It is widely recognized that digital libraries (DLs) should be accessible for all types of users. However, there is a gap in assessing how well DLs support blind and visually impaired (BVI) users. This study evaluated the accessibility of DLs based on the DL Accessibility and Usability Guidelines (DLAUG). A total of 31 DL experts–comprising experienced DL developers–were recruited to assess five DLs representing diverse types. Multiple data collection methods, particularly expert assessments, were employed to gather data. The findings identified 22 types of violations corresponding to various help-seeking situations encountered by BVI users. These violations were classified into the following seven categories: feature labeling issues, inadequate help information, inappropriate design of features, incompatibility, lack of features, metadata issues, and multimedia issues. The significance of the study lies in its evaluation of the current compliance status of DLs, its identification of unique violations compared with other information retrieval (IR) systems, and its recommendations for improving the current DL designs to better support BVI users.
AdetoroN (2012) Alternative format preferences among secondary school visually impaired students in Nigeria. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science44(2): 90–96.
2.
Alcaraz-MartínezRRibera-TurróM (2020) An evaluation of accessibility of C ovid-19 statistical charts of governments and health organisations for people with low vision. El Profesional de la Informacion29(5): 1–15.
3.
AlajarmehN (2022) Evaluating the accessibility of public health websites: An exploratory cross-country study. Universal Access in the Information Society21(3): 771–789.
4.
AlMerajZBoujarwahFAlhuwailD, et al. (2021) Evaluating the accessibility of higher education institution websites in the State of Kuwait: empirical evidence. Universal Access in the Information Society20(1): 121–138.
5.
AlotaibiFAAJohnsonFRowleyJ (2023) Google Scholar or university digital libraries: A comparison of student perceptions and intention to use. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science55(4): 906–920.
6.
American Library Association (2012) Accessibility. Available at: http://www.ala.org/support/style/accessibility Document ID: ffdf0f31-3212-67d4-b507-5cec4f390d7c (accessed 4 November 2020).
CalvertPCreaserCPigottC (2019) Information access preferences and behaviour of Blind Foundation Library clients. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science51(1): 162–170.
CampbellAKirkpatrickAConnorJ, et al. (2024b) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/ (accessed 23 March 2025).
16.
CheeMDavidianZWeaverKD (2022) More to do than can ever be done: Reconciling library online learning objects with WCAG 2.1 standards for accessibility. Journal of Web Librarianship16(2): 87–119.
17.
CheeMWeaverKD (2021) Meeting a higher standard: A case study of accessibility compliance in LibGuides upon the adoption of WCAG 2.0 guidelines. Journal of Web Librarianship15(2): 69–89.
18.
European Telecommunications Standards Institute (2021) Accessibility Requirements for ICT Products and Services. Sophia Antipolis: European Telecommunications Standards Institute.
19.
FeratiMBeyeneWM (2017) Developing heuristics for evaluating the accessibility of digital library interfaces. In: 11th International conference on universal access in human–computer interaction (UAHCI), Vancouver, Canada, 9–14 July 2017, pp.171–181. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
20.
GonçalvesRMartinsJPereiraJ, et al. (2012) Accessibility levels amongst the Forbes 250: Where art thou O virtuous leader?Journal of Business Ethics113(2): 363–375.
21.
GonçalvesRRochaTMartinsJ, et al. (2018) Evaluation of e-commerce websites accessibility and usability: An e-commerce platform analysis with the inclusion of blind users. Universal Access in the Information Society17(3): 567–583.
22.
GriffinSM (1998) NSF/DARPA/NASA Digital Libraries Initiative: A program manager’s perspective. D-Lib Magazine4(7/8).
23.
HaanperäTNieminenM (2013) Usability of web search interfaces for blind users: A review of digital academic library user interfaces. In: 7th International conference on universal access in human–computer interaction, Las Vegas, 21–26 July 2013, pp.321–330. Berlin: Springer.
24.
HansonVLRichardsJT (2013) Progress on website accessibility?ACM Transactions on the Web7(1): 1–30.
HolstiOR (1969) Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
27.
IsahAMutshewaASeremaB, et al. (2015) Analyzing digital library initiatives: 5S theory perspective. New Review of Academic Librarianship21(1): 68–82.
28.
KhanAIdreesHMudassirK (2015) Library web sites for people with disability: Accessibility evaluation of library websites in Pakistan. Library Hi Tech News32(6): 1–7.
29.
KuppusamyKSBalajiV (2023) Evaluating web accessibility of educational institutions websites using a variable magnitude approach. Universal Access in the Information Society22(1): 241–250.
30.
LateERuotsalainenHKumpulainenS (2024) Image searching in an open photograph archive: Search tactics and faced barriers in historical research. International Journal on Digital Libraries25(4): 715–728.
31.
LiewCL (2009) Digital library research 1997–2007: Organisational and people issues. Journal of Documentation65(2): 245–266.
32.
LopesRGomesDCarriçoL (2010) Web not for all: A large scale study of web accessibility. In: 2010 International cross disciplinary conference on web accessibility (W4A), 26–27 April 2010, Raleigh, NC, pp.1–4.
33.
MartinsJGonçalvesRBrancoF (2017) A full scope web accessibility evaluation procedure proposal based on Iberian eHealth accessibility compliance. Computers in Human Behavior73: 676–684.
34.
MátraiKR (2018) How to make an electronic library accessible. Electronic Library36(4): 620–632.
MullikenAFalloonK (2019) Blind academic library users’ experiences with obtaining full text and accessible full text of books and articles in the USA: A qualitative study. Library Hi Tech37(3): 456–479.
OudJ (2016) Accessibility of vendor-created database tutorials for people with disabilities. Information Technology and Libraries35(4): 7–18.
39.
PowerCFreireAPetrieH, et al. (2012) Guidelines are only half of the story: Accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the web. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 5–10 May 2012, Austin, TX, pp.433–442.
40.
RømenDSvanæsD (2012) Validating WCAG versions 1.0 and 2.0 through usability testing with disabled users. Universal Access in the Information Society11(4): 375–385.
41.
RoseTL (2018) Is the digital talking book program meeting librarian and patron expectations?Journal of Librarianship and Information Science50(4): 468–483.
42.
SinghNWangLLBraggJ (2024b) FigurA11y: AI assistance for writing scientific alt text. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 17–20 March 2024, Greenville, SC, pp. 886–906.
43.
SinghUDivya VenkateshJMuraleedharanA, et al. (2024a) Accessibility analysis of educational websites using WCAG 2.0. Digital Government: Research and Practice5(3): 1–28.
VollenwyderBPetralitoSItenGH, et al. (2023) How compliance with web accessibility standards shapes the experiences of users with and without disabilities. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies170: 102956.
49.
WebAIM (2024) The WebAIM Million: An annual accessibility analysis of the top 1,000,000 home pages. Available at: https://webaim.org/projects/million/ (accessed 9 March 2020).
XieIBabuRJooS, et al. (2015) Using digital libraries non-visually: Understanding the help seeking situations of blind users. Information Research20(2): 673.
52.
XieIBabuRLeeTH, et al. (2020) Enhancing usability of digital libraries: Designing help features to support blind and visually impaired users. Information Processing & Management57(3): 102110.
53.
XieIBabuRLeeTH, et al. (2021) Coping tactics of blind and visually impaired users: Responding to help-seeking situations in the digital library environment. Information Processing & Management58(5): 102612.
54.
XieIBabuRWangS, et al. (2022) Assessment of digital library design guidelines to support blind and visually impaired users: A study of key stakeholders’ perspectives. Electronic Library40(6): 646–661.
55.
XieIMatusiakK (2016) Discover Digital Libraries: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
56.
XieIWangSLeeTH, et al. (2023) Comparison of accessibility and usability of digital libraries in mobile platforms: Blind and visually impaired users’ assessment. Information Research28(3): 59–82.
57.
XieIWangSLeeTH, et al. (2024) Blind and visually impaired users’ interactions with digital libraries: Help-seeking situations in mobile and desktop environments. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction40(22): 6953–6971.
58.
YangWZhaoBLiuYQ, et al. (2020) Are Ivy League library website homepages accessible?Information Technology and Libraries39(2): 1–18.
59.
YiYJ (2020) Web accessibility of healthcare web sites of Korean government and public agencies: A user test for persons with visual impairment. Universal Access in the Information Society19(1): 41–56.
60.
YoonKDolsRHulscherL, et al. (2016) An exploratory study of library website accessibility for visually impaired users. Library & Information Science Research38(3): 250–258.
61.
ZengMLQinJ (2020) Metadata. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
