Com putes in H u m a n B e h a v i 2 0 (2 0 0 4 ) 6 9 2 8 8 r or 2 w w w .e lseer.

com /loca vi te/com phum h be

Im provingweb accessibility: study a of w eb m aste r perceptions

Jonathan Laza Alfreda Dudley-Sponaugle, r*,
Abstract Larg e perce ntag es w e b sites con tinu eto be inaccessible people w ith disabilities. of to Since tools and g uid eline s are availa ble help d esig n ers to and w eb m a sters m akingtheir in w eb sites ac ce ssib leit is u nc le ar h y so m an y sites co n tin u eto b e in ac c essible. this , w In p ap e r, w e p res en tthe W eb Accessibility Integration Model, which highlights the m ultiple points within web develop m ent here a ccessib ilitycan be incorporated or w forgotten.It is unc ertainw hy w eb- m a ste rsdo not use the various tools and guidelin es that curren tlyare availablefor making w e b site s acc e ssib leA su rveyw a s crea te d,and . data w as collectedfrom 1 7 5 w eb m a sters, indicatingtheir knowledge the topic of w eb on accessib ility nd the reasonsfor their actions relatedto w eb accessibility. a Findings and futuredirections re se a rc h d isc u ssed . for are # 20 0 3E lse vie rLtd. All rig htsreserved .

1. Introduc tion The world wideweb provides a wealthof inform aion, and the userpopulat of t ion th e w eb is diverse,includi users of all ages,educatio al leve and leve ng n ls, ls of com puing e xp eri ce (S h n erm n, 2 0 0 Many u se rsof the web have various t en eid a 0). typ es of disab ilities. These d isab ilities includ e sensory(e.g.hearing and vision ), m o tor (e .g .limited u se of h ands)and cog ni tive (e.g.learni d isab ng ilities) impa irm e ns. T h e se u se rs with disabili t ties use various form s of assistivetechnoog y l to allow them to brow sew eb sites.Assistivetechnoogies include hard l ware and soft-

* C o rresp on g au tho rs. l.:+ 1 -4 1 0 -7 -2 2 5 5fa x:+ 1-410-74 -3 8 6 8 . din Te 04 ; 0 E -m a ila d d re ss: zar@ tow s jla on.ed u (J. Lazar). 0 7 4 7 -5 62/$ - se e fro n t m a tte r# 2 003Elsevie rLtd. All righ ts 3 reserve d .

270

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2

Users with disabilities only utilize a w eb site if it is designedto be can com pa tible w ith the variousassistve technoogies.A w eb site that is su cie i l ntly exible to be used by all of th eseass istive tech no ies is called an acces ible w eb site (Slatin log s & R ush, 2003). An accessiblew eb site is very similar to an accessible build ing. An acces ible buildi oers curb cuts, ram ps,and eleva rs to allow a person s ng to with disab ilities to en tera n d n av ig te th rou g hth e bu ildng w ith e ase .An acces ible a i s web site o erssim il r functionality. a Acce ssibility is not just a high-level theoreical goal. Cur t rently, thereare guidelines that w eb develop es can follow so that their w eb site scan b e accessible. r For insta , the Web A cce nce ssibility Initiative provides guide lines, called th e Web Content Accessib ility Guide lines (WCAG) to help d evelope m aketheir w eb rs sites acces ib le (h ttp ://w w .w 3 .org ai). The United Stat s G overn ent o ers similar s w /w e m guide lines to web develope w hichare includedin the Sec tion5 08 in itia rs, tive (h ttp :// w ww.section 58.go v A copy of the Secton 508 g uide es is includedin 0 ). i lin Appendix A. In additon, autom i ated softwaretools are availableto help ndacces sibility aws in w ebsitesbeforethe sites are publicy p osted. l Thesesoftw aretools includ e Bobby, RAMP, InFoc us, and A-Prom pt (Ivory, Manko, & Le, 2 0 0 In additio new 3). n, versi ns of web develop ent tools (suchas Dream o m Weaver and FrontPage) include tools thatassistdeveloprs with acces ib ility-re e s lated issu . Given that the es guidelines and tools are there,it s ee m s o p l tha t m o stw eb sites w o uld e a ccesib le. In h efu b s fact, m any g overn ents m ake w eb accessibi a requirem ent g over m ent inform m lity for n ation on the w eb . The United Stat England,Canad Portuga and es, a, l, Australia requi som e types of govern re ment inform ation to be acces ible (Slatin & s Rush, 200 3). Un fo rtunat ly, most w eb sites are not curren acces ible.Recentstud point e tly s ies out that large percenages(70 9 , depending on the ca tegoy of site ) of web t 8% r s ite s are not acces ib le. For instan , in recent stud s ce ies, p rivate and non-prot w eb sites (Lazar, B eere,G reen e, & N agappa,200 for-p rot com m ece web idg 3), r sites (Sullvan & Matson, 2 0 0 USsta web sites (C eap i 0), te aru & S hn eiderm a n,

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2

271

2. Web Accessibility Integration Model W eb acces sibili y levelsare low, ye t the tools and guide t lines existto help.Thus, it rem ai unclearwhy this is th e ca s e.To help in undersand ing the proble , the ns t m re se ac h e rscre a d a m odel,called the W eb Acce r te ssibility Integ ration Model, which highlig the variousinuences the accessibi or inacce hts on lity, ssibility,of a w eb site . The hopeis that this m odel will help spur otherresearhersto invesig ateall of c t th e d ierent ang lesof acces sibilityand to learnhow to m akesitesmore a cce sible. 2.1 . Societal found ations Society placesvalueon dierent skillse How m uchis web acces ts. sibilityvalued? It vari s. Acce e ssibility, or desig ningcom p uters for people with disab ilities, is not a standa part of any nation curr rd al iculum in Computer Science(CS), Informaton i Syste (IS), or In for ation Technology(IT) (Lazar, 2 0 0 In a d d iti tra nin g in ms m 2). on, i acces sibilityfor currentIT work is rare outs of governm ers ide ent. At th e sam etime , policy and law in m any countries encourage eb acces ibili y, and in fact, w s t acces ible or change the patternsof education. This is conic s ting: in education

Fig. 1. W eb accessib ility integrati on

272

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2

acces ibility,is in fact m issing, accessibility notedby govern s but is ment as a socie tal 2 .2 . S take h o ld e r perceptio ns Societal foun dations help to inuence the stakeho lders invol ed in a specic v w eb site develop ent project.The peo m ple who decidew he ther a site will b e built for acces sibility or not are the w eb elopersand the cli ts. It is likely that if dev en neither of th eseg rou of peopleare aw areof or p assi ps onateab outw eb acces ib ili y, then s t a 2.3. We b d eve lo p m e n t The societal foundations and stakehol perce der ption s inue nce the actu al w eb d evelop ent. There is another im pa on both initial site d esig nand m ct subseque nt re-d e sign :g uid elin es and tool . Th eseg u id elines d tools help no t on ly w eb d evels an op ers and w eb masters with guidance,but also th ese gu idelinesand tools help providethe currentworki deniton for web acces ng i sibili y. W eb develope t rs and w eb mastersare likely to follow the tools and guidelinesthat are avaiable to l th em . Good, w ell-w riten guide t lines, and powe rful softw a tools are likely to help re im prove leve of acces ls sibility.Poorly-w riten, confusng guide t i lines, and hard to use or unclearsoftwaretools are likely to keepsitesfrom bec ing a cce sible. om 3. Research methodology A survey asdeveloped, ith q uestios askingw ebm as abo theirknowle d g e w w n ters ut of w eb acces ibili y and their percep s t tions of w hen and why web sites should or should not be acces sible.The goal of this surveyw as to be explor tory in nature. a Web acces sibility is not a topic that has bee n re se ac h e d in great depth. r While guide lines for web acces ibili y exist, research s t surrouning the ee d ctivenessof those g uide lines, how IT work ers interactwith those guidelines,and reasonsfor im plem e ting acces n sibility, do not exist. The goal of th is resea is to learn m ore about w hy web rch mastersdo or do not

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2

273

surveyw as th en postedon the w eb .G uidelinesfor good w eb surveyusablity w ere i follow (Lazar & P re ece 1 9 9 Infor ation aboutthe surveywas distributedto a ed , 9). m num ber listse of rvers(in the elds of IS, CS, Man agem Infor a tion S yste ent m ms, and Lib rary S cience) that includ ew eb m as ters, and w eb mastersthat w ere know n to th e resea team w ere rch also in vitedto participae. Sincethe goal of th e surveyw as t not to crea p opu te lation e stim tes , a d iver e sam p ratherth an a random sam p a s le, le, 4. Results Sincethis is a paper focusingon the topic of accessib i th e resea ers lity, rch decided to p resent data in tabul r form at,even if th e sam ed a ta is availablein a graphical 4 .1 . Demo graph s ic Of th e 1 7 5 resp ond en 1 03 in dic d th a t th ey w erem al , and 72 responde ts, ate e nts ind ic ated that they w erefemale. Tab le 1 and Fig. 2 reportthesedata.Tab le 2 and
T able 1 R espondnts by e Gender Male Fem ale Number 103 72

Fig. 2 . G en de rof

274

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2

Fig. 3 re port th e a g eof surveyresp ondents. th e resp onden sevenreported Of ts, that th e ya re betw e en1 8 2 4 e a rsold, 8 6 re p ote d th a t th eya re betw e e n2 5 35 ea rsold, y r y 4 7 re p ote d th a tthe ya re betw e e n3 6 4 5 ea rso ld, 29 res p o n dnts rep oted th a t r y e r they a re 4 6 6 0 e a rsold , ve re s p d e n tsre pote d th a t th e ya re b e tw n 6 0 7 0 e a rsold, y on r ee y and o ne responde repored that they are above 70 yearsold. Table 3 and Fig. 4 nt t add ressthe experence level repored by surveyresponden In te i t ts. restingly,no one consid eed h im s r elf/hers lf a novice user,w hile 119 resp onden indicatedthat e ts they are com puterexpers, and 56 indic t ated that they are inte edi com p rm ate uter users. 4 .2 . R esp on ses m a ins u rv e y u es tio n s to q Q uesions 19 are closed t -endedquesti ons, fo cusi on currentand futu w eb site ng re acces ibility, w ebm as knowle d g e , and w eb s ter master e xper ce with various ien ie n, softwa tool . Table 6 displa ys th e frequenc s for each questio and Fig. 7 re s d isp lays the d ata graphically.
T able 2 Age group Age group 1 8 2 4 2 5 3 5 3645 4660 6070 70+ Number 7 86 47 29 5 1

Fig. 3. A ge groupsof su rvey re sp on de nts.

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2 T able 3 C om pu ter Computi ng e xpe rie c e n Expert Interm ed iate

275

Number 119 56

T able 4 Location of Locatio n United States Internatio al n Number 79 25 71

Fig . 4. Com putingexperience of re spo nden . ts

Fig. 5. Location of w eb m aste rs .

276 T able 5 O rganizati onal O rganizati onal Education Governm ent Other Health care

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2

Number 66 20 39 10 40

Fig. 6. O rg anizaonal ti types.

For questi 1, Have yo u evercrea a w ebsite that is acces ib le for u se rs on ted s with visual im p airm ents? 115 respon ents (65.7% ) , d indicatedthat they had previously crea an acces ible w eb site,47 respon ents (26.9% )indicatedth at they had not ted s d crea any acces ible w ebsite,and one respondent .5% ) asnot sure.Please ted s (0 w note that 12 respon dentsdid not respond this question. to For q uestio n 2 , Are you fam ilar w ith the Section508 laws by th e US Federal i go vern en t or similar law sfrom oth erg overn ents aroun d th e w orld (i.e.Portuga m m l, Canad Engla a, nd, and Austra lia)?, 129 resp ondents(73.7% ) ind ic ated that they w erefam iliar w ith the law s,two respon ents (1.1% )indic d ated that they w ere not fam il with th e laws, and 13 resp iar ondents(7 .4% ) erenot sure.Pleasenotethat 31 w respon dentsdid not respond this question. to For q u e sti 3 , Is your w ebsite subjectto the US Fed eralG overn ents ruleson on m acces ibility? 43 resp onden (24.6% ) s , ts indic ated that theirw ebsites w eresubject to S e c iton 508,1 01re spon dnts (5 7 .7% in d ic d th a t th e ir w e bsite sw e renot subject e ) ate to S ecti 5 08 ,and 3 0 re sp on de (1 7 % ) w ere not sure.Pleaseno te that one on nts .1 respon dent did not respond this question. to For question 4, Is the w eb site that you are cu rren overseeing tly acces ible to s

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2 T able 6 R esponses questio ns to 1 Answer Question 1 Yes No Not su re Left 115 47 1 12 2 129 2 13 31 3 43 101 30 1 4 98 38 38 1 5 138 29 5 3 6 121 50 1 3 7 38 132 4 1 8 68 105 1 1

277

9 103 37 30 5

Fig. 7 . S ta tistic s q u e stios 1 of n

For question 5 , Are yo u aw areth at thereare softw a tools thatcan check re your w eb site to s e e if it is acces ible,and p rovide usefulfeed s back?, 138 respo nde nts (78 .9% w ere fam ilar with the availabi of sof w aretools,2 8 resp en ts(1 6 .0 ) i lity t ond %) w e renot fam iliar with software tools, and ve respo ndents(2.9% ) werenot su re . Pleasenote that threeresp ondentsdid not respond this question. to For q uestion 6 , Have you e ve r u se d a free w eb -basedacces ibility tool, e .g . s B obby, 121 respo ? ndents (69.1% ) indic ated that they had used free w e b -based tool , 50 (28.6% )resp onde in dic s nts ated that they had not, and one responde nt (0.5 % )w as not sure.Pleasenote that three resp ondentsdid not respo to this nd question. For q u e st 7 , Have you e v e r u sed a no n-w e -basedacces ibili y tool, e .g . ion b s t A-Prompt, INFOCUS, PageScrea er?,3 8 responden (21.7%indic m ts ) ated thatthey had u sed non -w e sedto ol , 1 3 2resp o en ts(7 5. % ) ind ic d th a t th eyhad not b-ba s nd 4 ate usedsuch tool , and four re s pone n ts (2 .3% ) w ere not sure.Pleasenote that o ne s d respon dent did not respond this question. to For q u e sti 8, Have you ever testedyour w eb site using a scree nre ad e r?(A on screenreader reads textout loud in com ter-syn the pu thesiz speech?, 68 responed )

278

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2

one resp onen t (0.5% ) w a s not sure. Plea se note that one resp o d ndent did not respond this question. to For queston 9, Does your organizationhaveany plans to m ake you r w eb site i acces ible to users w ith visualim pairm s ents in th e fu tu re?, 1 03 respon ents (5 88%) d . in d ic ated th atth eirorg anzatio n is p lannin g on accesib ili y, 3 7 respo en ts(21 .1 i s t nd %) indic ated that no acces ibility im provm ents w ere plan s e ned, w hile30 resp onde nts (17 .1% ) ere not sure.Pleasenote that ve respo ents did not respondto w nd this question. T he a re s om epa ra d ox e s m q uestio 1 9 .For in stane, 13 8re sp one n ts w e re re fro ns c d fam ilar with the existence autom i of ated softw aretools to help with a ccesibility, s but only 9 8 resp d en tsin d ica tedth at th eir w eb sitesw ere a cces ib le. In on s another exam p 129 resp o le, ndentsind icatedthat they w ere fam iliar w ith g overn ent m laws relating to accessibility, eve n though those law s only applied to 4 3 of the
T able 7 Fam iliarityw ith the variousw eb accessibility initiative W eb accessibi initiative lity W eb contentaccessibi lity guidelines Authoringtool accessibility guidelin es Number 112 1 2 40

Fig. 8. Familiarityof accessibility guidelines.

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2

279

g uid e lines (kno as WCAG), the m ain g uidelines w eb accessib ilityof pag e s . wn for Other guide lines from the WAI werebarely known. Only one resp ond entrepor ed t being familiar with the authoir tool guide ng lines, and two people repored t being fam il w ith the userag e guide iar nt lines.Th is is not surprising, sincem ost w eb ste rs ma wou only be design web conten ratherthan auth ld ing t, oring tools or a g e ns. Forty t respon dentsindicated that they w ere not familiar with any of the WAI guide es, lin and 20 resp onden did not answ erthe question.As a com paison, 1 29 ts r resp onde nts 4 .3 . O p en d e dq u e stion s -en B eca u se c lose de n d e d q uestio can n o t re v e alth e c om p le s tory b e h in d w e b ns te m asterp ercepions and actions,w e decid edto include a number of open-ended t que stions on the su rv Beca u s these a re essentia ll q uali ey. e y tative , and the respon se s w ere unpre dictable,each question will include a sam p ling of u se r re sp o s es, a s w ell a s n som eoveralltrendnum bers w henm a nyrespo nses ere in d icatingsim il id eas. for w ar Q uesion 11 asked What do you think is th e b igg e ch alle g e of m aking a t st n w eb site acces ib le for usersw ith visualimpairments? s Given that I an s wered no to all of the above questios, I supposethat n educaton of w eb stersm ustb e critical i ma D ealingw ith designreq uiremnts that call for non-un e derlinedlinks. Maintaining acces sibility while also m ain tain ing the desig ners intent and Tedium ,cost, and com plia ce with a law that m ay w ell get over-turned th e n in yearsto come. Your clien ts(i.e.b osses,m a nagmen t)w a n tg litzy w eb sitesth a t are di cu to e lt m akeaccessible. Selling the im po rtance of acces sibility to various stakeho lders. . .[its ] often For those survey respon ents that an sw eredthis question , 2 4 respondnts d e m enti oned the challenge of balancing acces sibility and graphical d e sig n , 23 respon ents m entionedthe chalenge of convinci clients and m an agmen t of d l ng e the im po rtance of accessibi lity, 2 1 responden m entoned techn ts i ical challe e s , ng nine resp ondents m entoned the lack of funding to address accessibi i lity,

280

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2

T able 8 Responsibil for w e b site ity Responsible Webmaster S y ste m s analyst/engi e r ne Programmer H elp desk manager Disability com pliance Number 143 83 96 28 87

nts i m en ti ed th e n eed for training, and six responde m entoned th e n e e d for on bett r so ftw ae tools. e r Q uesion 12 askedWho do you think should be respons le for m aking a t ib w eb site accesib le for usersw ith visualimpairments? s The re spo s to this q uestion w ere very interesing. Please note that respo nse t nden ts w ere allow ed to select m ore than one choice. A large percenage of th e t respo n en ts (1 43 )ind ic d that w eb stersa re resp ons d ate ma ible. Pro gra m ers w ere m no tedas respons le b y 96 resp on ents,the d isab ib d ility com piance o cew as cited l by 8 7 re sp d e n ts,sy ste m s n a lystsw ere c ited by 8 3 responden and th e help on a ts, desk m anag er ascited by 28 resp o w ndents.The data are p resened in Table 8. In se t their op e n-en dedresp o nses,m ostof the resp onde indicated that accessib i w as nts lity not It is everyone responsi s bility to e n s ure that w e do all w e can for th e handicapped. You do not get accessibi w ithouta joint eort from num erous lity people with Its in everyo es b est in te n rest but not everyone has all th e a n sw e rs. All can The Internetm ustbe availableto all and all IT p rofessiona havea respons ls ibility to ensureits achieved. If the site is to be truly acces ible everyo e should be involved/conce s n rned/ responsible. The developer respo is nsible None of the above! per m anage ent has to m and ae it and lead Up m t

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2

281

Ques tion 13 askedW hat factors would inuence you to m akeyour current site (government corp , orate, a nd/o perso al) accessibl for users w ith visua r n e l Knowing that a signica t portion of my u ser population has n visual If the go vern ent to ld us that w e had to [m akeour site a cc esible]. m s If suchusersw ou sho winteres-conta us, w e w ould respo ld t ct nd If its the law Tax breaksand othernancial incen tives to m ake it feas ible and attractve i to Legislaton would move it [acce i ssibility]up m y priority Nothi ng less than [go ve rnm en t]m an d ae . I am sym p at t hetic with visually For thosesurveyresp on ents that answ eredthis queston, 20 respo d i ndents indica tedthat govern en t requiremnts w ou ld in ue themthe m os 19 responde m e nce t, nts said that their w eb site alread yis accessib le, resp 16 ondentssaid that know ing that u se rs with visual im pairm ent are using their site would in uencethem , eight respon ents said outs fundingw ou in uence d ide ld them ,sevenresp ondentssaid that outs ide pressue from m an agmen t or clientswou inuence them ,four responr e ld dentssaid that training wou inuencethem ,and four respon ld dents said that Yes, b ut w e are limited as to time and reso urces.W e do as much as w e can. Yes, unfor tunate W ithout havingto considersuch m atter our sites ly. s, would W e are redesgningour site and m akingit acces ible is one of our i s Its alw ayson the back of our m ind,but our guide lines are not really good at For m y clients,I em phas the im po ize rtance of m akinga site It cross s m y m ind,b ut I dont know what it would take. e

282

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2

No. W e only [d esign for] th osew ho routnely visit the site. i For thosesurveyresponden that answ eredthis question, 104 respon en ts indits d catedthatw hentheyupd theirsite, theyd o consider ate acces ib ili y; 28 s t resp onde nts indic ated that theydo not consider acces sibili y; and 16 respo t ndentsindic ated that theytry to consider cce sibility. a All four op e n-endedq uesti s provid edg lim p ses to the w or of the on in ld w eb maste r. W ebm as cited chalengesto acces ib ili y such astechn challe ters l s t ical nges, convinc ing m anage ent and clientsof th e nee d for acces m sibility,and trying to strike a balance between good graphi designand acces cal sibility.Nearly all respo ents nd indicated that acces sibili y is a group g oal,that w eb m as alone cannot solvethe t ters problem , and that acces sibility must be incorp orated throug ut the d evelop ent ho m and m ainte ance lifecyce. More governm t regulation or know n l en s, ing that users with 4.4. Ethical d im enion s of w eb s a ccesibility s Q uesion 15 of th e survey asked:Do you consider ethi s in plan t c ning and/or up d ating you r cu rren tw eb sit W h y? O r, W h y not? es? The queston was addedto determ ine i how com puter profe ssiona would respond ls to the issueof ethi s and w eb desig n. c The resea teamd elib rch eratelydid not give an explana tion of the denition of e thi s or what we were im plying regard this c ing q ueston. This w as done to help insurethe desired o utcom efrom the respondnts i e w ithoutinjecting personal biasesfrom the re se ach e rs. r Ethic when applied to tech no y-r la ted issues,is recogn s, log e ized a s cyberehics. t Cyberethics is dened as ethical quandaries with a technological dimension (Spinello, 2003). There is a plethora of viewpoints regarding the subject of cyberethics (Schar & Dusek, 2003). For instance, one major question that many professionals within and without the computer comm unity consider is the following : Is cyberethics dierent from regular ethics? Ethics can be dened as making a choice between right and wrong in a situation that involves a dilemma (Pence, 2000). This denition can be applied

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2

283

The rep liesto this q uestion are sign icant beca they allow the resea use rchers a 4 .5 . Resp o n s e s Out of th e 1 7 5 re spon se s this q u esti 166 resp on den rep iled yes. The to on, ts follo w ing are som esa m p statem ents le from resp d e n ts: on Yes, in the sen s th a I will not u se material that is not mine u nles I have e t s permisAbsol tely. Its my job a s an inform a u tion professional co nsiderethics to in Yes. I work for a w eb d evelop ent rm , and I think our w eb m site m a kesa sta te m e nas to our philo t sophiesabout accessible eb develo entdesign. w pm Yes, because ethicallysoundbusineses garner s Yes. If I dont do that,how can I say th at I try to be ethicalin every thing I Of th e 1 7 5 resp ond en sevenresp on en ts in dic ts, d ated th a t th ey did not consider W e deliverfacts not No I haveneverheardof this beforethis survey. To b e ho nest, haventreally thoug of b uild ing m y w eb pag esas an ethi al I ht c issu e .I ju st s e eit as part of m y job. No, we m ake client direc updates, ted theycan think about e thi s . c I do , b ut sad lythe p ow e that be do not. W ebsitesare d esig n b y peop le rs ed who care less about blind p eopleand they are paid by execut ives th at only give Of the response two respon ses ere not clea yes or s, w rly no. I nd that question insu lting. If youre im plying that not crea ting a visually Ethics? What do you m eanby that?This question is too vague to be ans re d , we and I dont wantto g u e sswhatyou m ightm eanby it. . .

284

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2

Most responden view ed web acces ts sibility as an ethi al issue. O ther c resp onde nts pointedto e thi s as the responsi c bility of the client, or the concern of other . And s nall , a few responden seem hon y ts ed estly insultedby the queston. While i ethical analy of th e issu eof w eb acces ib ili y havegenera p ointedto w eb ses s t lly accessibi lity 5. Conclusion Given that tools and guide lines are availa to help in b uildi acces ible ble ng s w eb sites,and giventhat public policy generally supports web acces sibility,it is surpr is in g th a tso m a y w eb sites in accessib . Th is stud yis a rst stepin n are le undersanding t w hy so m anyw eb sitesrem aininaccesible. Most w eb s mastersthat respon ed to the d surveysup port the conceptof web acces ed sibility,but cited road blocks to a ccesis bility suchas lack of time, lack of training,lack of m anageial support,lack of r client supp ort, inadeq uate softwaretools,and confusi acces ibility guidelines. ng s Howe v er, Appendix A S ecton 508 G uidelinesfor w eb i a. A textequivaent for e v e ryn o n x t e le n t sh a ll b e p rovid e d (e .g .v ia l -te me alt, b. longdesc,or in ele m e n t conten t). Equivalentalternatives any m ul im ediapresen for t tationshallbe c. synchron ized w ith the p rese ntation. d. W eb p ages sh allb e d esig n so th at all inform ation conveyed ed with color is e . also availablewithout color, for exam p from contextor markup. le Docum e ts shall be organized so they are read n able w ithout requi ring f. an asso ca ted style sh ee t. i g . Redun dant text links shall be providedfor eachactiveregionof a se rv er h. sid e im a m ap. ge

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2

285

i. Fram es shall be titled with text that facilitatesframe identicat ion and j. navigation. Pages sha llbe desig ned a void ca using e screen ickerwith a to th to k. frequency grea tha n 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz. ter A text-onlypag e, with equivale inform ation or funct nt ionality, shall b e providedto m ake a w eb site com ply with the provi ions of this part, s l. when com pl iance cannot be accom p lished in any other way. The contentof th e m . text-only pageshall be updatedw hene er the prim v ary pagechanges. When pag es utilize scri ting languags to display co nten, or to p e t crea te n. inte rface elements,the in fo ation providedby the script sh all b e rm idented i w ith functi onal text that can be read by assistivetechnology. When a w eb page requires that an applet,plug-n or other application be i p. p re se n o n th e c lien t sy s m to in te rp re t e con te n t,th e p ag em u stprov id e t te pag a q. When a tim ed responseis req uire , the user shall be aler ed and given t d su c ient time to indicatem oretime is required. (from http //w w w .seion508g ov) : tc .

Appendix B SurveyFor We bm aste rs SurveyQ ues tions for Web Masters cre a d b y: J. Lazar, A. Dudle te y-Sponaug K. Green g e le, id Deparm ent of Computer and Information S cien ce, Center for Applied t s Infor mation Technology,TowsonUniversity Demographics What is your gender? Male Fema le What is your age? 1 8 2 4 2 5 3 5 3 6 4 5 4 6 6 0 6 0 7 0 70+

286

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2

Chooseyour organi zational area: Health Care Governm ent Corporate Education Othe r: How would you classiy your com p f uting expere n c e ? i Expert Interm ed iate Novic e Not Sure How m anyhoursa w eekdo you spendon th e w e b? 1 2 4 5 6 7 1 0 m orethan 10 hours Questions 1 . Have you e v e r c re a d a w eb te site that is a c ce sible for u se rs with visual impa e n ts ? irm Yes No Not Sure 2 . Are you fam il with the Section50 8 law sby the U. S. Federalgovern iar ment or sim il r law s from other govern a ments around the world (i.e.,Portuga Canad l, a, Engla Australia)? nd, Yes No Not Sure 3. Is your w eb site sub ject the U.S . Fed eralG o vern ents ruleson a cce sibility? to m Yes No Not Sure 4 . Is the w eb site that you are currently overse ing acces ible to usersw ith e s visual impa e n ts ? irm No Not Sure 5 . A rey o u a w a reth a t th e rea re s o f w a re to o ls th a t c a n c h e c ky o u r w e b to s e eif t site it is acces ib le,and p rovideusefulfeedback? s Yes No Not Sure 6. Haveyou everu seda free w eb -basedaccessibilityto ol, e.g .,Bobby?

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2

287

Yes No Not Sure 7 . Have you e ve r u se d a non- eb -bas d acces ib ility tool, e .g ., A-Prom pt, w e s INFOCUS, PageS me r? crea Yes No Not Sure 8 . H a ve you evertestedyou r w eb using a screen site read er? screenreader (A read s the text out loud in com p ute r-syn th es ized speech .) No Not Sure 9. D oes your organi zation have any plansto m ake your w eb site acces ible to s u sers with visualim pairm ents in the future ? No Not Sure 1 0 . Are you fam ilar with any of the following acces i sibili y guidelines t from the W eb Acce ssibility Initia tive? (Checkall that app ly): Authoring Tool Accessib ility User Agent Accessib ility Not familiar with any acces sibility guide lines 11. W hat d o you th ink is the bigg e chaleng eof makinga w eb st l site acces ib le s for userswith visualim pa ents? irm Explain. 12. Who do you think should be responsble for m akinga w eb site i accessible for S ys m sAnalyst/Engineer te Prog ram m er Help Desk Manag e r Disabili y Compliance Oce t W hy? 1 3 . What factors would inuence you to m ake your current site (g over en t, nm corp orate, and/or perso nal) accessible usersw ith visualimpa e n ts? for irm 1 4 .Wh en y o u m a keu p d a tes y o u r w e b sit d o y o u con sid e rth e fa ctoro f to e, making 1 5 . Do you considerethi s in planning and/orupdating your current w e b s? c site Why or Why not?

288

J. Lazar et al. / C o m p uters H u m anB eh av io r 0 (2 004 )26 9 in 2

References
C eaparu I., & Shneideman , B . (2 0 0 2 ). p rovi W eb-based , r Im ng civic inform ation c c e ssa c a sestu d yof a : th e 5 0 US Sta te s. ro ce e d in go f th e IEEE In te rn atio Sy m p osiu m on ch n olo gy d S o ciet , 2 7 5 P s nal Te an y 282. D udley-Spnaugle,A., & Lazar, J. (2 0 0 3 ). o The ethicalimplica tions of w eb a ccessibility u ser s for with disab il ities. Proceedings th e Inform atio nR e so ur M a n a g men t A sso c iatio n 2 00 3 of ce e Inte rnatio nal C o nferene, 1 0 9 1 1. c 1 Ivory,M., Manko, J., & Le, A. (2 0 0 3 ). sin g a uto m te d to o ls to im p rovew e b site u sag eby users U a with d iverseab ilities. a n d S o ciey, 1 (3 ),1 9 5 26. IT t 3 Johnson, (2 0 0 1 ). o m p u te e th ic s(3 rd e d .).U p p e r S a d d leR iv e r, N J: P re ntic eHall. D. C r Lazar, J. (2 002 ). Integ rating e ssib i into the inform aion system s curricu lu Pro cee d ing s acc lity t m. of th e In te rn a tio l A sso cia tio n r C om p uteIn fo rm a tion yste m 3 7 3 3 7 9 . na fo r S s, Lazar, J., B eere,P., G reenidge, & Nagappa,Y. (2 0 0 3 ). e b a c c e s s ib il in the m id-Atlantic K., W ity United S ta te s: studyof 5 0 w e b site s .U n ivesa l A c c e s sin th e In fo rm a tio n o c ie ty, (4 ),1 1 1 . a r S 2 Lazar, J., Greenidge, (2 0 0 3 ). n e ye a r old e r,b u t n o t n ec e ssa rily ise r:a n e va lu a tio n K. O w of hom epage a cc e ssib ty p ro b le s o vertim e(u n d e rre v ie w ). ili m Lazar, J., & Pre ec e ,J. (1 9 9 9 ). e sig n i and im ple m D ng enting w e b-based surveys. Journal of C om pu te r In fo rm tio n S y ste m 39(4 ),6 3 6 7 . a s, Lazar, J., & P re e c e ,J. (2 0 0 1 ). Using e le ctronicsu rveysto ev alu aten etw orkedresou rce s: from idea to im plem e ntati . In C. McClure, & J. B e rto t (E d s.) , E v a lu a tin gn e tw o rk e d fo rm tio n s e rv ic e s: on in a te c h n iqe s, p o lic y ,a n d iss u e s p . 1 3 7 1 5 4 Medford,NJ: Inform a u (p ). tion Today. Paciello,M. (2 0 0 0 ). e b a c ce s sib ility r p e o p le ith d isa b ili W fo w ties. L a w re n c e KS: CMP Books. , P en ce , (2 0 0 0 ). d iction a ry f c o m m o n h ilo so p h ica l s. N e w Y ork: T h e McGraw-Hill G. A o p term Compani . es Shar,R., & Dusek,V. (E d s .).(2 0 0 3 ). h ilo so h y o f te c hn o lo g y : e te ch no lo gic co nd itio. Malden , P p th al n MA: