The author examines user-centered evaluations of e-government Web sites for compliance with a policy related to persons with disabilities: the requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Although Section 508 requires that federal e-government sites offer equal access to all users, research indicates that inaccessibility is still prevalent. User-centered evaluation approaches offer a vital way to discover areas of inaccessibility on Web sites related to the requirements of Section 508. Following an overview of accessibility, Section 508, and e-government sites, the goals of evaluation and various approaches to evaluating e-government sites are analyzed. The author then focuses on methods and issues in user-centered evaluations of e-government that measure accessibility, and considerations for universal design and future studies. Sample instruments and example data from a 2006 study of e-government accessibility are included to illustrate methods and issues. Evaluating e-government Web sites can ultimately prove quite informative in ascertaining compliance with laws intended to promote accessibility.
Bertot, J.C., & Jaeger, P.T. (2006). Editorial: User-centered e-government: Challenges and benefits for government Websites. Government Information Quarterly, 23, 163-168.
2.
Bertot, J.C., McClure, C.R., Thompson, K.M., Jaeger, P.T., & Langa, L.A. (2003). Florida electronic library: Pilot project functionality assessment for the Florida Division of Library Services. Tallahassee, FL: Information Use Management and Policy Institute.
3.
Bertot, J.C., Snead, J.T., Jaeger, P.T., & McClure, C.R. (2006). Functionality, usability and accessibility: Iterative user-centered assessment strategies for digital libraries. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 7(1), 17-28.
4.
Buhler, C. (2001). Empowered participation of users with disabilities in universal design. Universal Access in the Information Society , 1, 85-90.
5.
Chen, H. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury, CA: Sage.
6.
Coonin, B. (2002). Establishing accessibility for e-journals: A suggested approach. Library Hi Tech, 20(2), 207-213.
7.
Cullen, R., & Hernon, P. (2006). More citizen perspectives on e-government. In P. Hernon, R. Cullen, & H. C. Relyea (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on e-government: Serving today and building for tomorrow (pp. 209-242). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
8.
Culnan, M.J. (1983). Environmental scanning: The effects of task complexity and source accessibility on information gathering behavior. Decision Sciences, 14(2), 194-206.
9.
Culnan, M.J. (1984). The dimensions of accessibility to online information: Implications for implanting office information systems. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 2(2), 141-150.
10.
Culnan, M.J. (1985). The dimensions of perceived accessibility to information: Implications for the delivery of information systems and services. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 36(5), 302-308.
11.
Dalrymple, P.W., & Zweizig, D.L. (1992). Users' experiences of information retrieval systems: An exploration of the relationship between search experience and affective measures. Library & Information Science Research, 14, 167-181.
Ellison, J. (2004). Accessing the accessibility of fifty United States government Web pages: Using Bobby to check on Uncle Sam. First Monday, 9(7). Available at http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_7/ellison/index.html
14.
Eschenfelder, K.R., Beachboard, J.C., McClure, C.R., & Wyman, S.K. (1997). Assessing US federal government Websites. Government Information Quarterly, 14, 173-189.
15.
Fenton, R. (2004). United Kingdom adoption agency Web sites. First Monday, 9(2). Available at http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_2/fenton/index.html
16.
Gibbons, S., Peters, T.A., & Bryan, R. (2003). E-book functionality: What libraries and their patrons want and expect from electronic books. Chicago : LITA.
17.
Ginsburg, A., & Rhett, N. (2003). Building a better body of evidence: New opportunities to strengthen evaluation utilization. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 489-498.
18.
Goering, S. (2002). Beyond the medical model? Disability, formal justice, and the exception for the "profoundly impaired." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 12(4), 373-388.
19.
Goggin, G., & Newell, C. (2000). An end to disabling policies? Toward enlightened universal service. Information Society, 16, 127-133.
20.
Gordon, R., & Heinrich, C.J. (2004). Modeling trajectories in social program outcomes for performance accountability. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 161-189.
21.
Government Performance and Results Act, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 287 (1993).
22.
Grob, G.F. (2003). A truly useful bat is one found in the hands of a slugger. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 499-505.
23.
Gutierrez, C.F., Loucopoulos, C., & Reinsch, R.W. (2005). Disability-accessibility of airlines' Web sites for U.S. reservations online. Journal of Air Transport Management , 11, 239-247.
24.
Gupta, M.P., & Jana, D. (2003). E-government evaluation: A framework and case study. Government Information Quarterly, 20, 365-387.
25.
Hansberger, A. (2001). Policy and program evaluation, civil society, and democracy. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 211-228.
26.
Henry, G.T. (2003). Influential evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 515-524.
27.
Henry, G.T., & Mark, M.M. (2003). Beyond use: Understanding evaluations' influence on attitudes and action. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 293-314.
28.
Hert, C.A. (2001). User-centered evaluation and its connection to design. In C. R. McClure & J. C. Bertot, Evaluating networked information services: Techniques, policy, and issues (pp. 155-174). Medford, NJ : Information Today.
29.
Holliday, I. (2002). Building e-government in East and Southeast Asia: Regional rhetoric and national (in)action. Public Administration and Development, 22, 323-335.
30.
Huang, C.J., & Chao, M.-H. (2001). Managing WWW in public administration: Uses and misuses. Government Information Quarterly, 18, 357-373.
31.
Jacko, J.A., & Vintense, H.S. (2001). A review and reappraisal of information technologies within a conceptual framework for individuals with disabilities. Universal Access in the Information Society , 1, 56-76.
32.
Jackson-Sanborn, E., Odess-Hamish, K., & Warren, N. (2002). Web site accessibility: A study of six genres . Library Hi Tech, 20(3), 308-317.
33.
Jaeger, P.T. (2004a). Beyond Section 508: The spectrum of legal requirements for accessible e-government Websites in the United States. Journal of Government Information, 30(4), 518-533.
34.
Jaeger, P.T. (2004b). The social impact of an accessible e-democracy: The importance of disability rights laws in the development of the federal E-government. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15(1), 19-26.
35.
Jaeger, P.T. (2006a). Assessing Section 508 compliance on federal e-government Websites: A multi-method, user-centered evaluation of the accessibility of e-government. Government Information Quarterly, 23, 169-190.
36.
Jaeger, P.T. (2006b). Telecommunications policy and individuals with disabilities: Issues of accessibility and social inclusion in the policy and research agenda. Telecommunications Policy, 30(2), 112-124.
37.
Jaeger, P.T. (2006c). Multi-method evaluation of U.S. federal electronic government Websites in terms of accessibility for persons with disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(04).
Keates, S., & Clarkson, P.J. (2003). Countering design exclusion: Bridging the gap between usability and accessibility. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2, 215-225.
40.
King, N., Ma, T.H.-Y., Zaphiris, P., Petrie, H., & Hamilton, F. (2004). An incremental usability and accessibility evaluation framework for digital libraries. In P. Brophy , S. Fisher, & J. Craven (Eds.), Libraries without walls 5: The distributed delivery if librarian and information services (pp. 123-131). London: Facet.
41.
Klein, D., Myhill, W., Hansen, L., Asby, G., Michaelson, S., & Blanck, P. (2003). Electronic doors to education: Study of high school Website accessibility in Iowa. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 27-49.
42.
Lafond, C.L., Toomey, T.L., Rothstein, C., Manning, W., & Wagenaar, A.C. (2000). Policy evaluation research: Measuring the independent variables. Evaluation Review, 24(1), 92-101.
43.
Lazar, J. (2006). Web usability: A user-centered design approach . Boston: Pearson.
44.
Lazar, J., Beere, P., Greenidge, K., & Nagappa, Y. (2003). Web accessibility in the mid-Atlantic United States: A study of 50 homepages. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2, 331-341.
45.
Lazar, J., Dudley-Sponaugle, A., & Greenidge, K.-D. (2004). Improving Web accessibility: A study of webmaster perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior , 20, 269-288.
46.
Mabry, L. (2002). Postmodern evaluation-or not? American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 141-157.
47.
MacNeil, C. (2002). Evaluator as steward of citizen deliberation. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 45-54.
48.
Marincu, C., & McMullin, B. (2004). A comparative analysis of Web accessibility and technical standards conformance in four EU states. First Monday , 9(7). Available at http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_7/marincu/index.html
49.
Mechling, J., & Booz Allen Hamilton . (2002). Building a methodology for measuring the value of e-services. Washington, DC: BoozAllenHamilton.
50.
Michael, S. (2004, April 19). Making government accessible-online . Federal Computer Week, pp. 24-30.
51.
Milliman, R.E. (2002). Website accessibility and the private sector: Disability stakeholders cannot tolerate 2% access!Information Technology and Disabilities, 8(2). Available at http://www.rit.edu/~easi.itd.htm
52.
Norman, K.L., & Panizzi, E. (2006). Levels of automation and user participation in user testing. Interacting With Computers, 18, 246-264.
53.
Powlik, J.J., & Karshmer, A.I. (2002). When accessibility meets usability. Universal Access in the Information Society, 1, 217-222.
54.
Rapp, R., & Ginsburg, F. (2001). Enabling disability: Rewriting kinship, reimagining citizenship. Public Culture, 13(3), 533-556.
55.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq (1973)
56.
Ritchie, H., & Blanck, P. (2003). The promise of the Internet for disability: A study of online services and Website accessibility at centers for independent living. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 5-26.
57.
Sanders, J.R. (2001). A vision for evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 363-366.
58.
Schmetzke, A. (2003). Web accessibility at university libraries and library schools: 2002 follow-up study. In M. Hricko (Ed.), Design and implementation of Web-enabled teaching tools (pp. 145-189). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
59.
Segerholm, C. (2003). Researching evaluation in national (state) politics and administration: A critical approach. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 353-372.
60.
Shi, Y. (2006). The accessibility of Queensland visitor information centres' Websites. Tourism Management, 27, 829-841.
61.
Sloan, D., Gregor, P., Booth, P., & Gibson, L. (2002). Auditing accessibility of UK higher education Websites. Interacting With Computers, 14, 313-325.
62.
Smith, A. (2001). Applying evaluation criteria to New Zealand government websites. International Journal of Information Management , 21, 137-149.
63.
Smith, B., Fraser, B.T., & McClure, C.R. (2000). Federal information policy and access to Web-based information. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26, 274-281.
64.
Stake, B. (2004). How far dare an evaluator go toward saving the world? American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 103-107.
65.
Stephanidis, C., & Savidis, A. (2001). Universal access in the information society: Methods, tools, and interactive technologies. Universal Access in the Information Society, 1, 40-55.
66.
Stewart, R., Narendra, V., & Schmetzke, A. (2005). Accessibility and usability of online library databases. Library Hi Tech, 23(2), 265-286.
67.
Stowers, G.N.L. (2002). The state of federal Websites: The pursuit of excellence. Available at http://www.endowment.pwcglobal.com/pdfs/StowersReport0802.pdf
68.
Sweeney, M., Maguire, M., & Shackel, B. (1993). Evaluating user-machine interaction: A framework . International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 689-711.
69.
Thompson, K.M., McClure, C.R., & Jaeger, P.T. (2003). Evaluating federal Websites: Improving e-government for the people. In J. F. George (Ed.), Computers in society: Privacy, ethics, and the Internet (pp. 400-412). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
70.
Thompson, T., Burgstahler, S., & Comden, D. (2003). Research on Web accessibility in higher education . Journal of Information Technology and Disabilities, 9(2). Available at http://www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv09n2/thompson.htm
71.
Wagenaar, A.C., Harwood, E.M., Silianoff, C., & Toomey, T.L. (2005). Measuring public policy: The case of beer keg registration laws. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 359-367.
72.
Wallace, D.P. (2001). The nature of evaluation. In D. P. Wallace & C. V. Fleet (Eds.), Library evaluation: A casebook and can-do guide (pp. 209-220). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
73.
West, D.M. (2003). Achieving e-government for all: Highlights from a national survey. Available at http://www.benton.org/publibrary/egov/access2003.doc
74.
Witt, N., & McDermott, A. (2004). Web site accessibility: What logo will we use today? British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 45-56.
75.
World Markets Research Centre. (2001). Global e-government survey. Providence, RI: Author.
