As online communities have become an important means of social interaction and community participation, ensuring their universal accessibility is essential for social inclusion. Although accessibility standards have been developed to make information-oriented Web sites more inclusive to users with disabilities and older adults, similar efforts have not been devoted to accessibility standards tailored specifically for online communities that are primarily communication oriented. Existing guidelines for Web site accessibility can be used as the starting point in designing accessible online communities for persons with disabilities and older adults, and public policy needs to play a significant role in ensuring the accessibility of the Web 2.0 environment. To ensure full accessibility of the online environment, however, it is necessary to move beyond guidelines that focus on one-way transfer of information and to develop guidelines for multidirectional communication. This article explores the social, policy, and developmental issues of the accessibility of online communities.
Access Board. (2002). FY 2001 annual report. Available from http://www.access-board.gov/publications/01AnnuarlRept.txt
2.
Bertot, J.C., & Jaeger, P.T. (2006). User-centered e-government: Challenges and benefits for government Websites. Government Information Quarterly , 23, 163-168.
3.
Buhler, C. (2001). Empowered participation of users with disabilities in universal design. Universal Access in the Information Society , 1, 85-90.
4.
Burnett, G., Besant, M., & Chatman, E.A. (2001). Small worlds: Normative behavior in virtual communities and feminist book-selling. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 536-547.
5.
Burnett, G., Jaeger, P.T., & Thompson, K.M. (2008). The social aspects of information access: The viewpoint of normative theory of information behavior. Library & Information Science Research, 30, 56-66.
6.
Chen, Y., & Persson, A. (2002). Internet use among young and older adults: Relation to psychological well-being. Educational Gerontology, 28, 731-744.
7.
Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7, 119-135.
8.
Fox, S. (2004). Older Americans and the Internet. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project .
9.
Fox, S. (2006). Online health search. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved July 3, 2007, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Online_Health_2006.pdf
10.
Fox, S., & Madden, M. (2005). Generations online. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved July 3, 2007, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Generations_Memo.pdf
11.
Fox, S., & Madden, M. (2006). Generations online. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
12.
Furlong, M.S. (1989a). Crafting an electronic community: The SeniorNet story. International Journal of Technology and Aging, 2, 125-134.
13.
Furlong, M.S. (1989b). An electronic community for older adults: The SeniorNet network. Journal of Communication, 39(3), 145-153.
14.
Furlong, M.S. (1997). Creating online community for older adults. Generations, 21, 33-35.
15.
Gibbons, S., Peters, T.A., & Bryan, R. (2003). E-book functionality: What libraries and their patrons want and expect from electronic books. Chicago : LITA.
16.
Goggin, G., & Newell, C. (2000). An end to disabling policies? Toward enlightened universal service. Information Society, 16, 127-133.
17.
Gross, E.F., Juvonen, J., & Gable, S.L. (2002). Internet use and well-being in adolescence. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 75-90.
18.
Guo, B., Bricout, J.C., & Huang, J. (2005). A common open space or a digital divide? A social model perspective on the online disability community in China. Disability & Society, 20, 49-66.
19.
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.
20.
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, 518-533.
21.
Jaeger, P.T. (2004b). The social impact of an accessible e-democracy: Disability law in the development of the e-government. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15, 19-26.
22.
Jaeger, P.T. (2006a). Assessing Section 508 compliance on federal e-government Websites: A multi-method, user-centered evaluation of accessibility for persons with disabilities. Government Information Quarterly, 23, 169-190.
23.
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, 112-124.
24.
Jaeger, P.T. (2008). User-centered policy evaluations of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: Evaluating e-government Web sites for accessibility for persons with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 19, 24-33.
Kanayama, T. (2003). Ethnographic research on the experience of Japanese elderly people online. New Media and Society, 5, 267-288.
27.
Katz, J.E., Rice, R.E., & Aspden, P. (2001). The Internet, 1995-2000: Access, civic involvement, and social interaction. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 405-419.
28.
Kavanaugh, A.L., & Patterson, S.J. (2001). The impact of community computer networks on social capital and community involvement. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 496-509.
29.
Kelton, K., Fleischman, K.R., & Wallace, W.A. (2008). Trust in digital information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 363-374.
30.
Kennard, W.E., & Lyle, E.E. (2001). With freedom comes responsibility: Ensuring that the next generation of technologies is accessible, usable, and affordable . CommLaw Conspectus, 10, 5-22.
31.
Lakhani, K.R., & von Hippel, E. (2003). How open source software works: "Free" user-to-user assistance. Research Policy, 32, 923-943.
32.
Lankes, R.D., Silverstein, J., & Nicholson, S. (2007). Participatory networks: The library as conversation . Information Technology and Libraries, 26(4), 17-33.
33.
Lazar, J., Beere, P., Greenridge, 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.
34.
Lazar, J., Dudley-Sponaugle, A., & Greenidge, K.-D. (2004). Improving Web accessibility: A study of webmaster perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior , 20, 269-288.
35.
Loges, W.E., & Jung, J. (2001). Exploring the digital divide: Internet connectedness and age. Communication Research, 28, 536-562.
36.
Mack, T.C. (2004). Internet communities: The future of politics? Futures Research Quarterly, 20(1), 61-77.
37.
Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2005). A multilevel analysis of sociability, usability and community dynamics in an online health community. Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 12(2), 1-32.
38.
McLawhorn, L. (2001). Leveling the accessibility playing field: Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, 3, 63-100.
39.
Moreland, R.L., & Levine, J.M. (2000). Socialization in organizations and work groups . In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 69-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
Morrell, R.W. (2005). http://www.nihseniorhealth.gov: The process of construction and revision in the development of a model Web site for use by older adults. Universal Access in the Information Society , 4(1), 24-38.
41.
Mueller, J.P. (2003). Accessibility for everybody: Understanding Section 508 accessibility requirements. New York: Springer-Verlag.
42.
National Council on Disability. (2001). The accessible future. Available from http://www.ncd.gov
43.
National Institute on Aging and National Library of Medicine. (2001). Making your Web site senior friendly: A checklist. Washington DC: Authors . Available from http://www.nih.gov/icd/od/ocpl/resources/wag/documents/checklist.pdf
44.
Oclc. (2007). Sharing, privacy and trust in our networked world. Dublin, OH: OCLC.
45.
Preece, J. (1999). Empathic communities: Balancing emotional and factual communication. Interacting With Computers, 12, 63-77.
46.
Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability and supporting sociability. New York: John Wiley .
47.
Redish, J.G., & Chisnell, D. (2004). Designing Web sites for older adults: A review of recent research. Washington, DC: AARP. Available from http://www.aarp.org/olderwiserwired/oww-resources/a_review_of_recent_literature_2004.html
48.
Ridings, C.M., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1), Article 4. Available from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/ridings_gefen.html
49.
Shah, D.V., Cho, J., Eveland, W.P.J., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research , 32, 531-565.
50.
Shaw, L.H., & Grant, C.S.W. (2002). In defense of the Internet: The relationship between Internet communication and depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and perceived social support. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 5, 157-171.
51.
Slatin, J.M. (2001). The art of the ALT: Toward a more accessible Web . Computers and Composition, 18, 73-81.
52.
Slatin, J.M., & Rush, S. (2003). Maximum accessibility. Boston : Addison-Wesley.
53.
Sloan, D. (2006). Two cultures? The disconnect between the Web standards movement and research-based Web design guidelines for older people. Gerontechnology, 5, 106-112.
54.
Turner, J.W., Grube, J.A., & Meyers, J. (2001). Developing an optimal match within online communities: An exploration of CMC support communities and traditional support. Journal of Communication, 51, 231-251.
55.
Ucla. (2003). UCLA Internet report: Surveying the digital future. Los Angeles: Anderson Graduate School of Management. Available from http://www.ccp.ucla.edu
56.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of general demographic characteristics: 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, DC: Author .
57.
Wasko, M.M., & Faraj, S. (2000). "It is what one does": Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 155-173.
58.
Wasko, M.M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35-57.
59.
Weber, L.M., Loumakis, A., & Bergman, J. (2003). Who participates and why? An analysis of citizens on the Internet and the mass public. Social Science Computer Review, 21(1), 26-42.
60.
Wellman, B., Haase, A.Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 436-455.
61.
Witt, N., & McDermott, A. (2004). Web site accessibility: What logo will we use today? British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 45-56.
62.
Wright, K.B. (2000). Computer-mediated social support, older adults, and coping. Journal of Communication, 50, 100-118.
63.
Xie, B. (2003). Older adults, computers, and the Internet: Future directions. Gerontechnology, 2, 289-305.
64.
Xie, B. (2006). Growing older in the Information Age: Civic engagement, social relationships, and well-being of older Internet users in China and the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
65.
Xie, B. (2007). Older Chinese, the Internet, and well-being. Care Management Journals: Journal of Long Term Home Health Care , 8, 33-38.
66.
Yang, G. (2003). The Internet and civil society in China: A preliminary assessment. Journal of Contemporary China, 12, 453-475.
