Introduction: This study investigated the accessibility and usability of online job applications by individuals with visual impairments who use screen readers. Method: Three blind, experienced screen reader users on the research team attempted to complete online job applications from 30 randomly selected Fortune 500 companies, with 90 application trials attempted. Each tester used a different screen reader and browser combination. Results: The testers experienced significant barriers to completing the online job applications: 50 of 90 (55.6%) attempts were successful, but 23 of the 30 (76.7%) websites had critical issues that prevented at least one tester from completing the application. Testers found 694 accessibility issues and gave an average ease-of-use rating of 3.60 (SD = 1.05) out of 5 for the job application websites. Twenty-six of the job application websites were created by eight job application software vendors, with significant variation in accessibility across different applications using the same vendor. Discussion: The accessibility and usability issues identified with the majority of online job applications evaluated present an unnecessary barrier to employment for screen reader users. While the 55.6% success rate found in this study is considerably higher compared to previous research, only 23.3% of the job application websites were accessible to all three screen readers. Implications: Job application software vendors and companies that create their own online job applications should take a Universal Design approach by following the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and implementing recommended solutions to increase the accessibility of their applications. Software vendors are encouraged to only offer accessible options for creating online job applications, such that companies would not be able to create an inaccessible form.
BruyereS. M.EricksonW. E.VanLooyS. (2005). Information technology and the workplace: Implications for persons with disabilities. Disability Studies Quarterly, 25(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v25i2.548
2.
FaganJ. C.FaganB. (2004). An accessibility study of state legislative web sites. Government Information Quarterly, 21(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2003.12.010
GilbertsonT. D.MachinC. H. C. (2012). Guidelines, icons and marketable skills: An accessibility evaluation of 100 web development company homepages. W4A 2012 - International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, 17(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207016.2207024
5.
JaegerP. T. (2006). Assessing section 508 compliance on federal e-government Web sites: A multi-method, user-centered evaluation of accessibility for persons with disabilities. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.03.002
LazarJ.WentzB.AlmalhemA.CatinellaA.AntonescuC.AynbinderY.BandsM.BastressE.ChanB.CheldenB.FeustelD.GautamN.GreggW.HeppdingM.HouseholderC.LibbyA.MeltonC.OlgrenJ.PalestinoLSeidelM. (2013). A longitudinal study of state government homepage accessibility in Maryland and the role of web page templates for improving accessibility. Government Information Quarterly, 30(3), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.03.003
LoiaconoE. T.DjamasbiS. (2013). Corporate website accessibility: Does legislation matter?Universal Access in the Information Society, 12(1), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-011-0269-1
13.
LoiaconoE. T.McCoyS.ChinW. (2005). Federal web site accessibility for people with disabilities. IT Professional, 7(1), 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2005.1407801
14.
LoiaconoE. T.RomanoN. C.McCoyS. (2009). The state of corporate website accessibility. Communications of the ACM, 52(9), 128–132. https://doi.org/10.1145/1562164.1562197
McDonnallM. C.SuiZ. (2019). Employment and unemployment rates of people who are blind or visually impaired: Estimates from multiple sources. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 113(6), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0145482X19887620
17.
MelnykV.AshokV.PuzisY.SoviakA.BorodinY.RamakrishnanI. V. (2014). Widget classification with applications to web accessibility. InWeb Engineering: 14th International Conference, ICWE 2014, Toulouse, France, July 1–4, 2014. pp. 341–358. Springer International Publishing.
OlalereA.LazarJ. (2011). Accessibility of U.S. federal government home pages: Section 508 compliance and site accessibility statements. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 303–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.02.002
WebAIM. (2022). The WebAIM million: The 2022 report on the accessibility of the top 1,000,000 home pages. WebAIM. Advanced Online Publication. https://webaim.org/projects/million
25.
WeissburgH. (2021). Are you there, EEOC? It's me, Title I: Using Title I to improve web accessibility under the ADA. Boston University Law Review, 101(5), 1917–1951.
YoungbloodN. E.MacKiewiczJ. (2012). A usability analysis of municipal government website home pages in Alabama. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 582–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.12.010
30.
YuD. X.ParmantoB. (2011). U.S. state government websites demonstrate better in terms of accessibility compared to federal government and commercial websites. Government Information Quarterly, 28(4), 484–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.04.001
