2. An Evaluation and Discussion of the Web Accessibility of Academic Library Web Sites Dave Comeaux Web Services Librarian Tulane University

3.  What is Web Accessibility  Why it’s Important  How Academic Libraries are doing

4.  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, and that they can contribute to the Web. (World Wide Web Consortium - http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php)http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php  Web accessibility refers to the inclusive practice of making websites usable by people of all abilities and disabilities. When sites are correctly designed, developed and edited, all users can have equal access to information and functionality. (Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_accessibility) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_accessibility

5.  Helps everyone  Required by law  Helps fulfill the long-standing goal of libraries to provide barrier-free access to everyone

6.  Accessible design is universal design  Each of the major categories of disabilities requires certain types of adaptations in the design of the web content. Most of the time, these adaptations benefit nearly everyone, not just people with disabilities.  For example:  Almost everyone benefits from helpful illustrations, properly- organized content and clear navigation.  Similarly, while captions are a necessity for Deaf users, they can be helpful to others, including anyone who views a video without audio. (WebAIM - http://webaim.org/intro/)http://webaim.org/intro/

7.  Sect. 508 (Rehabilitation Act Amendment of 1998) Under Section 508 (29 U.S.C. ‘794 d), agencies must give disabled employees and members of the public access to information that is comparable to access available to others. Sect. 508  Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act of 1973)  ADA (1990/2008)  Title II (public entities)  Title III (private entities; places of public accommodations)

8.  This research is based on automated testing  Enables analysis of thousands of web pages for machine-detectable errors  Does not involve user testing  Builds on research performed by Schmetze (2001, 2002) and Comeaux and Schmetzke (2007)

9.  Axel Schmetzke, “Web accessibility at university libraries and library schools,” Library Hi Tech, 19(1), 35-499. (2001)Web accessibility at university libraries and library schools  Axel Schmetzke, “Web Accessibility at University Libraries and Library Schools: 2002 Follow-Up Study,” In Mary Hricko, ed., Design and Implementation of Web-Enabled Teaching Tools. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 2003: 145-189.  David Comeaux and Axel Schmetzke, “Web Accessibility of North American Library School and Library Web Sites,” Library Hi Tech, 25(4), 457-477. (2007)Web Accessibility of North American Library School and Library Web Sites

10.  Study size:  56 academic libraries (2002, 2006, 2010, 2012)  The main libraries at institutions with ALA- accredited SLISs  Geographic coverage: US and Canada

11.  As in previous studies, Bobby 3.1.1 was used.  Bobby tests for alt tags on images, image maps, objects, frame titles (Priority 1 errors that can be checked automatically)  Homepages plus one link-layer down (within the domain or folder)  Extracted two key figures:  Percentage of Bobby-approved pages (no P1 errors)  Average errors per page (total errors / pages)

14. 1.How accessible are the library Web sites? (in terms of the percentage of barrier-free pages and errors per page) 2. How many library sites use "Skip Navigation" links and does their use correlate with accessibility?

15. 3. How does the method of page layout (table- based or CSS-based) correlate with accessibility? 4. Does the use of a Content Management System (CMS) correlate with accessibility? 5.Does the home page search interface correlate with accessibility?

16.  How accessible are the library Web sites in 2010?  Overall, 60.70% Bobby-approved.  8 were 100% approved.  13 sites were above 90% approved.  11 were between 80% & 90% approved.  6 had no approved pages  7 had less than 10% approved.  Average errors per page: 2.28

17.  How accessible are the library Web sites on the in 2012?  Overall, 61.47% Bobby-approved.  7 were 100% approved.  23 sites were above 90% approved.  7 were between 80% & 90% approved.  5 had no approved pages  14 had less than 10% approved.  Average errors per page: 1.66

18. 2002200620102012 % Approved 45.86%61.48%60.70%61.47% Errors/Page 4.803.562.281.66 56 library web sites

19.  Why have Skip Navigation links?  In this example, it takes the screen reader 2 minutes to get to the page content!

20.  Research Method – looked at source code – searched for “Skip, Jump “  Looked at home page and at least one internal page (typically the “About” page)

21.  25 (44.6%) used skip navigation links. 2010 27 (48.2%) used skip navigation links. 2012  10 (17.9%) used skip navigation links. 2006

22. With Skip LinksW/O Skip Links % Approved 65.92%56.48% Errors/Page 1.652.79 With Skip LinksW/O Skip Links % Approved 74.83%49.04% Errors/Page.982.29 2010 2012 With Skip LinksW/O Skip Links % Approved 81.75%57.11% Errors/Page.784.17 2006

23.  The use of “skip navigation” links are associated with higher accessibility  Probably the high accessibility ratings can be ascribed to a greater awareness

24.  Table or div – in earlier studies, I observed that a high incidence of errors were caused by missing alt text on “spacer” images  Since spacer images are usually only used with table-based layouts, it seemed that there may be a correlation

25.  Table or div – used Web Developer toolbar – Outline Table cells tool

26.  A site whose layout is table-based will look like

27. Table-based CSS-based % Approved 60.21 (n=14) 60.86 (n=42) Errors/Page 3.93 (n=14) 1.72 (n=42) Table-based CSS-based % Approved 64.04 (n=12) 60.77 (n=44) Errors/Page 2.6 (n=12) 1.4 (n=44) 2012 2010

28.  Websites whose layouts are primarily driven by CSS have considerably fewer errors per page than table-based layouts

29. Does the use of a Content Management System (CMS) correlate with accessibility?

30.  A Content Management System (CMS) is a web-based software application that uses a programming language to assemble web pages from content stored in a database.  Pages are built according to a template, which in theory can make accessibility easier  However, a CMS is often used to decentralize web publishing, so employees with little web experience (and likely no experience with accessibility issues) are able to publish

31.  Not an exact science! Most commercial and open-source systems can be detected, but “home-made” CMSs are not

32.  ChromeSniffer (Browser Extension)

33.  Manual Code Examination

34. 16 (28.57%) used a CMS. 2010 19 (33.93%) use a CMS. 2012

35. CMS No CMS % Approved 68.88 (n=16) 57.43 (n=40) Errors/Page 1.16 (n=16) 2.72 (n=40) CMS No CMS % Approved 72.69 (n=19) 55.71 (n=37) Errors/Page 1.12 (n=19) 1.93 (n=37) 2012 2010

36.  Websites that use a CMS have considerably fewer errors per page and a higher percentage of error-free pages that websites that do not use a CMS

37.  Most library websites include a search interface on the home page.  Many include a “tabbed search” interface, where users can select which search tool to use  Usually this includes the catalog, federated search, a search for ejournals or databases by title, etc.

40. 42 (75%) use a tabbed search interface. 10 (17.86%) use a single search interface. 2 have multiple single search boxes 2 have no search boxes on the home page

41. Tabbed Single Approved Home 52%40% % Approved 63.38 (n=42) 59.64 (n=10) Errors/Page 1.15 (n=42) 3.33 (n=10)* 2012 * 1 site had almost 20 errors per page; removing this site drops the average down to 1.5

42.  Tabbed searches are not associated with a higher incidence of machine-detectable accessibility errors  Other possible barriers, such as reliance on JavaScript or difficulty navigating between tabs using a screen reader, cannot be detected with this testing method  Further research, involving user testing, should be done

43.  Web Developer Toolbar

44.  Functional Accessibility Evaluator 1.1 http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu/about/

45.  WAVE Toolbar (Firefox only) http://wave.webaim.org/toolbar