gjøsæter

Authors
  1. Suraj Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Terje Gjøsæter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Anthony Giannoumis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Foundation for Research and Technology – Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    Margherita Antona

  2. University of Crete and Foundation for Research and Technology – Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    Constantine Stephanidis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Gupta, S., Gjøsæter, T., Giannoumis, G.A. (2021). Web Accessibility and Web Developer Attitudes Towards Accessibility in Mozambique. In: Antona, M., Stephanidis, C. (eds) Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Design Methods and User Experience. HCII 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12768. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78092-0_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78092-0_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78091-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78092-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation