Introduction
This section reports the results of the research study, states implications and limitations of the study, and draws conclusions from results and literature providing insight into the problem, possible solutions of the problem, and recommendations of further research.
Results
From the literature review, the consistent themes of responsible groups to meet Section 508 compliance involved the organization, Web master, and Web site design itself which formed the conceptual model for this study. After first comparing Section 508 Web accessibility conformance with previous studies, which had been conducted to produce the base data, hypothesis-testing took place where two of the six hypotheses rejected the null. Hypotheses 1 and 2 addressed the organization (i.e., the higher administrative practices) that may impact Web accessibility. Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5, addressed the Web master. The last hypothesis, H6, addressed the Web site design focusing on complexity (i.e., the growing inclusion of high technologies, such as images, image mapping, videos, and scripting) that can affect accessibility. The null hypotheses for H3 and H6 were rejected where Web master accessibility training and complexity affected levels of Web accessibility.
The results showed a high and an increasing failure rate of Web accessibility over the past seven years. The base data gathered and analyzed using ACheckerTM, A-
PromptTM, manual tests, and JAWSTM, produced a 95% failure rate in Section 508
compliance of both the census and sample of 97. Comparative study of results with 2002 results of 57 NCATE education home pages showed an increased failure rate: in 2002, seven of the 57 (12.3%) passed Section 508 Bobby tests; in 2009, five of the 57 (8.8%) passed Section 508 ACheckerTM and A-PromptTM tests. Only one of the institutions passed in each of these years.
In all of the qualitative survey responses for the survey questions 39, 49, 50, and 52 (Table 2 in the Appendix), the lack of time, knowledge, resources, and institutional support were present. Also, the acquisition of design templates and/or content
management systems (CMS) were addressed, however the context was either that the institution should incorporate these technologies to centralize Web site updating to meet accessibility or that their current design template or CMS was not Web accessible and needed to improve. Additionally, the responsible parties to improve Web accessibility were mainly two groups comprising over 75% of the responses: information technology directors/managers ranked number one (40.7%) and Web masters/developers ranked number two (35.1%). However, only 8.2% stated that Web masters/developers were solely responsible whereas 21.6% listed the information technology directors/managers as solely responsible.
In summation, through hypotheses-tests, two significant, positive relationships existed between more complex Web sites and lower Web accessibility, and a lower level of Web master accessibility training with a lower level of Web accessibility in their home
pages. No significant relationship existed between the level of Web accessibility and the existence of organizational accessibility policies/guidelines, accessibility language in Web master job ads (i.e., job-advertisement analyses), and the level of Web master end user communications levels and strategic-decision making.
Limitations
The lead limitation was that this study analyzed Web pages at one point in time and Web pages can change on a daily basis. However, the consistency in failure rates (92-95%) in Section 508 compliance from a census and various samples of the same population may provide a realistic snapshot of the NCATE education home page Web accessibility situation. It was also assumed that these results could be generalizable to other higher educational institutions and home pages to assist in improving Web accessibility education and training.
Another leading limitation was the unavailability of Bobby to use as the automatic Web accessibility checker. Although, ACheckerTM with verification of A-PromptTM results showed consistency in testing Section 508. A-PromptTM also assisted in verifying WAB scores as the number of problems reported by A-PromptTM were significantly correlated with WAB results. And, again, Diaper and Worman (2003) produced more favorable results using A-PromptTM over Bobby for testing Section 508 Web
accessibility.
Other limitations were regarding type of data acquired. Regarding the qualitative information gathered to provide further insight into the Web accessibility problem, analysis of this type of data was limited other than the logical grouping to report Web
master feedback. Additionally, this study only focused on Web users with visual disabilities and disregarded other disabilities, and used only one leading assistive
technology which was navigated by the nondisabled investigator. Lastly, because of time and resource limitations, this study was limited in that it did not approach a learner centered model, such as Kelly et al.’s (2005), or the associated issues of other stakeholders, political issues, and personal views on disability and accessibility as addressed by Seale’s model (2006a).
Implications and Future Research
The first null hypothesis rejected was associated with H3. Because of this, the importance for the Web master (or developer or designer) to be educated on Web
accessibility is an understatement. This has been thoroughly represented in the literature. The Web masters are the people directly involved in the creation of the Web site and who continuously update and change the Web site. Other trained professionals could also assist, but these recommendations may not be feasible. Sloan et al.(2002) recommended the utilization of a team of experts (i.e., heuristic testing) and additional measures may help to identify issues missed by automatic verification tools, but this recommendation can be expensive and many universities cannot utilize this multi-methodological solution because of the cost (Diaper & Worman, 2003). Because of the continuous change in Web sites, especially now with Web 2.0 where users are actively involved in creating Web sites (e.g., blogs), an in-house expert or experts in creating accessible templates or direct involvement in Web creation are needed to ensure accessibility (Moreno, Martínez, & Ruiz, 2008). In other words, the Web master/developer and others involved in the
Web site design, programming, and updating need to be educated on Web accessibility. Even though the automatic verification tools can be helpful, an understanding of WCAG and the correct application of the guidelines are essential.
The other null hypothesis rejected was associated with H6 dealing with complex Web sites and levels of accessibility. The complexity of a Web site, which is the responsibility of those designing, coding, and programming Web sites, can affect Web accessibility. However, it was noted by Hackett, Parmanto, and Zeng (2005) that complexity does not necessarily equate to inaccessibility. Complex Web sites can be created and maintained which are accessible. Once again, the need for Web master training can be critical to create a complex and accessible Web site.
Future research could focus on how to best train Web masters. Perhaps current educational programs exist that could be studied and/or the investigation of the support and resources needed to assist Web masters in their jobs to attain accessibility. Another study could look at how a content management system could be designed properly to streamline and ensure Web accessibility. Yet another study could look at all of the various individuals/positions in an organization that play a part in creating a Web site and how that may affect accessibility.
Other areas of Web accessibility research that could be furthered and were beyond this study were the works by Seale (2006a) and Kelly et al. (2004 and 2005). Seale’s work may reflect attitudes and biases about disability that prevent the key stakeholders to take the issue seriously to enforce Section 508 and to provide the right resources and training for their Web masters. Kelly et al. took on a totally different aspect of
avenue to lead research, which is away from WAI and WCAG or other guidelines by shifting the focus on each individual learner as previously discussed. Their focus has been to adapt (alternative) resources to each learner and have that learner participate in the creation of that resource to benefit them or their target group. This could be
employed to serve students with disabilities or, perhaps, those with specialized (mobile) devices. Their position has been juxtaposed to the current WAI guideline focus which tries to make resources universally accessible to all learners. Many studies, including this study, indirectly or directly support Kelly et al.’s (2008) argument:
The mantra ‘One World, One Web’ has a strong appeal to Web developers. They think of it as a design philosophy based on use of internationally agreed upon standards for providing universal access to networked resources and services available on the World Wide Web. But does the available evidence show that practices match this philosophy? (Kelly et al., 2008, para. 1).
According to this research as well as the literature, the answer has been no.
Concluding Remarks
Preventing individuals from access to public information and data is comparative to not being able to physically access a library building. Whether or not you have a disability, your opportunities are limited if your program or device cannot access
information as others are able. Post-secondary educational institutions are familiar with devices and applications that assist those with disabilities, such as screen readers, and the related problems with Web access and navigability.
This study showed that many factors are involved in the Web accessibility issues concerning higher education Web sites, particularly those institutions accredited by NCATE. The main insight of this study showcased a situation found with Web sites
across all sectors, in that very little Web accessibility has been achieved and appears to be getting worse. This 2009 study’s sample had a very high Section 508 nonconformance level of 95%, even with this law being enacted in 1998, and lower rates of accessibility compared to the 2002 studies (Chilson, 2002; McCullough Stein, 2002).
This study also corroborated that a lack of Web master accessibility training and the increasing use of high technologies in Web site design can negatively impact Web accessibility. Even though the other hypotheses were rejected, it is interesting to note that most institutions had Web accessibility policies/guidelines in place. However, when they hired their Web masters/developers, Web accessibility skills were listed in less than 7% of the job advertisements found.
Web masters also expressed their opinions in this dilemma. According to most of the responses, lack of time, knowledge, resources, and institutional support add to the Web accessibility problems. Another recurring theme was that even though one solution was to centralize the Web-development process of using design templates and/or content management systems (CMS), the proper design was still necessary to help ensure Web pages were actually accessible with these technologies.
With a large segment of our population (i.e., baby boomers) that relies on the Web getting older and acquiring age-related visual problems, Web accessibility demands could rise. Another force that could significantly increase the need for Web accessibility is an onslaught of technological mobile consumer devices. Web accessibility for these devices could eventually affect a much larger audience, including current and potential students. With this growing demand for ubiquitous computing, where devices have become smaller and are Web-ready, will education be able to handle the new needs of
providing Web information to all of their learners, regardless of their abilities,
disabilities, or devices? How will education handle the more expansive best practices recommended by W3C for mobile devices? Future studies will tell.
REFERENCES
Abascal, J., Arrue, M., Fajardo, I., Garay, N., & Tomás, J. (2004). The use of guidelines to automatically verify Web accessibility. Journal Universal Access in the Information Society, 3(1), 71-79.
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre. (2008). ACheckerTM. University of Toronto. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from http://www.atutor.ca/credits.php
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre. (2009). Guideline: Section 508. University of Toronto. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://checker.atrc.utoronto.ca/ servlet/ShowGuide?name = section508.xml&newsort = guide
Amtmann, D., Johnson, K., & Cook, D. (2002). Making Web-based tables accessible for users of screen readers. Library Hi Tech, 20(2), 221-30.
Apple. (2009). The iPhone. Retrieved August 18, 2009, from http://www.apple.com/ iphone/
Association for American Retired People. (2008). AARP legislative action center. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from http://capwiz.com/aarp/home/
Axtell, R., & Dixon, J.M. (2002). Voyager 2000: A review of accessibility for persons with visual disabilities. Library Hi Tech, 20(2), 141-147.
Baroudi, J.J. (1985). The impact of role variables on IS personnel work attitudes and intentions. MIS Quarterly, 9(4), 341-356.
Benbasat, I., Dexter, A.S., & Mantha, R.W. (1980). Impact of organizational maturity on information system skill needs. MIS Quarterly, 4(1), 21-34.
Bevan, T., & Ahmed, A.(2007). An investigation into Web accessibility standards as a practical study with older and disabled citizens. Association for Computing Machinery SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing Archive, 88, 9-14. Brajnik, G. (2000). Automatic Web usability evaluation: What needs to be done?
Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica Università di Udine, Udine, Italy. Retrieved February 5, 2007, from http://www.dimi.uniud.it/~giorgio/papers/ hfWeb 00.html
Bray, M., Pugalee, D., Flowers, C.P., & Algozzine, B. (2007). Accessibility of middle schools’ Web sites for students with disabilities. Washington D.C.: Heldref. Brown, S. (2006). Do richer media mean better learning? A framework for evaluating
learning experiences in museum Web site design. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(5), 412-426.
Bryman, A. (1989). Research methods and organisation studies. London: Unwin Hyman. Byerley, S.L., & Chambers, M.B. (2003). Accessibility of Web-based library databases:
The vendors’ perspectives. Library Hi Tech, 21(3). 347-357.
Caldwell, R. (2006). Web accessibility, e-learning, and academic libraries. Ontario, Canada: University of Waterloo. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from
http://www.ijpis. net /issues/no1_2006/IJPIS_no1_2006_p1.pdf
Cardinali, R., & Gordon, Z. (2002). Technology: Making things easier for all of us—for the disabled making things possible. Equal Opportunities International, 21(1), 65- 80.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2007). Bobby program. Retrieved February 3, 2007, from http://www.cast.org/products/index.html
Center for Universal Design. (2007). Universal design principles. Retrieved October 25 2007, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/udprinciples.htm
Cheney, P.H. (1988). Information systems skill requirements: 1980 and 1988. In Proceedings of the 1988 Association for Computing Machinery SIGCPR Conference on the Management of Information Systems Personnel. New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press, 1-7.
Cheney, P.H., & Lyons, N.R. (1980). Information systems skill requirements: A survey. MIS Quarterly, 4(1), 35-43.
Chilson, M.E. (2002). Web accessibility for the visually impaired and Web policy at NCATE accredited colleges and universities in the mountain region (Doctoral Dissertation, Idaho State University, 2002). Proquest UMI.
Choi, Y., Yi, J.S., Law, C.M., & Jacko, J.A. (2006). Are universal design resources designed for designers? Proceedings of the 8th International Association for Computing Machinery SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, Portland, OR: Association for Computing Machinery Press, 87-94.
Choudrie, J., Ghinea, G., & Weerakkody, V. (2004). Evaluating global e-government sites: A view using Web diagnostic tools. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 2(2), 105-114.
Clark, R. & Mayer, R.E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction: proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
College Board. (2009). College Search. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from http://college search.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp
Cox, J.F., & Snyder, C.A. (1985). Systems analysis in a complex environment: An interactive educational approach. Information and Management, 8(5), 247-252. Curran, K., Walters, N., & Robinson, D. (2007). Investigating the problems faced by
older adults and people with disabilities in online environments. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(6), 447-453.
Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340
Diaper, D., & Worman, L. (2003). Two falls out of three in automated accessibility assessment of World Wide Web sites: A-PromptTM vs. Bobby. In P. Johnson and P. Palanque (Eds.), People and Computers XVII. Springer: England.
Evans-Cowley, J. (2006). The accessibility of municipal government Web sites. Journal of E-Government, 2(2), 75-90.
Fait, H., Le, A., & Mankoff, J. (2007). EASE: A simulation tool for accessible design. University California Berkeley, EECS Department, Berkeley, CA. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/projects/io/EASE/csd-03- 1260.pdf
Fernandes, A.R., Carvalho, A., Almeida, J. J., & Simões, A. (2006). Transcoding for Web accessibility for the blind: Semantics from structure. In B. Martens and M. Dobreva (Eds.), Digital spectrum: Integrating technology and culture:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Publishing. Bansko, Bulgaria, 123-34.
Flowers, C.P., Bray, M., & Algozzine R.F. (2000). Accessibility of schools and colleges of education home pages for students with disabilities. College Student Journal, 34(4), 550-556.
Freedom Scientific. (2008). JAWSTM 9.0 for Windows. Retrieved June 3, 2008, http://www.freedomscientific.com/products/fs/jaws-product-page.asp
Furr, R.M., & Bacharach, V.R. (2007). Psychometrics: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guenther, K. (2005). Where have all the Web masters gone. Web site Management Online, 29(2), 45-47.
Hackett, S., & Parmanto, B. (2005). A longitudinal evaluation of accessibility: Higher education Web sites. Internet Research, 15(3), 281-294.
Hackett, S., Parmanto, B., & Zeng, X. (2003). Accessibility of Internet Web sites through time. Association for Computing Machinery SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing Archive, New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press, 32- 39.
Hackett, S., Parmanto, B., & Zeng, X. (2005). A retrospective look at Web site
accessibility over time. Behaviour & Information Technology, 24(6), 407-417. Hudson, L. (2002). A new age of accessibility. Library Journal, 127(1), 19-21.
Immersion Active. (2008). Marketing to baby boomers. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from http://www.immersionactive.com/html/index/Marketing_to_baby_boomers.htm Ishikawa, J. (2001). Accessibility check of Web sites. From Takata et al., 2004, originally
retrieved 2003, from http://fuji.shizuoka-ken.ac.jp/~ishikawa/Web check.htm Ives, B., & Olson, M. (1981). Manager or technician? The nature of the information
systems manager’s job. MIS Quarterly, 5(4), 49-63.
Ivory, M.Y., & Chevalier, A. (2002). A study of automated Web site evaluation tools. Technical Report. The Information School, University of Washington. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi = 10.1 .1.12.1546&rep = rep1&type = pdf
Ivory, M.Y., Mankoff, J., & Le, A. (2003). Using automated tools to improve Web site usage by users with diverse abilities. IT and Society, 1(3), 195-263. Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/itandsociety/v01i0 3/v01i03a11.pdf
Jacko, J. A., & Hanson, V. L. (2002). Universal access and inclusion in design. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2, 1-2.
Jaeger, P.T. (2006). Multi-method evaluation of U.S. federal electronic government Web sites in terms of accessibility for persons with disabilities (Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University, 2006). AAT 3216498.
Kane, S.K., Shulman, J.A., Shockley, T.J., & Ladner, R.E. (2007). A Web accessibility report card for top international university Web sites. Proceedings of the 2007 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press, 148-156.
Kaplan-Leiserson, E. (2001). The tremendous issues of technology: Disabled persons and technology. Training & Development, 55(11), 28-36.
Kelly, B., Nevile, L., Draffan, E. A., & Fanou, S. (2008). One world, one Web. . . but great diversity. Proceedings of the 2008 International Cross-Disciplinary
Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), Beijing, China. Retrieved June 23, 2007, from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/17205/1/p141-kelly.pdf
Kelly, B., Phipps, L., Sloan, D., Petrie, H. & Hamilton, F. (2005). Forcing