Understanding the State of University Web Site Accessibility   Stephen Dannelly and Michael Whitney Department of Computer Science

Why Study Accessibility Student Access Curriculum Legal Requirements

History 1973 – Workforce Rehabilitation Act, Section 504 1990 – Americans with Disabilities Act 1998 – Amendment to Rehabilitation Act, Section 508 required Federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities 2000 – US Access Board enacts Web Accessibility Standards 16 guidelines Does not ensure usability 1999 – W3C : Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2008 – WCAG 2.0 2017 – US Access Board adopted WCAG 2.0

WCAG 2.0 4 Principles 12 Guidelines 61 Testable Success Criteria Perceivable Operable Understandable Robust 12 Guidelines 1.1: Provide text alternatives for any non-text content 2.1: Make all functionality available from a keyboard. 2.4: Provide ways to help users navigate, find content, and determine where they are 3.2: Make web pages appear and operate in predictable ways. 61 Testable Success Criteria Priority A – Must Priority AA – Should Priority AAA – May

Methodology - sample 19 Colleges and Universities that published regular papers at CCSC Eastern 2016

Methodology - tools A-Checker A-Tester Known Problems Likely Problems Potential Problems Level A, AA, and AAA A-Tester approximately 180 tests based on WCAG 2.0 True Not True True if… Valid HTML 4.1.1 Parsing: In content implemented using markup languages, elements have complete start and end tags, …

Methodology - scoring A-Checker A-Tester Number of “Known Problems”, level A or AA A-Tester Percentage of True v. Not True

Example A-Checker: 12 “Known” A or AA problems (61 potential problems) No document type or language code green Header on green background <b> instead of <em> <font> tag

Example A-Tester Test Results – 80% 40 True 10 Not True Not True: language doc type styles - some with color and some without caption on table <b> Example

Results A-Checker Carleton University 690 1307 Failed WCAG 2.0 Areas WCAG 1.0 Potential Problems WCAG 2.0 Potential Problems Carleton University 690 1307 Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania 1 126 213 Arizona State University 237 399 University of Mary Washington 3 451 638 SUNY Oneonta 8 University of Baltimore 247 415 Stockton University 9 169 319 Dominican University 11 59 98 Lock Haven University 19 244 382 Longwood University 21 222 372 Haverford College 25 302 497 Swarthmore College 27 214 431 University of Maryland, Baltimore County 28 333 697 Rowan University 30 308 543 National University 48 95 189 Farmingdale State College 338 622 Manhattanville College 163 901 1728 New York City College of Technology Kean University

Results A-Tester Stockton University 9 68 88.3% Tests Failed Tests Passed Score Stockton University 9 68 88.3% Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania 63 87.5% Haverford College 12 80 87.0% Swarthmore College 13 66 83.5% Arizona State University 15 76 Rowan University 74 83.1% University of Maryland, Baltimore County 82.9% University of Mary Washington 16 82.2% Longwood University 67 80.7% Carleton University 79.7% Farmingdale State College 59 SUNY Oneonta Manhattanville College 17 79.5% University of Baltimore 20 65 76.5% New York City College of Technology 55 76.4% National University 18 57 76.0% Dominican University 60 75.0% Lock Haven University 21 58 73.4% Kean University 41 69.5%

Results Several university home pages have very few problems. Most have minor issues that are unlikely to substantially impair use. Example: improper HTML A few university’s home pages have significant accessibility problems. Example: High reliance on images to convey information, without alternative navigation systems.

Future Work Discuss methods of including Accessibility into the Curriculum Develop our own Rubric for “grading” web site accessibility How should 30 level AAA problems compare to 3 level A problems?