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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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
Burgstahler, S. E. (2015). Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Child, D. (2014). Text statistics. GitHub. Retrieved from https://github.com/DaveChild/Text-Statistics
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
Hackett, S., Parmanto, B., & Zeng, X. (2007). A retrospective look at website accessibility over time. Behavior & Information Technology, 24(6), 407–417.
Harper, K. A., & DeWaters, J. (2008). A quest for website accessibility in higher education institutions. Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 160–165.
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.
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/
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.
Kimmons, R. (2016). Expansive openness in teacher practice. Teachers College Record, 118(9), n9.
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.
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.
Krach, S. K., & Milan, J. (2009). The other technological divide: K-12 web accessibility. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(2), 31–37.
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
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
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
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
The United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2015). Section 508. HHS.gov. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/web/section-508/
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
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/
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.
W3C. (2015). Tables: Tips and tricks. Web Accessibility Tutorials. http://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/tables/tips/
W3C. (n.d.). W3C checklist. W3C. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html
WebAIM. (n.d.) WAVE: Web accessibility evaluation tool. WebAIM. Retrieved from http://wave.webaim.org/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kimmons, R. Open to all? Nationwide evaluation of high-priority web accessibility considerations among higher education websites. J Comput High Educ 29, 434–450 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9151-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9151-3