Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The changing interpretation of laws regarding individuals with disabilities requires Web sites to be accessible by assistive technology devices. This study examined the current accessibility of university and departmental home pages. The first research hypothesis theorized that some improvement in Web accessibility for home pages of colleges in 2007 would be found when compared to data from a 2001 accessibility study by Zaphiris and Ellis. In 2001, 29.4% of colleges evaluated were accessible, and in 2007 58.8% of colleges evaluated were accessible. The second research hypothesis theorized that there would be more accessible pages for departments that focus on disability studies, such as special education and educational psychology, than would be found on general, university-wide homepages. Findings indicated that approximately half of the university-wide and special education home pages evaluated were accessible; however, only about 30% of the educational psychology home pages evaluated were accessible. These data show that university and departmental home pages still have some way to go to meet the legal requirement that 100% of all Web sites be accessible.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42. § 12101 (1990).

Blanck

P. D.

Sandler

L. A.

(2000). ADA Title III and the Internet: Technology and civil rights. Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter, 24(5), 855–859.

Brajnik

(2004). Comparing accessibility evaluation tools: A method for tool effectiveness. Universal Access in the Information Society, 3(3–4), 252–263.

Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) (2006). Products based on CAST's work: Bobby. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www.cast.org/products/index.html.

Cooper

(2004). Current support in the Bobby product line. Proceedings of the Center on Disabilities Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference, USA. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2004/proceedings/153.htm.

Flowers

C. P.

Bray

Algozzine

R. F.

(1999). Accessibility of special education program home pages. Journal of Special Education Technology, 14(2), 21–26.

Griffith

(2001). Statistically analyzing success rates in Web usability testing: The Cochran's Q test. In Moving WebWord. Retrieved July 24, 2007, from http://webword.com/moving/cochransq.html.

Hooks vs. OKBridge (1999). No. 99–50891 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Retrieved January 4, 2006, from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/briefs/hooks.htm.

Jaeger

P. T.

(2006). Multi-method evaluation of U.S. federal electronic government Websites in terms of accessibility for persons with disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University.

10.

Office of Civil Rights, 1996 Letter, Pages 1–2. [Docket Number 09-95-2206].

11.

Office of Civil Rights, 1997 Letter, Pages 1–2, [Docket No. 09-97-2002].

12.

National Federation of the Blind. (2000). National Federation of the Blind/America Online accessibility agreement. Retrieved January 4, 2006, from http://www.nfb.org/Tech/accessibility.htm.

13.

Patrick

D. L.

(September 9, 1996). Letter to Senator Harkin of the United States Senate. Retrieved January 4, 2006, from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal712.txt.

14.

Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Part 794d (1998).

15.

Sprague

C. A.

(1999, November. Accessible Web design. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. (ERIC Publication No. ED 435 384).

16.

Sreenivasan

(1996, December). Blind users add access on the Web. The New York Times, pp. D7.

17.

Sullivan

Matson

(2000). Barriers to use: Usability and content accessibility on the Web's most popular sites. In Proceedings of the Conference of Universal Usability. Arlington, VA: ACM.

18.

United States Access Board. (2000, December. Electronic and information technology accessibility standards, 36 CFR Part 1194. Retrieved January 4, 2006, from http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/standards.htm.

19.

United States Access Board (2006, June. About the U.S. Access Board. Retrieved June 19, 2006, from http://www.access-board.gov/about.htm.

20.

United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. (2004). Frequently Asked Questions about Titles II and III of the ADA. Retrieved January 4, 2006, from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/drs/faqada.htm.

21.

U.S. News and World Report. (2006a). America's best graduate schools: Complete guide to education programs: Educational psychology. Retrieved October 10, 2006, from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/edu/eduindex.php.

22.

U.S. News and World Report. (2006b). America's best graduate schools: Complete guide to education programs: Special education. Retrieved October 10, 2006 from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/edu/eduindex.php.

23.

Watchfire. (2006a, January). Watchfire homepage. Retrieved June 19, 2006, from http://webxact.watchfire.com/.

24.

Watchfire. (2006b, January). Watchfire: WebXact home page. Retrieved June 19, 2006, from http://webxact.watchfire.com/.

25.

World Wide Web Consortium. (1999). Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0. Retrieved January 4, 2006, from http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/.

26.

World Wide Web Consortium. (2000). Quick tips to make accessible Web sites. Retrieved January 4, 2006, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/QuickTips/.

27.

World Wide Web Consortium. (2006a). About the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Retrieved June 19, 2006, from http://www.w3.org/Consortium/.

28.

World Wide Web Consortium. (2006b). Evaluating Web sites for accessibility: Overview. Retrieved June 19, 2006, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/Overview.html.

29.

Zaphiris

Ellis

R. D.

(2001, October). Website usability and content accessibility of the top USA universities. Paper presented at WebNet 2001, Orlando, FL.

Snapshot—Ten Years after the Law: A Survey of the Current Status of University Web Accessibility

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References