1. Australian university website accessibility revisited Dey Alexander Scott Rippon WANAU Forums 2007 - Sydney

2. Introduction University website accessibility benchmarked in 2003 “How accessible are Australian university websites?” 1.Do Australian university websites meet the basic standards for web accessibility? »Looked only at WCAG 1.0 priority 1 checkpoints 2.Are there any areas in which the basic standards are poorly understood/implemented? Looked at 4 key pages from 45 university websites

3. Key findings in 2003 98 per cent of sites failed to meet Level-A conformance –Only 1 site had its 4 pages pass –That site would have failed if more pages were included Only 27 of the 180 pages were Level-A conformant –153 pages checked failed on at least 1 priority 1 checkpoint Most problems (138 pages, 44 sites) were in meeting checkpoint 1.1 – provide text alternatives for non-text elements

4. What has changed since 2003? Many contextual (cultural, standards) changes: –Standards-based design now popularisedStandards-based design –Disability standards for education (August 2005)Disability standards for education –AVCC guidelines on information access for students with disabilities (Nov 2004)AVCC guidelines on information access for students with disabilities –AVCC guidelines on students with disabilities (May 2006)AVCC guidelines on students with disabilities –New standards for web content accessibility (WCAG 2.0) forthcomingNew standards for web content accessibility (WCAG 2.0) Has accessibility of Australian university websites improved?

5. Current study All sites evaluated between early January and mid March 2007 –Some sites may have been resigned –Some pages may have been updated Slightly different methodology –Results are still comparable between the two studies

6. Methodology: scope Audit based on priority 1 checkpoints in WCAG 1.0priority 1 checkpoints in WCAG 1.0 –Did not evaluate checkpoint 14.1 (clearest and simplest language) 41 universities (45 last time)41 universities 4 pages from each university site –Home page –Main prospective students page –Orientation page (or alternative) –Accommodation page (or alternative)

7. Methodology: study style and tools Manual and automated testing No user testing Key tools (slightly different to last time) –HERAHERA –Web accessibility toolbar from Vision AustraliaWeb accessibility toolbar from Vision Australia –The WAVE 3.5The WAVE 3.5

8. Methodology: process used Visual inspection in Internet Explorer version 6 –Captured screen Ran HERA to generate a report –Worked through checkpoints individually, using other tools and updating report. Checks included: Text alternatives for non-text elements How page worked with scripting turned off Rendering with CSS turned off –Captured screens for text only view, CSS-off view, WAVE report

9. Methodology: data collection Evaluations done by two people –Only one last time Reviewed our interpretation and application of the guidelines Reviewed data for pages that did not pass –Doing a second review now

10. Methodology: application of guidelines Fail –Did not meet checkpoint or comply with HREOC advice on how to do this (e.g. PDF documents) Partial (passed these last time) –Used less than ideal authoring practices, but users could get around the problem e.g. (6.3) JavaScript-dependent text-size change functions (1.1) Unnecessary text alternatives for decorative images Pass –Met the relevant checkpoint based on what we thought was “fair and reasonable” e.g. (6.1)Text was harder to read with CSS turned off but not impossible (6.3) Last updated date/maintainer info JS-generated but page still usable

11. HREOC’s advice on PDF “The Commission's view is that organisations who distribute content only in PDF format, and who do not also make this content available in another format such as RTF, HTML, or plain text, are liable for complaints under the DDA.” See: HREOC’s DDA Advisory Notes (Section 2.3)HREOC’s DDA Advisory Notes

12. Findings No sites’ set of four pages were conformant –So, no Australian university website meets basic requirements for web accessibility Most problems are still with checkpoint 1.1 (text alternatives for non-text elements) 1.Images – similar type and amount of problems 2.PDF documents – increased usage 3.Flash – increased usage 4.Scripting – increased usage

13. Problems with ALT for content images A.Not equivalent (example 1, example 2)example 1example 2 B.Unnecessary data included (example)example C.Blank ALT attribute (example 1, example 2)example 1example 2 D.No ALT attribute (example 1, example 2)example 1example 2 E.Background image (via CSS) with no text alternative (example 1, example 2)example 1example 2 E.Background image (via CSS) with non-equivalent text alternative (example)example

14. Problems with ALT for decorative images F.Unnecessary data included (example 1, example 2)example 1example 2 G.No ALT attribute (example 1, example 2)example 1example 2

15. Detailed findings Individual site/page evaluations now online (data analysis being reviewed) at http://deyalexander.com.au/publications/ausweb07/ http://deyalexander.com.au/publications/ausweb07/

16. Any questions?