Access Denied 1
Access Denied: Overcoming Barriers to Adoption and Implementation of Web Accessibility
by Glen Farrelly
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS in PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION
We accept the thesis as conforming to the required standard
______Dr. Michael Real, Thesis Supervisor Date School of Communication & Culture Royal Roads University
______Dr. Phillip Vannini, Thesis Co-ordinator Date School of Communication & Culture Royal Roads University
______Dr. David Black, Internal Committee Member Date School of Communication & Culture Royal Roads University
______Dr. Gerry Nixon, External Committee Member Date School of Leadership Studies Royal Roads University
______Dr. Joshua Guilar, Director Date School of Communication & Culture Royal Roads University
Royal Roads University, July 2009
© Glen Farrelly 2009 [email protected]
Library and Archives Bibliothèque et Canada Archives Canada
Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de l’édition
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada
Your file Votre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-58696-9 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-58696-9
NOTICE: AVIS:
The author has granted a non- L’auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par télécommunication ou par l’Internet, prêter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non- support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. . The author retains copyright L’auteur conserve la propriété du droit d’auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author’s permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privée, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de thesis. cette thèse.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n’y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.
Access Denied 2
Abstract
As Canadians increasingly integrate online activities into their daily lives, disabled people are frequently impeded from accessing websites due to code and design barriers. Despite the W3C guidelines to improve web accessibility, adoption remains low. The responsibility to implement accessibility tends to fall on web practitioners, yet prior scholarship has failed to consult this group on their barriers to adoption. Qualitative interviews with web practitioners found that current social and individual values, inadequate guidelines and support, and monetary demands are halting the diffusion of web accessibility in Canada. These factors perpetuate an artificial construct of online disability and impede developments towards an inclusive Web medium.
Recommendations to remediate this environment and thus improve accessibility rates in Canada are offered.
Keywords: web accessibility, accessibility, disability, web development, web design
Access Denied 3
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my wife for her invaluable and tireless support. I also would like to thank the research participants for freely giving their time, candour, and insight.
This thesis was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada (SSHRC). Access Denied 4
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………….…………………………….………………………………..2 Acknowledgments…………………………….…………………………….……………………..3 Table of Contents…………………………….…………………………….…………….………..4 List of Figures…………………………….…………………………….…………….………...... 6 Chapter 1: Web Accessibility Benefits and Barriers Introduction…………….…………….…………….…………….…………….….………………7 What is Web Accessibility? …………….…………….…………….…………….………8 Do Disabled People Use the Web? …………….…………….…………….….….….…...9 The Internet as Disabling Agent…………….…………….…………….….….….…..…10 Brief History of Accessibility………….…………….…………….…………….………12 Expanded Web Accessibility Integration Model…………….…………….…………….16 Chapter 2: Assembling Web Accessibility Research Background…………….…………….…………….…….…………….…….………….….……18 Stakeholder Perceptions…………….…………….…………….…….…………….……18 Web practitioner knowledge and attitudes…………….…………….…………...18 Client knowledge and attitudes…….…………….…….…………….….….…....19 Societal Foundations…………….…………….…………….…….…………….…….…19 Education and training…………….…………….…………….…….…………...19 Media and industry coverage…………….…………….…………….….….…....20 Attitudes towards disability …………….…………….…………….….….….…20 Present statistics on inaccessibility……….…………….…………….….….…...21 Policy and law…………….…………….…………….…….…………….…..….22 Market forces…………….…………….…………….…….…………….….…...22 Customer demand and advocacy…………….…………….…………….….…...22 Tools and Resources…………….…………….…………….…….…………….…..…...23 Guidelines…………….…………….…………….…….…………….….………23 Support material…………….…………….…………….…….…………….……23 Authoring tools…………….…………….…………….…….…………….….…24 Testing support……….…………….…………….…….…………….….….……24 End User Factors…………….…………….…………….…………….………………....25 Chapter 3: Description of Interview Process Method…………….…………….…………….…….…………….…….…………….….….…..26 Format…………….…………….…………….…….…………….…….…………….….26 Sampling and Recruitment…………….…………….…………….…….……………….26 Interview Structure…………….…………….…………….…….…………….….…..….27 Data Analysis…………….…………….…………….…….…………….….….….…….27 Chapter 4: Web Practitioners Reveal their Accessibility Barriers Findings and Discussion…………….…………….…………….…….…………….…….….….28 Individual and Societal Factors…………….…………….…………….….….….….…...29 Interpersonal relations between disabled and nondisabled people………………30 Disabled people don‟t complain…………….…………….…………….….…....31 Misconceptions of disability…………….…………….…….…………….….….32 Access Denied 5
Excuses and apathy…………….…………….…………….…….……………....34 Education has lessons to learn…………….…………….…………….….……...36 Media and industry coverage of web accessibility……….…………….…….….37 External Obstacles…………….…………….…………….…….…………….……...….38 W3C guidelines need guidance….…………….…….…………….….….………39 Inadequate tools for the job…………….…………….…………….….….……...41 Support material unsupportive……………….…………….…….……………....42 Advisors misadvising…………….…………….…………….…….…………….43 Positive Deviance…………….…………….…………….…….…………….….……….43 Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations…………….…………….…………….…….………………45 References…………….…………….…………….…….…………….…….…………….……...49 Appendix A: Glossary…………….…………….…………….…….…………….….….….…....56 Appendix B: Interview Details…………….…………….………...... 58 Appendix C: Participants‟ Thoughts on Requiring Web Accessibility…………….……………59
Access Denied 6
List of Figures
Figure 1: Expanded Web Accessibility Integration Model………………………………….17
Access Denied 7
Chapter 1: Web Accessibility Benefits and Barriers
The leading body for web standards, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), published voluntary accessibility guidelines in 1999, the year I began my Internet career. The guidelines instruct web practitioners on how to remove barriers preventing disabled people from using the
Web. Despite these guidelines and the passage of time, web accessibility rates in Canada and internationally have remained low. For years, I participated in Internet industry events, took courses, and followed trade news, yet I never encountered these guidelines. While managing a website in 2006, I heard of the issue from a colleague. Learning of the difficulties disabled people face using the Web and appreciating the medium‟s potential, I decided to strive for accessibility in an upcoming website relaunch. Implementation, however, was considerably more difficult than anticipated. I encountered ample prescription, but little support. Without a mandate from management or clients, I struggled to reconcile the social importance of the work with its significant time commitment.
I was intrigued by the question of whether my experience was similar to that of other web practitioners. Prior to interviewing peers, I presumed they would be largely unaware of this issue. My research uncovered most web practitioners have at least a fair degree of familiarity with web accessibility, but this often was not translating into adoption. It thus seems awareness of the issue is not a leading cause of inaccessibility, and that other factors shape practitioners‟ decisions to implement accessibility.
There is little research on the adoption challenges of web accessibility. To answer my research question of why more Canadian websites are not accessible, a foundational examination of the issue‟s dimensions was therefore required. Published work in this area has tended to derive from experts in human computer interaction, information studies, computer science, and Access Denied 8 disability theory. Largely absent from this discussion are communication scholars. This may explain the dearth of research on accessibility diffusion and how to address associated communication challenges.
As web practitioners have been charged with implementing web accessibility, it is important to document their experience. Broad questions were asked of participants to uncover issues meriting further study and remedial action. This is the first study to examine the Canadian context and one of only three studies consulting web practitioners.
In this paper, I first examine the construct of online disability and web accessibility.
Based upon consultation with 21 research participants and drawing upon literature, I propose the use of the Expanded Web Accessibility Integration Model. The model encapsulates factors integral to the perpetuation of the artificial construct of online disability and impediments to the development of an inclusive Web medium. This Model forms the basis of my literature review and discussion, as factors are examined first through existing literature and then through participants‟ experience. Although the presence of accessibility guidelines are an important component of improving web accessibility, it will be shown that they alone are insufficient. It is hoped that by providing a holistic framework that identifies the many factors integral to the construct of online disability and accessibility diffusion, remedial efforts will be able to tackle the factors essential to aid greater accessibility adoption.
What is Web Accessibility?
Considering the vast diversity of human impairments, a single website cannot feasibly address the accessibility needs of everyone. Furthermore, some accessibility tactics may address some disabilities while simultaneously impeding others. There is a consensus, however, that web accessibility broadly involves enabling disabled users to get to, understand, and use Web content Access Denied 9
(Duckett, 2005; Thatcher et al., 2006; Henry, 2007; SitePoint, n.d.). All users will at some time encounter difficulties using websites; therefore, it is important to distinguish between accessibility and usability. The distinction is made “when a person with a disability is at a disadvantage relative to a person without a disability, it is an accessibility issue” (Henry, 2006, p.
27).
Do Disabled People Use the Web?
When I described this research project to an acquaintance, a website owner, I mentioned that if news websites were accessible to blind people they would be able to access news when they wanted. My acquaintance replied, “Why don‟t they just listen to the radio?” The misconception that disabled people do not use the Web or do not need to is prevalent (Goggin &
Newell, 2003). This issue also affects more Canadians than most people realize, as fourteen per cent of Canadians, or 4.4 million, identified themselves as disabled (Statistics Canada, 2007).
Many disabilities are affected by web accessibility, such as blindness and visual impairments, deafness and hearing impairments, and cognitive and mobility impairments (Slatin & Rush,
2003). The number of people affected by accessibility is much greater when one considers that accessibility pertains to those permanently disabled, temporarily disabled (e.g. broken arms), situationally disabled (e.g. environments preventing listening to audio or using a mouse), and those with diminishing capacity, such as the elderly (Chisholm & May, 2008; Vanderheiden,
2000).
Studies and anecdotal accounts reveal the tremendous impact Internet access can have on disabled people. The use of technology, including the Internet, was found to reduce self-reported disability rates of those 65 or older (Spillman, 2004). For example, Spillman found online shopping can reduce mobility disability. Researchers have also studied homebound elderly and Access Denied 10 disabled people before and after getting Internet access, and they found using the Internet decreased feelings of isolation and depression (Bradley & Poppen, 2003). Disabled people are able to find social support more readily online (Braithwaite, Waldron, & Finn, 1999). Fox noted online anonymity allowed those with visible disabilities to interact with others in an environment where the focus was not on their disability (2000). At an individual level, personal accounts relate the depth of improvement Internet access can have for deaf-blind people (Ball, 2007) and mobility challenged individuals (Carr, 2006; Xu, 2001). Considering these benefits, it is understandable that in a UK survey, 54% of disabled people considered Internet access essential compared to 6% of the general population (Knight, Heaven & Christie, 2002).
The Internet as Disabling Agent
To say some disabled people benefit from Internet access is not to imply they do not face tremendous barriers or complete blocks. A US study found 30.8% of disabled people use the
Internet, compared to 63.6% of nondisabled people (Dobransky & Hargittai, 2006). This discrepancy is attributed to web inaccessibility and the cost of assistive technology1. Although assistive technology can enable access to the Web for some disabled people, it is not without limitations in adapting inaccessible content (Harper & Yeliz, 2008). Those with low or no vision or colour blindness are limited by code that prevents screen readers or magnification software from functioning or by design that makes navigating and reading difficult. Deaf people can be blocked by uncaptioned online audio. Those with motor impairments can be stymied by code preventing alternative input devices to be used rather than a mouse. Those with cognitive impairments may be overwhelmed by complex web writing or cluttered web design.
These barriers create disability that might not otherwise exist. Within the social model of disability, disability is not considered an inherent condition of an individual, but is caused by
1 Terms in bold are defined in the glossary, appendix A. Access Denied 11 societal structures that do not accommodate impairment and thus disables people (Corker &
French, 1999; Peters, 2003; Shakespeare, 2003). The social model distinguishes between impairment, for example an inability to see, and disability, for example a lack of access to information only presented in a visual format. A website user may be deaf, but no disability is created when online audio is made accessible through captioning or providing a sign language version.
The problematic access of Internet media for people with impairments has created a gulf known as the “disability divide” (Jodhan, n.d.). The disability divide draws upon the concept of the digital divide, wherein the world is increasingly divided between those who have access to
Internet and those who do not (possibly due to poverty, illiteracy, or lack of connectivity in their area). Web design and code barriers not only prevent disabled people from using the medium, but also from benefiting from it. As the ability to use the Internet is required for more aspects of life, this inaccessibility further prevents disabled people from greater societal participation
(Goggin & Newell, 2003). In addition, Internet media, as with offline media, share disabling aspects by excluding images of disabled people and failing to address disabled people‟s needs
(Goggin & Newell, 2003). As the world marches ahead with the digital revolution, disabled people are increasingly left behind.
Ellcessor (2009) argues the social model is integral to assist web practitioners in conceptualizing their role in the continued artificial construct of online disability. Goggin and
Newell believe government deregulation of communications is partly responsible for widespread inaccessibility. Profit-driven companies left to voluntarily accommodate disabled customers have tended to ignore the issue. Thus web accessibility often falls upon an organization‟s web practitioners to take it upon themselves to implement accessibility or not. This laisser-faire Access Denied 12 approach led accessibility advocate Jodhan to lament that “the best that we can hope for now is to work extra hard to convince website owners and content developers to change their approach and attitude” (n.d.).
Brief History of Accessibility
The diffusion of web accessibility is deeply rooted in the disability movement. To understand the complexity of accessibility diffusion, one must examine the larger historical efforts for disability rights and accommodation in Canada and abroad.
Earlier notions of disability conceived of disability as punishment inflicted upon sinners or those otherwise unworthy, or as an individual tragedy requiring family or charitable care
(Stienstra & Wight-Felske, 2003). These models were followed by the medical model, still prominent today. The medical model frames disability as a medical deficiency in need of medical treatment and institutionalization (Stienstra & Wight-Felske, 2003). Movement beyond models promoting segregation to notions embracing accommodation arose post World War Two.
The impact of Nazi atrocities, Neufeldt believes, resulted in greater democratization and official acknowledgement of human rights (Neufeldt, 2003). This attitude was crystallized in the UN
Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
Returning disabled war veterans in Canada and other Western nations were “the first group to develop broad public support for their rights” (Neufeldt, 2003, p. 19). Disabled veteran groups successfully challenged healthcare and government for better rehabilitation programs, access to assistive devices, and physical accommodation (Neufeldt, 2003). Veterans also challenged social stigma by their refusal to self-confine to the house (Neufeldt, 2003).
Advocacy efforts to improve accessibility policy continued in Canada, yet the first significant national accessibility policy was not in place until 1965. The Building Standards for Access Denied 13 the Handicapped was appended to the National Building Code, although compliance was initially voluntary (Ringaert, 2003).
Inspired by the civil rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s, disabled people rejected the dominant medical model and insisted societal barriers create disability (Peters, 2003).
Theorists in England broke from prior notions of disability as an individual‟s inherent deficiency to develop the social model of disability (Shakespeare, 2003). Disability advocates in Canada were inspired by this model as it empowered them to challenge systemic and societal barriers
(Peters, 2003).
One of the most prominent and important policy victories for disability advocates was the constitutional recognition of disability discrimination. The 1981 draft of Canada‟s Charter of
Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter the Charter) did not include disability as a ground of discrimination. Disabled people initiated efforts to have it included and campaigned extensively.
When the Charter was passed in 1982, Canada was the first country to constitutionally recognize the rights of disabled people (Peters, 2003). In deference to the Charter, voluntary accessibility building standards became a requirement in 1985 (Ringaert, 2003). Thus, for the first time in
Canada, accessibility was mandated by law. Subsequently, Canadian policy-makers increasingly embraced the social model of disability and strived to remove barriers.
Disabled activists have also worked to improve accessibility of information and communications technology, although significant progress was not made until the 1990s. An early ICT accessibility policy is the 1990 CRTC ruling requiring telephones manufactured or sold in Canada to be compatible with hearing aids (Jones, 1994). Captioning of television programs has experienced similar diffusion challenges as web accessibility. While the CRTC has mandated captioning beginning in 1995, there are still no commonly agreed-upon standards in Access Denied 14 place (CRTC, 2007). Critics also argue that the captioning exemptions are too lenient and the quality of captioning is dubious, resulting in poor or non-existent captioning for much television broadcast in Canada (CRTC, 2007).
Web accessibility efforts began formally with the first published guidelines released in
1995 by University of Wisconsin-Madison‟s Trace Center (Ellcessor, 2009). The first governmental web accessibility policy was adopted by San Jose, California in 1996 (Waddell,
2006). In 1997, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) announced the formation of its Web
Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The WAI was a collaborative effort from industry, advocacy organizations, disability specialists, and academia (Waddell, 2006). Their Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) was released in 1999 and updated in 2008. Several institutions ceased publishing their guidelines to simplify and thus encourage global accessibility adoption
(Ellcessor, 2009). Despite criticism, WCAG is the leading international standard and the basis of international policy and law (Wadell, 2006).
In 2000, the Canadian federal government adopted Canada‟s most prominent web accessibility policy. Applying to federal government websites, the Common Look and Feel
Standards for the Internet contains accessibility rules, but it was not required to be fully in place until December 31, 2008 (Waddell, 2006). Provincial governments, such as BC and Quebec, and municipal governments, such as Ottawa, have requested at least partial web accessibility compliance. Currently, Ontario is the only jurisdiction in Canada pursuing requiring web accessibility not only for government but for all Ontario business and organizations through the
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability Act (Government of Ontario, 2009). Canadians that supply online services or applications for the American government have found they must comply with US web accessibility policy. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal Access Denied 15 government and organizations receiving federal funding to adhere to accessibility guidelines
(Waddell, 2006).
Accessibility policy has also arisen not only from legislation and regulation, but also from litigation. Certain court cases have garnered media attention and sparked discussion amongst web practitioners, extending their impact beyond borders. The world‟s first fully adjudicated web accessibility case resulted from a 1999 complaint brought by a blind Australian person against the Sydney Olympic Organizing Committee (Waddell, 2006). The ruling required the Committee to make their website accessible. The US has had a number of lawsuits regarding web accessibility (AOL, Target, Hotels.com, LLAC). Canada appears to have had only one published web accessibility lawsuit. A blind woman is currently suing the federal government over their website inaccessibility (Bakerlaw, 2008). Interestingly, the suit is against the only
Canadian institution currently requiring accessibility. The scope of this ruling may be limited to governmental sites. Canada awaits a lawsuit against private business, which would likely provoke greater impact.
Even though Canada has a constitutional prohibition on discrimination against disabled people, this does not necessarily mean all Canadian organizations must or will embrace accessibility. The presence of accessibility policy and law does not ensure that such laws will be followed or maintained. Despite requirements for accessible washrooms, Mandreck found various public institutions‟ washrooms in BC failed to comply (2007). Canadian courts will excuse inaccessibility if efforts to comply incur an unreasonable burden (Zvulony, 2005). This
“undue hardship” defence is not absolute, however, as is found in the seminal case of Huck vs.
Odeon (Zvulony, 2005). The Odeon cinema claimed undue hardship to accommodate patrons in Access Denied 16 wheelchairs, based on financial burden, but this argument was denied and they were ordered to substantially modify their premises.
Expanded Web Accessibility Integration Model
As has been demonstrated, the construct of online disability is formulated within socio- political contexts. Web accessibility relies on interrelationships between technological and human components. To aid conceptualization of the components and their relationships, I expanded upon the Web Accessibility Integration Model developed by Lazar, Dudley-Sponaugle,
& Greenidge (2004). Lazar et al.‟s work appears to be the first documentation of the factors affecting diffusion of the issue, yet their model appears to have not been cited elsewhere. Lazar et al.‟s model identifies fundamental diffusion issues but missed crucial components. Based on a review of literature and input from participants, I identified important additions to the model
(Figure 1), for example, attitudes towards disability, customer demand and advocacy efforts, and the various roles of a diverse array support tools and resources. While it is infeasible to capture all factors, I believe the revised model captures determining factors affecting web accessibility diffusion and implementation. This model illustrates how online disability is perpetuated and the impediments towards an inclusive Web medium. A web practitioner‟s knowledge and experience of these components will serve as an impetus or barrier to implementation. Access Denied 17
Figure 1: Expanded Web Accessibility Integration Model
Societal Stakeholder Web End Foundations Perceptions Development User
1.1 5.1 Education Trans- & training 2.1 coding Web 1.2 Media & industry practitioner 5.2 knowledge & 3.1 3.2 3.3 User attitudes Initial Maintenance Redesign 1.3 agents Attitudes Site & towards Design enhancement disability 5.3 Assistive Devices 1.4 Present 2.2 stats Client Tools & Resources knowledge & attitudes 1.5 Policy & Law
4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 1.6 Guidelines Support Authoring Testing Hired Market material Tools support experts forces
1.7 Customer demand & advocacy
Access Denied 18
Chapter 2: Assembling Web Accessibility Research
Background
Goggin & Newell believe academics ignore disability issues (2003). This may explain why web accessibility has received so little scholarship despite its fourteen-year history. The only academic book on web accessibility was published as recently as September 2008. As with most of the literature, it fails to address adequately the issue‟s communication challenges.
Examining the pertinent literature within the framework of the Expanded Web Accessibility
Integration Model (see Figure 1) enables a greater understanding of web accessibility‟s diffusion and adoption. Subsequent subtitles specify in parenthesis the location in the model.
Stakeholder Perceptions
Web Practitioner Knowledge and Attitudes (Figure 1: 2.1)
Web practitioners are not a homogeneous group, but represent a diversity of job types, experience, and skills. As such, there are various relevant job titles: webmaster, designer, editor, producer, multimedia specialist, programmer, developer, writer, and assistant. These roles can be performed by professionals, volunteers, hobbyists, and those with multiple non-web responsibilities. For this paper, the term web practitioner will be used for all of the above.
Average web users may also author online content via blogs, podcasts, wikis, profiles, videos, or comments. The demands of implementing accessibility and appeals to professionalism are thus problematic due to the diversity of skill and commitment (Treviranus, 2008).
Only three studies have consulted web practitioners to ascertain their accessibility barriers. Lazar et al.‟s survey of webmasters identified lack of training, lack of client and management support, inadequate software, and confusing guidelines as the main barriers (2004).
A UK survey of web developers found low rates of accessibility expertise (only 9%) and Access Denied 19 awareness. They identified lack of knowledge and guidance along with cost as primary roadblocks (DRC, 2004). Recently, a 2008 survey of Brazilian web practitioners found 64% had not implemented accessibility primarily due to lack of knowledge, time, and management demand (Freire, Russo, Cibele & Fortes, 2008). For the 36% who implemented accessibility, their top reason was personal motivation. Both the Freire et al. and Lazar et al. studies confirm that without client and management demand for accessibility, implementation is left as a practitioner‟s individual choice.
Client Knowledge and Attitudes (Figure 1: 2.2)
In this context, client refers to individuals that web practitioners serve, which include managers and executives within an organization as well as external clients. The Disability Rights
Commission of the UK appears to have conducted the only formal study examining managerial experience of web accessibility. The study‟s authors believe website owners overstated their awareness and commitment to web accessibility and found only 31% of them had a positive attitude towards the subject. In a survey of UK small and medium sized businesses with websites, 62% had not even heard of web accessibility or were unsure (Higgs, 2006).
Societal Foundations
Education and Training (Figure 1: 1.1)
Education and training on web accessibility enables practitioners to learn the techniques and the importance of accommodating disabled people. No studies have been conducted in Canada to study this aspect. A US study found accessibility was not covered in the curriculum of any US computer science, information science, or information management programs (Lazar, 2002) and on-the-job training was also believed to be rare in the US (Lazar et al., 2004). In a Brazilian survey of web developers, lack of training was identified as the top reason for inaccessibility Access Denied 20
(Freire et al., 2008). Goggin & Newell lament the lack of teaching of disability issues, believing educators conceive of disability within a medical model and then “forget” to discuss it within other contexts (2003, p.115 ).
Media and Industry Coverage (Figure 1: 1.2)
Due to a lack of interpersonal communication between disabled and nondisabled people,
Haller believes media are the most important means for nondisabled individuals to learn about disability (Haller, 2000). No studies appear to exist on media and industry coverage of web accessibility. It is reasonable to assume it is neglected along with all disability issues and images
(Haller, 2000; Davis, 2006). Media tends to cover disability through depictions of disabled people either as “superheroes” overcoming all barriers, or as pitiful objects incapable of caring for themselves (Haller, 2000). Failure to cover this issue adequately results in missed opportunities for needs to be communicated and devalues the legitimacy of this issue (Goggin &
Newell, 2003).
Attitudes towards Disability (Figure 1: 1.3)
Knowledge and attitudes towards disabled people can affect accessibility awareness and prioritization. Some accessibility advocates speculate that the lack of web practitioners who know a disabled person is a determining factor in the issue‟s diffusion (Slatin & Rush, 2003).
Historically, disabled people were segregated from Canadian society through institutionalization or home confinement (Stienstra, Wight-Felske, & Watters, 2003). Disabled people still are not fully integrated into the workforce, higher education, or other areas of society (Charlton, 1998).
The stigmatization of disabled people results in perceptions of their inferiority, social separation, and discrimination (Goffman, 2006). Discrimination can be subtle or unintentional, which Deal dubs “aversive disablism” (2007). Access Denied 21
No studies exist documenting web practitioners‟ attitudes towards disabled people. However, most Canadians (82%) feel disabled people are discriminated against and only 1 in 10 believes they are fully included in society (Environics, 2004). The result of ongoing exclusion and discrimination is that disabled people‟s needs are not considered in normal business operations or are diminished in what amounts to an “apartheid of special needs" (Goggin & Newell, 2003, p. 136). The perceived extraordinary burden to accommodate special needs is used by the nondisabled to relieve them from responsibility (Coleman, 2006).
Present Statistics on Inaccessibility (Figure 1: 1.4)
Lazar et al. (2004) believe that low rates of accessibility adoption contribute to webmasters discounting the issue. Studies testifying to the lack of adoption are numerous. Two of the highest profile studies were for the United Nations (Nomensa, 2006) and the UK‟s Disability Rights
Commission (2004). Both studies found extremely low accessibility levels across sectors, with the latter finding that 81% of sites failed to address the most basic measures. Canadian studies find similar low levels here among popular English Canadian sites (Collis, n.d.) and French sites
(AccessibilitéWeb, 2007), healthcare sites (O'Grady, 2005), and university and college sites
(Zaparyniuk & Montgomerie, 2005). Compounding low uptake, studies have also shown that accessibility rates are worsening (Alexander & Rippon, 2007; Hackett, Parmanto & Xiaoming,
2005; Lazar & Greenidge, 2006), sites are overstating their accessibility (Petrie, Hamilton, &
King, 2004), or are implementing it inadequately (Asakawa, 2005).
Policy and Law (Figure 1: 1.5)
Web accessibility diffusion in Canada is placed within the larger issue of disability rights and accommodation (see Introduction). Laws and policy that require accessibility may not lead to widespread promulgation. A Brazilian study (Freire et al., 2008) found that their accessibility Access Denied 22 policy was not effective in promoting adoption or awareness. Similarly, a study found that of US federal homepages required to be accessible only 23% were, although this was considerably higher than non-regulated sites (Loiacono & McCoy, 2006).
Market Forces (Figure 1: 1.6)
Cost of development, competitive landscape, and corporate social responsibility are among market factors affecting accessibility decisions. No studies appear to examine market influence on accessibility or to itemize the cost or benefits. Despite the lack of financial data, cost is often raised as a primary factor for not implementing accessibility (DRC, 2004; Freire et al., 2008).
Disabled theorists criticize our economic system‟s focus on profit at the expense of disabled people‟s needs (Goggin & Newell, 2003). Oravec identifies measures, such as quarterly profit reports, that motivate web practitioners to achieve short-term goals rather than the longer-term or indirectly profitable work of accessibility (2002).
Web accessibility advocates emphasize ancillary benefits, such as improving interoperability and performance, optimizing for search engine, and increasing reach (Henry, 2005, Moss, 2004).
Peters & Bradbard (2008) believe businesses can benefit by positioning accessibility as an act of corporate social responsibility. In a survey of Brazilian website owners, appeals to these ancillary benefits motivated them to adopt accessibility (Freire et al., 2008).
Customer Demand and Advocacy (Figure 1: 1.7)
Disabled customers and advocacy organizations can raise awareness of accessibility generally and with organizations specifically. No Canadian disabled advocacy group other than the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB) appears to have a significant web accessibility mandate. CNIB, however, refused to participate in my research2. Additionally,
2 Despite contacting various CNIB staff on multiple occasions, they provided only basic information, failed to respond to requests for further information, and would not agree to be interviewed. Access Denied 23
CNIB has been criticized for their commitment to web accessibility (Collis, n.d.b). In Stienstra and Wight-Felske‟s history of Canadian disabled advocacy, numerous offline accessibility initiatives were chronicled, but there was no reference to web accessibility (2003). Although this could be attributed to authors‟ oversight, it seems indicative of its low profile amongst Canadian advocacy groups. It thus appears that responsibility to lobby for change falls largely upon individual disabled people. Societal structures, however, are such that they can alienate disabled people causing some to “feel helpless and hopeless, which often produces a tragic nihilism” and makes them less likely to complain (Charlton, 1998, p. 77).
Tools & Resources
Guidelines (Figure 1: 4.1)
Web accessibility guidelines date back to 1995, although this time span has not resulted in universal acceptance of tactics. W3C formalized the world‟s leading accessibility guidelines,
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), in 1999 and updated them in 2008 (Wadell,
2006). Criticism of WCAG has centered around its obtuseness or complexity (Clark; 2006;
Lawson, 2006; Moss, 2006; Harper & Yeliz, 2008), lack of scientific rigour (Harper & Yeliz,
2008), utopianism (Kelly & Sloan, 2005; Kelly, Phipps & Howell, 2005), inappropriate audience
(Ellcessor, 2009), and failure to address needs of specific groups, such seniors, cognitively impaired, or blind people (Sloan, 2006; Friedman & Bryen, 2007; Leutholda, Bargas-Avila &
Opwis, 2007). The W3C believe one set of universal guidelines versus multiple guidelines leads to increased adoption by end-user software, support tools, and organizations (Brewer, 2006).
Support Material (Figure 1: 4.2)
As implementing accessibility may require new methods of programming and design, support material is crucial. How-to information can be found in print (Slatin & Rush, 2003; Access Denied 24
Thatcher et al., 2006; Chisholm & Matthew, 2008) and online, primarily at Accessify, WebAIM,
SitePoint, WebCredible, and W3C. No studies have examined the adequacy of this material or its distribution. One scholar did note that this topic was not covered in the most important web development textbooks (Oravec, 2002).
Authoring Tools (Figure 1: 4.3)
Authoring tools are the software web practitioners use to create websites and online content. The W3C has published authoring tool standards to facilitate production of accessible content and enable usage by disabled people (Lawton & May, 2008). Considering the small number of authoring tools and thousands of web practitioners, proponents believe it is vital to enable practitioners to create accessible content automatically, whether trained or motivated to do so (Treviranus, 2008).
Testing Support (Figure 1: 4.4)
Testing software could allow practitioners to quickly and affordably test their entire website, reveal and correct errors, and thus improve accessibility. As the many techniques required to implement accessibility are scaled across the hundreds or thousands of webpages in a website, it becomes practically impossible to catch all errors and omissions. Testing tools, however, have been shown to be insufficient (Brajnik, 2004) or used inadequately (Hackett &
Parmanto, 2009). Zeng and Parmanto found most accessibility errors are the result of a few common and simple mistakes that can be identified by existing testing software (2004).
Ultimately, some techniques cannot be tested by software and require human review with disabled users (Abou-Zahra, 2008; Thatcher, 2008). Access Denied 25
End User Factors (Figure 1: 5.1, 5.2, 5.3)
User agents are technologies that display or play online content, such as browsers, multimedia plug-ins, and some assistive technology. In a chicken or egg scenario, practitioners will not use certain code if user agents do not support it and user agents are not inclined to support unused code (Henry, 2006; Gunderson, 2008). Therefore, the W3C developed user agent guidelines to work in tandem with WCAG (May & Henry, 2005). Assistive technology must continually strive to support web content, made difficult due to rapidly evolving technology and proprietary formats (Edwards, 2008). Transcoding technology could ultimately be a solution.
Although still largely theoretical, transcoding solutions would automatically convert inaccessible content (Seeman, 2004; Asakawa & Takagi, 2008).
The authors of a UK survey of web developers state that “Website designers have an inadequate understanding of the needs of disabled users and of how to create accessible websites, and would welcome clearer guidance” (DRC, 2004, p.10). The authors believe education, software, government, W3C, and business need to improve efforts to see greater adoption. As demonstrated by the literature examined above, many factors affect web practitioners‟ motivation and ability to implement accessibility. The discussion of my interviews with Canadian web practitioners will expand upon these factors within the Canadian context. Access Denied 26
Chapter 3: Description of Interview Process
Method
I conducted 21 interviews with website practitioners to solicit their experience and opinions regarding aspects of web accessibility. For background information, I also interviewed a web development instructor, assistive technology maker, an advocacy organization, a member of parliament, and two disabled web users. See Appendix B for a list of all interview participants, interview formats, and dates.
I received approval from Royal Roads University‟s Research Ethics Board prior to commencing research. All participants were adults, who provided free and informed consent. I assured participants of confidentiality to enable them to discuss sensitive and private details. I will therefore maintain participant anonymity by using pseudonyms and avoiding identifying details.
Format
As this is a study of an Internet issue, I believed it was important to use Internet methods to gather data. I used email interviews and online postings as these methods allow web professionals to communicate in their preferred and familiar manner. I also used telephone interviews as synchronous methods have been shown to better capture unanticipated and qualitative responses (Opdenakker, 2006). Final totals per format are as follows, telephone (8), email (9), and blog or online posting responses (4).
Sampling and Recruitment
My criterion to participate was a candidate needed to have direct influence over the operation of a Canadian website. For telephone and email interviews, I used purposive sampling
(Baxter & Babbie, 2004), focusing on dissimilarity sampling to solicit diverse perspectives and Access Denied 27 aid in generalization (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). I therefore selected participants from different types and sizes of organizations from across Canada and with differing levels of accessibility experience. To recruit, I used three techniques (1) contacting existing colleagues, (2) cold-calling candidates, and (3) using referrals. To enable greater participation from Canada‟s web practitioners, I posted requests to participate via my blog, Twitter, and social networking sites.
Selective sampling and multiple recruitment techniques were successful in attaining participant diversity. Participants represent a variety of job types and structures (freelance, consultant, manager, web accessibility expert, developer, web producer), organization types (sole practitioner, small business, large company, multinational), industry sectors (media, legal, financial, web development, academia, government, non-profit/charity), demographics (sex, age) and experience with the issue. Despite my attempts to recruit from across Canada, I obtained participants only from Ontario and British Columbia. These locations, however, are English
Canada‟s main web development centres and are thus indicative of the industry.
Interview Structure
Interviews were semi-structured (Rubin & Rubin, 1995) to allow me to capture profile and comparison data while allowing participants to tell their own stories. Interviews were customized in length and questions based on participants‟ time constraints and familiarity with the issue. My interview approach was “reflexive dyadic” (Ellis & Berger, 2003), a style where interviewer and participant question and share stories in a conversational manner. This style aids rapport and allows unanticipated points to be raised. It was more difficult to achieve this approach with email and online postings due to the media‟s asynchronous nature, but I compensated by follow-up questions and urging participants to share any information they wished. Access Denied 28
Data Analysis
All telephone interviews were recorded with permission and noted. I used selective transcription, wherein only meaningful content was transcribed, as this enabled me to perform my own transcription and thereby maintain confidentiality (MacLean, Meyer, & Estable, 2004).
To analyze the data, I coded interview content using Kvale‟s techniques of meaning condensation followed by meaning categorization (1996). Categories for analysis were derived from topics raised by participants or in literature. Upon detecting common elements, I refined and condensed categories. Based on a gap analysis of the data, five follow-up interviews were conducted. Access Denied 29
Chapter 4: Web Practitioners Reveal their Accessibility Barriers
Findings and Discussion
Innovations are less apt to diffuse if they are difficult to understand or use, require significant resources, or are incompatible with existing norms and values (Bandura, 2006).
Interview participants raised these same barriers to web accessibility diffusion. Current social and individual values, inadequate guidelines and support, and monetary demands are halting the diffusion of web accessibility in Canada. All the factors identified in the Expanded Web
Accessibility Integration Model were raised by practitioners, thus confirming its validity. I will focus on the factors the participants or myself identified as most strongly affecting their adoption or implementation.
Individual and Societal Factors
All participants expressed positive attitudes toward disabled people and web accessibility. Judging from the content and texture of my interviews, I found participants cared earnestly about this issue and wanted to learn more. No one was pressured or rewarded for participating in this research, indicating a willingness to assist with disability issues. Despite this, few participants had voluntarily adopted accessibility or even adequately examined the issue previously. Deal believes people may hold positive attitudes towards a group but still practice subtle or unintentional discrimination (2007). Deal dubs this aversive disablism. Societal and systemic structures are also such that people may oppress disabled people without overt intention, possibly by just following their daily routine. It is therefore helpful to examine participants‟ attitudes and experiences with disabled people to understand the social and psychological barriers to accessibility adoption.
Access Denied 30
Interpersonal relations between disabled and nondisabled people (Figure 1: 1.3)
Inattention to this issue may be partly attributed to the seeming invisibility of disabled people in Canadian society. Due to a history of forced segregation and barriers to social integration, many people do not regularly come into contact with disabled people (Charlton,
1998). Integration, however, is crucial to understanding the needs of disabled individuals (Knight et al., 2002). Eleven participants were asked if they knew someone with a disability, and whether such contact affected their perceptions. Five participants stated that they did not regularly come into contact with disabled people, one participant is disabled, and six participants knew someone with a disability. All eleven affirmed the belief that contact with disabled people has bearing on their perceptions. One participant, Jill, stated that this contact is crucial as, “Unless you've been exposed frequently to people with disabilities, their issues with web access, or any kind of access, it simply isn't going to be on your radar.” Sarah describes how not knowing disabled people can perpetuate their “invisible” status:
I can see why people don‟t care about accessibility as unless you are disabled or someone in the organization is, you might not think you have disabled users. For example, you might think disabled people don‟t even use computers, so you might not care. I‟ve experienced this same kind of attitude with disabled parking in my apartment building. There are two disabled spots in my apartment. Some people say they are never used and shouldn‟t be reserved, but the needs of the disabled are not always visible.
Clark, a blind web practitioner, believes this is a main reason for the current state of inaccessibility, noting that the nondisabled “don‟t see the problems we experience and the frustration. You have to live it to really understand.”
Knowing disabled people is not sufficient to ensure knowledge of web accessibility. One participant, Angela, had a disabled co-worker who uses a screen reader to access emails, yet
Angela was the least aware of accessibility. Lucy had even worked on a physical accessibility initiative, but was largely unaware of web accessibility techniques. Similarly, Jill, who has not Access Denied 31 implemented accessibility and has a disabled friend, noted that her friend “never asked for or needed accommodation.” Perceptions of “superhero” disabled people could possibly have led Jill to believe that disabled people are fine without additional aid (Haller, 2000).
Although practitioners interrelating with disabled people may not alone ensure accessibility adoption, it is an important way for practitioners to gain understanding of disabled people‟s needs and instruction on how to address them. Consulting disabled users provides feedback otherwise unattainable. As Mark relates, “Testing with actual disabled users is much more enlightening than any automated test suite or guideline list.”
Disabled People Don’t Complain (Figure 1: 1.7)
Motivation to adopt accessibility can arise from customer demand. Social structures, however, alienate and silence disabled people (Charlton, 1998). Clark explains why many disabled customers do not complain:
Canada doesn‟t get lots of complaints as companies wear them down. Trying to get people to understand their sites are not accessible is exhausting, as you have to talk to so many people and explain the situation over and over again. Often you need to read the riot act just to be heard and you have to keep following up and go over people‟s head. And sometimes disabled people can‟t articulate to webmasters what the problems are.
Ten participants were asked if they had received accessibility feedback from customers, and all but one had not. Lisa, who implemented accessibility but has not maintained it, was surprised by the lack of response:
I have not received any criticism regarding the lack of accessibility on our website. Nor have we had any positive feedback... Either accessibility is not an issue for our audience, or perhaps, since there is no Canadian norm, there is no point of reference for comparing our site to other, more accessible sites.
All ten participants felt that if they did receive complaints from disabled customers it would affect their organization‟s motivation to implement accessibility. Andy felt that such feedback or market research would help identify customers having accessibility difficulties otherwise Access Denied 32 invisible to corporate attention. He stated, “If a certain percentage were „identified‟, because there‟s a good bet that many people are having difficulty, even due to just being old, but they learn to live with it because so many sites are difficult to access.” For Jean‟s company, a complaint by a member triggered an accessibility overhaul of the website. Even though Clark raises obstacles to disabled people lodging inaccessibility complaints, anecdotally such complaints can encourage review and action.
Misconceptions of Disability (Figure 1: 1.3)
Lack of knowledge and misconceptions about disabled people contribute to intentional or unintentional discrimination. The leading misconception held by eight of the participants is that web accessibility is not universally required. Participants‟ statements revealed underlying beliefs that they could determine whether disabled people would need or want to use a particular website. Andy, arguing against requiring accessibility, noted, “There are too many instances where the audience is specifically NOT those with a disability.” This lack of support for universal access appears to stem from limited conceptions of the interests, needs, and abilities of individuals with disabilities. A narrow conception of accessibility is exemplified by Jill‟s comment, “If I'm selling snowboards or target pistols, how much return will I get for the effort?”
Mark expressed similar concerns, “The Health Canada site should be accessible. The blog on motorcycle track days in Ontario does not need to be.” These comments demonstrate how society can pigeonhole and define disabled people only by their disability, ignoring their range of human needs and interests. Someone who may not ride a motorcycle may still be interested in the topic. Even web accessibility expert, Shelley, was reluctant to endorse universal access:
I get frustrated by people who think “accessibility” means “blind people.” The first accessible site I did was for people with motor neuron disease, and the second was for bipolar disorder. Many of the most well-known aspects of accessibility -- like colour contrast -- are absolutely irrelevant to both audiences. Access Denied 33
Shelley fails to consider that individuals with cognitive disabilities may also have visual or other impairments or that the general public with other types of accessibility needs may also use her sites.
Comments by some participants revealed a belief that serving disabled customers is a type of market segmentation rather than a human rights issue. Olivia, for example, supports the idea that essential sites should be accessible, but entertainment sites “should be accessible if marketers deem they would like to include this audience.” Four participants made parallels between accommodating disabled web users to business decisions not to support Mac users. Jill believes businesses should be able to target their communications as they wish, and parallels web accessibility with Quebec language law:
Even if my business is in Montreal, if I know that 95 percent of my business is going to come from people who speak Chinese, why should I have to have signs or websites in English or French? The return doesn't justify the expense.
Various participants described employers who treated accessibility as a ledger item with associated costs and required benefits.
Misconceptions can also arise from an over-inflated sense of how well disabled people can overcome barriers unaided. Douglas dismissed the idea of making any changes to a website, stating instead that “my answer is to leave the solution to the browsers and the person's computer.” Assistive technology can help tremendously, but an inaccessible website can be as complete a block as a staircase is to someone in a wheelchair (Dobransky & Hargittai, 2006)
Attitudes and beliefs about disabled people can arise from an initial lack of awareness or consideration instead of out of deeply-held beliefs (Deal, 2007). Initially, Barry argued accessibility “needs to be a site by site thing,” but upon reflection corrected himself, as
“sometimes people do want to look at content even though you might not have thought of them.” Access Denied 34
Web practitioners are part of a society that does not often think about disability and is not motivated to examine disability issues unbidden (Charlton; 1998; Deal, 2007). Several participants commented that their participation helped them to examine the issue more fully and to identify prior limiting beliefs. But as Beth notes, for accessibility to move forward "the key is a cultural shift, and that takes everybody.”
Excuses and Apathy (Figure 1: 1.3)
While all participants supported the concept of web accessibility, many used excuses when questioned regarding their own implementation of accessible sites. Web accessibility can be a challenge to implement (discussed in the next section). However, I believe participants used excuses to justify their apathy (Scott & Lyman, 1968). Clients were also used as a scapegoat to excuse practitioner apathy.
The main excuse raised was cost, identified as a primary obstacle by seventeen participants. However, many of the accessibility techniques can be implemented with little or no cost, particularly if implemented when redesigning a website or switching platforms. Once cost is raised as an impenetrable barrier, some participants excused themselves from implementing even basic accessibility or from even giving the issue adequate consideration. When Sarah was relaunching her website for her non-profit organization, a co-worker suggested it be made accessible, yet Sarah felt, “Just the work to get the site launched was huge. It took a lot of time and money – so I‟m not sure how we could afford to add one more thing.”
Web practitioners do not operate in a vacuum and are faced with a business environment focused on profit, as Jill points out,
It boils down to ROI. Show me how to make a monetary return on their investment and ears will perk up. Before I can launch a project, even a page redesign, I have to provide the business case for doing it, along with estimates of how much that will increase any of Access Denied 35
the metrics I have to meet to keep my job. If it won't increase our market share of page views, unique users and the time they spend on the site, it's not likely to get approved.
It should be noted that accessibility can entail substantial costs. No special funding or tax incentives in Canada exist to ease the cost of web accessibility (Carroll, personal communication, March 26, 2009). When the Canadian government organization Cindy works for was required to implement accessibility, she found that the federal accessibility rules require
Acrobat PDF files to be converted to HTML, considered a more accessible format. Cindy monitored the time and expense for the conversion:
Complex reports with many pages, tables, charts, and diagrams can take up to 4 weeks per report with one coder coding one PDF report into HMTL…. Each table, chart, image, graph needs a long description which presents challenges in itself as we now need additional writing support (time, resources, budgets) to create the long descriptions.… [we] pulled down 3,000 PDFs from the site, and are coding only 300. Meaning (sic) the site has become accessible, however, we have removed 2,700 reports that were being used. [Content authors] in some cases are deciding against publishing because it is too difficult.
Even though Lisa implemented accessibility, due to “limited time and budget, when faced with a choice, we tend to jettison the W3C guidelines in order to get the basic site up.” Several participants identified a lack of sufficient staff as limiting their accessibility.
Grace‟s company acknowledges cost, but she helped her company conceive of accessibility as a means to help “develop new markets, and as an expression of our corporate responsibility - a differentiator in crowded markets.” As more people learn about accessibility or techniques and tools improve, costs should go down and its value becomes more appreciated. In the meantime, some practitioners have complied at a lower, more affordable level. Andy faces cost concerns, yet notes, “I do try to practice the „easy‟ accessibility items.” Cost is an obstacle, but it does not prevent – or excuse – implementing any degree of accessibility. Access Denied 36
Even organizations working towards accessibility must continually press to maintain the issue as an organizational priority. Bruce works at an organization that has partially implemented accessibility but acknowledges, “When accessibility is mentioned, it becomes just another add-on that nobody makes time for.” Staff turnover is an additional hurdle, as Cindy has found it is “difficult to maintain understanding of the importance of accessibility and ensure accessibility standards.” Even with the CEO supporting Grace‟s accessibility work, she notes,
“As one colleague put it, „faced with adding a new widget to a site or spending the resources to make the site accessible, the widget usually wins‟.” Steve advises on how to counter such organizational apathy and resistance:
You need to push different buttons depending on the audience. For example, cautiously striking fear of legal action, appealing to a developer's creative problem solving skills, working a humanitarian angle, selling the somewhat controversial cost savings associated with web standards, and so on.
As noted by Steve, the “humanitarian angle” carries weight, but otherwise providing businesses with quantifiable benefits is important to encouraging greater adoption. Documenting the ancillary benefits of web accessibility can help (Freire et al., 2008). However tackling apathy and misconceptions is essential.
Education Has Lessons to Learn (Figure 1: 1.1)
Education is important for practitioners to learn the necessary technical requirements and to convey the importance of this issue (Goggin & Newell, 2003). Lazar‟s findings (2002) that accessibility was not covered in US relevant educational programs are backed up by participants‟ experience of Canadian education. Although many participants have taken applicable courses, only one participant recalls receiving instruction on web accessibility. This participant, Susan, found the education beneficial. She stated, “Before the instructor brought in a blind woman I hadn‟t thought of its importance, then it was obvious, but just not on my radar before.” Access Denied 37
When asked about the resources they would require to make their sites accessible, 12 of
21 participants identified education as a leading resource. Eight of the 21 educated themselves to implement accessibility. Self-education was a necessity for Lisa when implementing accessibility a few years ago, as she could not find any programs in Toronto covering the subject.
Lack of formal education on web accessibility raises problems for organizations that have implemented it. They can find it difficult to locate new hires who are sufficiently skilled, as
Cindy describes, "It‟s difficult to maintain understanding of the importance of accessibility and how to ensure accessibility standards with high turnover of staff… there needs to be education and training to ensure sustainability long term.”
Four participants did experience accessibility education in the classroom. Clark raised concerns with some education he encountered, “BC offers this online accessibility course – and the course is garbage.” The subject matter is fairly complicated and evolving, so keeping course material accurate and timely is critical. Tina relates her experience as a web design instructor:
“The campuses I have taught at have had some disabled students, so that adds interest and reminds everyone about the issues facing disabled people.” The presence of disabled students in the class, however, should not be required to motivate the teaching of this subject.
Media and Industry Coverage of Web Accessibility (Figure 1: 1.2)
As with education, the media and industry are important sources of awareness and instruction. Media coverage of disabled people and web accessibility was raised with eight participants. All but one person felt disability was not covered in popular or trade media other than stereotypes (Haller, 2000). Two participants, who worked in print and online media, did not recall their publications covering accessibility. Jill explains:
Anything that isn't likely to sell a lot of papers or get a lot of clicks isn't a priority topic for media. This, like environmental issues, tends to get attention only if a report comes Access Denied 38
out talking about how dismal a job we're doing to help the disabled, or environment, or some other “cause,” or if there's a special day to mark the issue.
One participant, Lucy, feels the issue was covered, and she recalled coverage in Wired magazine. However, Wired does not tend to be a source for specific instruction. Barry believes technology-related media does cover it:
More of human interest stories of “oh wow, isn't it cool that technology can help this person in some wild new way.” Things tend to focus on the farthest out end of robotics and such and not the basic nuts and bolts where accessibility makes a real difference in people's lives.
The Internet industry associations, whether in the form of conferences, seminars, events, or newsletters, also appear to cover this topic inadequately, according to participants. Of the seven participants who noted industry association involvement, only one recalls the topic being raised.
Olivia believes the issue is considered too marginal, "In terms of conferences, it's never put forefront ... because I think the market perceives that the average person wouldn't really see it as useful." Mark was the one participant who did note accessibility has been raised, but cautions:
I feel that industry associations are following rather than leading. Most UX [online user experience] groups I know about will talk about accessibility once in a while but overall they reflect the attitudes of the clients, which is to ignore the issue.
Media and industry associations, by inadequate coverage of this issue, not only contribute to the ignorance of the public, but they also fail to use their power to legitimize the issue. With media and industry sending the message that this issue is not important enough to mention, it reinforces beliefs that accessibility is an issue that can be ignored (Goggin & Newell, 2003).
External Obstacles
When I decided to make my website accessible, I was optimistic that it would be fully accessible. Some disabilities, I learned, were very difficult to accommodate. For example, I managed a complicated financial services website, and I knew that following the recommendation to reduce the reading level of the site to accommodate individuals with learning Access Denied 39 disabilities would likely subject us to lawsuits. Another obstacle I faced was that some accessibility techniques were not supported by the two major browsers. Finally, I was dismayed that while there were numerous W3C guidelines, there was no helpful instruction. Feeling overwhelmed, I scaled down my accessibility goals. My experience is similar to participants. Of the 17 participants who implemented accessibility or investigated it, all but one expressed criticism of the guidelines, software, support material -- or all of these.
W3C Guidelines Need Guidance (Figure 1: 4.1)
Although the W3C has achieved significant accomplishments in defining and promoting web accessibility, they are also a leading factor in halting the issue‟s diffusion. Nineteen participants were either asked about or mentioned their awareness of W3C‟s WCAG. Of this nineteen, only thirteen felt they had sufficient knowledge to comment. All thirteen criticized
WCAG, while four participants simultaneously praised it. Participants‟ criticism was similar to that found in academic literature. Shelley noted that WCAG focused on some disabilities but excluded cognitive disabilities. Jordan, critical of the nine-year span between version 1 and 2 of
WCAG, commented that the “W3C takes too long to do anything.”
The bulk of WCAG criticism, however, focused on the quality of writing and organization. The most common criticisms concerned its length (estimated to be 400 pages if printed), lack of clarity, obtuse language, and convoluted organization. Although Ellcessor
(2009) claims WCAG was written for a web developer audience, it appears too technical for even longtime developers. Barry, Lucy, and Susan have each worked in web development for over a decade, but they find WCAG overwhelming. As Lucy puts it, “If I can‟t navigate it, who the hell can?" Barry concurs, “It just gets into tech-babble. It must be completely overwhelming for those less experienced.” Susan‟s experience is similar, “It was hard for me to understand, it Access Denied 40 seems disorganized and hard to follow. It‟s definitely written for the more technically minded.”
These participants raise the crucial point that if WCAG is impenetrable to seasoned professionals, then those new to the field or hobbyists are more likely to be overwhelmed and abandon accessibility efforts.
Participants also expressed a need to find information quickly for it to function as a workday resource. As Barry states, "I just need the nuts and bolts of it, such as the minimum suggested font size and just couldn‟t find it there.” Lucy describes what she needs and what would also help others, “There needs to be a quick checklist at W3C of what to do immediately versus long-term and the big impact versus small impact.”
The new version of WCAG, however, was felt by three participants to be an improvement. Lisa appreciated the testing procedures added in version 2. Steve is sympathetic to the W3C predicament:
In the late stages of WCAG 2.0, WAI has shown that they listen to their critics and delivered a much better document as a result. The topic is not rocket science but it is inherently fussy so there is no way to simplify the materials beyond a certain point.
Admittedly, W3C has a difficult task. They are criticized for not addressing the many types of disabilities, while simultaneously being criticized for its length. When WCAG became the basis for law and policy, they were criticized for being too vague and hence are now more precise, but at the expense of clarity and brevity.
Definitiveness and clarity, however, are not mutually exclusive. There are ways to achieve both, for example, through better organization, plain language, and alternative navigation methods. WCAG‟s current communication challenges prevent it from serving as a useful resource necessary for accessibility to become a daily reality.
Access Denied 41
Inadequate Tools for the Job (Figure 1: 4.3 and 4.4)
Implementing coding or design changes to make web content accessible presents new production methods for many web practitioners. People authoring web content represent a range of skills, job types, and commitment to the field. Accessibility advocates therefore hope authoring tools can be devised to facilitate production of accessible content (Treviranus, 2008).
Of the 16 participants who currently author online content, 14 indicated they use authoring tools.
Eleven participants indicated they use Adobe products, primarily Dreamweaver, Acrobat and
Flash. Adobe‟s dominant market position means their role is pivotal.
Half of the participants using authoring tools expressed criticism for the software‟s support for accessibility. Lisa and Lucy have used Dreamweaver for years, but neither was certain if it had any accessibility features. As Lucy notes, “If there is accessibility support, it‟s clearly not transparent enough.” The lack of awareness of Dreamweaver‟s accessibility features may be due to lack of help information. Bruce believes Adobe has shirked user support and instead they “rely entirely on user forums for accessibility workarounds. Even then, such workarounds are few.” This experience was echoed by Tina:
Adobe, but other software companies too, used to provide an instruction book. You could go to the index and find topics you were looking for, but now they don‟t give books. They force you to go to the Web to look for support, but it‟s nearly useless if you‟re looking for specific information.
Conversely, Jordan and Bruce feel the interface for Adobe‟s Dreamweaver was helping them implement accessibility. Bruce believes “Dreamweaver is good at reminding coders to fill in accessibility attributes.” When pressed for specifics, they both commented on Dreamweaver‟s support for style sheets and alt text with Jordan adding their long description link support. Access Denied 42
However, these are rather basic, albeit important, techniques. Considering the many guidelines, it remains to be seen if Dreamweaver is sufficiently addressing more than the rudiments.
Content management systems (CMS) are database-driven templates used to automatically deliver websites; their automated nature can be a hindrance to accessibility. Both
CMS input interface and the webpage templates can omit accessibility, essentially locking web authors out of including accessibility. All the participants that used CMS felt they offered poor or no accessibility support. Beth identified path dependency challenges faced by CMS that generate inaccessible content, but which are difficult or costly to replace. An additional challenge for practitioners is learning new technology continuously. Barry describes this challenge:
There seems to be a monumental shift happening now from coding tools like Dreamweaver to CMS-based websites based on Drupal and Joomla where content and formatting are even further separated and should allow for greater accessibility. I'm just on the verge of looking into these things. I was feeling good and now it feels like starting all over yet again. Just the overwhelming rate of change of technology is such a challenge.
Dreamweaver offers automated HTML error checking to help ensure valid code. Similar testing software for accessibility code helps improve accessibility (Zeng & Parmanto, 2004).
Testing support was identified as a leading consideration for five participants. Lisa noted testing for accessibility adds considerable development time and listed testing support. Bruce noted that testing software would also be useful as an educational aid as he finds it “difficult to find time for the research required to write accessible code.”
Support Material Unsupportive (Figure 1: 4.2)
Implementing accessibility requires new ways of programming and designing for many practitioners. Support material (e.g. instructional material, checklists, sample code, etc.) is therefore crucial. Insufficient support material was an issue for thirteen participants. Eight participants noted they attempted to locate support material but found it difficult to find or Access Denied 43 deficient. When accessibility was raised by a co-worker, Sarah researched it online but could not find anything useful. If Sarah had found suitable support, it is possible she would have been inclined to implement it. Lisa, who did implement a degree of accessibility, found the lack of support material a top barrier:
There are very few how-to descriptions out there to follow, it‟s all guess-work as to how to make it work. For every other kind of web element, one can find a how-to or a free code site. Anyone interested in accessibility is on their own… if there‟s a site that can give me 15 different drop-down menus, how about a site that gives sample code for accessibility?
Advisors Misadvising (Figure 1: 4.5)
Considering the complexity of web production and web accessibility, hiring outside labour for their expertise may seem like a good solution. As with any field where a client is not able to judge the quality of an expert‟s work, advisors can take advantage of their clients. Both
Clark and Shelley are professional web accessibility experts and encountered numerous practitioners who “pay lip service to accessibility.” Douglas, a website consultant, noted he advised his clients to leave it “to the browsers and the person's computer.” This advice is grossly insufficient to accommodate disabled users. Jean hired a company to make her company‟s website more accessible, yet the firm they hired failed to implement even the most basic accessibility techniques. More subtly, when Sarah was relaunching her website, she hired a development firm but they never mentioned accessibility to her. Even though these experiences are not indicative of all web accessibility experts, it appears some are ignorant or apathetic and are thereby misleading their clients.
Positive Deviance
Some practitioners with similar circumstances to others were nonetheless able to voluntarily implement accessibility. Such cases of positive deviance (Papa, Singhal & Papa, Access Denied 44
2006) are useful exemplars of how accessibility can be achieved in the existing environment without additional resources. The substantial difference between those who had implemented accessibility and those who had not was they exhibited feelings of responsibility for improving the situation and felt empowered to act. Lisa exemplifies this responsibility and empowerment:
“I'm socially minded for sure, but there was no precedent for website design in our organization, so it was easy enough for me to say that I'd found these rules and was going to follow them.”
Andy, Lucy, and Jordan regularly practice a degree of accessibility as they consider it good coding practice. Susan expressed the power web practitioners have to lead in this issue: “Web developers can be proactive, so they need to let companies know it is an issue and that including it is just part of our standard services. No companies would say no to this. Or you can just do it.”
Some participants felt that they could not implement accessibility without supervisory permission or felt reluctant to even raise it. However, Clark feels web practitioners have more influence than they realize, as “clients don‟t want to dispute what their webmaster says. They don‟t understand enough of the issue and they don‟t want to admit they don‟t know.” Beth adds that this expertise also raises a responsibility to bring this issue to management‟s attention:
“Often we are the only person in a workplace who understands the Web „under the hood‟. …
Management can‟t make decisions on options that aren‟t presented to them, on things they don‟t know to ask about.” Feeling empowered to learn about accessibility and then act is important for those that implemented accessibility voluntarily. Noting the critical role web practitioners play
Shelley states, “Ultimately web authors have to realize that their lack of knowledge can have a massive bearing on their organization‟s future.” Access Denied 45
Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations
As Canadians increasingly integrate online activities into their lives, a digital divide exists between those who can and cannot access online content. The inaccessibility of web content for disabled users create what is known as the disability divide (Jodhan, n.d). Alterations to web design and code can remove barriers that otherwise lock disabled people out of online participation. These techniques to improve web accessibility have been known since 1995, yet adoption rates in Canada, as elsewhere, are abysmally low.
The Expanded Web Accessibility Integration Model helps explain the factors accounting for low adoption. This model draws upon the work of Lazar et al. (2004) to lay a foundation for research. All factors in the expanded model were confirmed as pivotal by web practitioners who represent a variety of sectors, locations, and roles.
Prior to commencing interviews with web practitioners across Canada, I surmised that accessibility was not diffusing due to lack of awareness. I was therefore surprised to learn that all the participants were aware to varying degrees of the issue. Many even had sufficient technical knowledge to implement accessibility, but they were not doing so. Participants identified their obstacles: the communication challenges of the guidelines, inadequate software and support, cost, and the lack of coverage by education, media, and industry association. Undoubtedly, improving these factors will see gains in web accessibility diffusion.
Despite legitimate impediments to full implementation, some participants were not even using basic techniques that are inexpensive and easy to implement. This reveals psychological barriers that go beyond the challenges of implementation. The importance of this issue appears to have been inadequately communicated, due in part to a lack of coverage of the specific issue and general disability issues in the media, education, and industry associations. Possibly due to a lack Access Denied 46 of integration of disabled and nondisabled people, web practitioners may form opinions on the importance and application of this issue based on misconceptions. It also appears that individual and societal aversive disablism results in practitioners and businesses treating the issue with apathy and excuses.
The current laisser-faire approach of practitioners voluntarily adopting the guidelines has been shown to be ineffective. Some accessibility advocates thus believe requiring accessibility is the only way to greatly increase implementation. This, however, raises additional challenges (see
Appendix C). Ontario is in the process of making web accessibility law for all Ontario organizations; if implemented this law will prove a testing ground for mandated accessibility in
Canada. To see significant gains in web accessibility adoption, Canada must either consider legal requirements or begin to address the considerable challenges raised by practitioners.
Recommendations
Recommendation #1: Make WCAG More Accessible
The W3C should consult web practitioners to uncover their specific difficulties using and understanding the guidelines. The guidelines and support material should then be rewritten to address deficiencies. Possible improvements include using better organization schemes, clearer language, alternate access points, and checklists.
Recommendation #2: Support Material Is Needed
Adequate support material is difficult to find and often insufficient. Therefore, a prominent free website should be set up to provide detailed, clear instruction. This may include a code library and design tips. As the W3C is already a central resource and education is already in their mandate, it follows that they should consider assuming this role.
Access Denied 47
Recommendation #3: Education Should Address Accessibility
Academia must start or continue to cover disability and accessibility. Not only is training in the specific techniques required, but also an appreciation of the needs of disabled people. As some small businesses and non-profits have minimal training budgets, ideally education costs should be affordable or free. This may be a suitable role for local advocacy or industry associations to assume.
Recommendation #4: A Canadian Web Accessibility Champion is Needed
No disability organization in Canada is currently effectively leading the charge for web accessibility, leading to inattention and missed opportunities. A Canadian government or advocacy organization is required to take the lead. Duties may include instigating awareness campaigns, appearing at events, promoting education, and acting as an informational resource.
Recommendation #5: Media and Industry Should Cover This Topic
For web practitioners to gain awareness of web accessibility, learn specifics, and appreciate its social importance, media and industry must not ignore this issue. Industry should make a point of addressing this topic in events and newsletters and ensure the topic is raised at conferences. Media, particularly trade reporting, should cover the topic through individual articles on the topic and raising it within the context of other topics as applicable.
Recommendation #6: Authoring and Testing Tools Should Facilitate Accessibility
While some authoring tools are increasing accessibility support, continued work is required both to make producing accessible content easier and to render accessibility features transparent.
Recommendation #7: Financial Incentives Should Be Offered
Cost was raised as an issue by all participants, yet the Canadian government offers no specific financial incentives. Financial incentives would offset the cost of implementing Access Denied 48 accessibility, thus making accessibility more likely for business to adopt. Although funding for all organizations to implement accessibility would likely be unattainable, Canadian government should, at the least, allow special tax deductions for accessibility initiatives.
Recommendation #8: Web Practitioners Need to Feel Individually Responsible
Some web practitioners felt unable to implement accessibility without supervisory permission. These practitioners should be encouraged to understand both that their actions can improve the quality of life of disabled people and that not complying contributes to disabled people‟s exclusion from full participation in society. Access Denied 49
References
Abou-Zahra, S. (2008). Web accessibility evaluation. In S. Harper, & Y. Yesilada (Eds.), Web accessibility: A foundation for research (pp. 79-106). London: Springer.
AccessibilitéWeb. (2007). Top 200: Accessible web sites in Quebec. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://triennale-2007.accessibiliteweb.com/en/resultats-globaux.php
Alexander, D., & Rippon, S. (2007). University website accessibility revisited. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw07/papers/refereed/alexander/paper.html
Asakawa, C. (2005). What's the Web like if you can't see it? W4A '05: Proceedings of the 2005 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility. Chiba, Japan, 1-8.
Asakawa, C., & Takagi, H. (2008). Transcoding. In S. Harper & Y. Yesilada (Eds.), Web accessibility: A foundation for research (pp. 231-260). London: Springer.
Bakerlaw. (2008). Blind MBA challenges federal government over inaccessible jobs websites. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.bakerlaw.ca/index.php?q=node/98
Ball, L. (2007). Internet was made for deaf-blind people. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/features/the_internet_was_made_for_deafblind_people.shtml
Bandura, A. (2006). On integrating social cognitive and social diffusion theories. In A. Singhal & J. Dearing (Eds.), Communication of innovations (pp. 111-135). London: Sage.
Baxter, L. A., & Babbie, E. R. (2004). The basics of communication research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Bradley, N., & Poppen, W. (2003). Assistive technology, computers and internet may decrease sense of isolation for homebound elderly and disabled persons. Technology & Disability, 15(1), 19.
Braithwaite, D. O., Waldron, V. R., & Finn, J. (1999). Communication of social support in computer-mediated groups for people with disabilities. Health Communication, 11(2), 123.
Brajnik, G. (2004). Comparing accessibility evaluation tools: A method for tool effectiveness. Universal Access in the Information Society, 3(3), 252-263.
Brewer, J. (Ed). (2006). Why standards harmonization is essential to web accessibility. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/harmon
Carr, L. (2006). In cyberspace, no one can hear you dribble. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/features/in_cyberspace_no_one_can_hear_you_dribble.shtml Access Denied 50
Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chisholm, W., & May, M. (2008). Universal design for web applications: Web applications that reach everyone. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
Clark, J. (2006). To hell with WCAG 2. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://alistapart.com/articles/tohellwithwcag2
Coleman, L. M. (2006). Stigma: An enigma demystified. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (2nd ed., pp.141-152). New York: Routledge.
Collis, G. (n.d.). Accessibility site checks. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.accessibilitynews.ca/acnews/sites/
Collis, G. (n.d.b). CNIB: No experts on web accessibility. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.accessibilitynews.ca/acnews/editorials/commentary.php?geof=59
CRTC. (2007). CRTC & closed captioning. Retrieved June 2, 2009, from http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2007/pb2007-54.htm
Davis, L. J. (2006). The end of identity politics and the beginning of dismodernism: On disability as an unstable category. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The Disability studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 231- 242). New York: Routledge.
Deal, M. (2007). Aversive disablism: Subtle prejudice toward disabled people. Disability & Society, 22(1), 93-107.
Disability Rights Commission. (2004). The Web: Access and inclusion for disabled people. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publicationsandresources/Documents/Disability/we b_access_and_inclusion.pdf
Dobransky, K., & Hargittai, E. (2006). The disability divide in Internet access and use. Information, Communication & Society, 9(3), 313-334.
Duckett, J. (2005). Accessible XHTML and CSS web sites: Problem, design, solution. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.
Edwards, A. D. N. (2008). Assistive technologies. In S. Harper, & Y. Yesilada (Eds.), Web accessibility: A foundation for research (pp.139-162). London: Springer.
Ellcessor, L. (2009). Disability rights on the Internet: The uneasy history of web content accessibility in the United States through 2001. Manuscript submitted for publication. Access Denied 51
Environics Research Group. (2004). Canadian attitudes towards disability issues: 2004 benchmark survey. Ottawa, ON: Office for Disability Issues Social Development Canada.
Fox, S. (2000). The uses and abuses of computer-mediated communication for people with disabilities. In D. O. Braithwaite, & T. L. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and people with disabilities: Research and application (pp. 319-337). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Freire, Andre P., Russo, Cibele M., & Fortes, Renata P.M. (2008). A survey on the accessibility awareness of people involved in web development projects in Brazil. W4A '08: Proceedings of the 2008 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, Beijing, China. 87-96.
Friedman, M. G., & Bryen, D. N. (2007). Web accessibility design recommendations for people with cognitive disabilities. Technology & Disability, 19(4), 205-212.
Goffman, E. (2006). Selections from stigma. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The, disability studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 131-140). New York: Routledge.
Goggin, G., & Newell, C. (2003). Digital disability: The social construction of disability in new media. Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield.
Government of Ontario. (2009). Accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/pillars/accessibilityOntario/questions/aodo/faqs_inc omm.htm
Gunderson, J. (2008). Desktop browsers. In S. Harper, & Y. Yesilada (Eds.), Web accessibility: A foundation for research (pp. 163-193). London: Springer.
Hackett, S., & Parmanto, B. (2009). Homepage not enough when evaluating web site accessibility. Internet Research, 19(1), 78.
Hackett, S., Parmanto, B., & Xiaoming, Z. (2005). A Retrospective look at website accessibility over time. Behaviour & Information Technology, 24(6), 407-417.
Haller, B. (2000). If they limp, they lead? News representations and the hierarchy of disability images. In D. O. Braithwaite, & T. L. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and people with disabilities: Research and application (pp. 273-288). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Harper, S., & Yesilada, Y. (2008). Web accessibility and guidelines. In S. Harper, & Y. Yesilada (Eds.), Web accessibility: A foundation for research (pp. 61-78). London: Springer.
Henry, S. L. (Ed.) (2005). Developing a web accessibility business case for your organization: Overview. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/Overview.html Access Denied 52
Henry, S. L. (2006). Understanding web accessibility. In J. Thatcher, et al. (Eds.), Web accessibility: Web standards and regulatory compliance (pp. 1-51). New York: FriendsofED.
Henry, S. L. (2007). Just ask: Integrating accessibility throughout design. Madison, WI: ET\Lawton.
Higgs, A. (2006). An enquiry into the acceptance of accessible web content and web design standards by UK small businesses. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://dissertation.andyhiggs.co.uk/index.htm
Jodhan, D. (n.d.). The growing disability divide, is anyone listening? Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.accessibilitynews.ca/acnews/editorials/commentary.php?donna=92
Jones, R. (1994). Their rightful place: Society and disability. Toronto: Canadian Academy of the Arts.
Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Brown, S., Seale, J., Petrie, H., Lauke, P., et al. (2007). Accessibility 2.0: People, policies and processes. W4A '07: Proceedings of the 2007 International Cross- Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, Banff, Canada. 138-147.
Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Phipps, L., Petrie, H., & Hamilton, F. (2005). Forcing standardization or accommodating diversity?: A framework for applying the WCAG in the real world. W4A '05: Proceedings of the 2005 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility, Chiba, Japan. 46-54.
Knight, J., Heaven, C., & Christie, I. (2002). Inclusive citizenship. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.lcdisability.org/?lid=3873
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lawson, B. (2006). WCAG 2.0: When I want a beer, don’t give me shandy. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2006/wcag-20-beer-shandy/
Lawton, S. H., & May, M. (Eds) (2008). Authoring tool accessibility guidelines. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/atag.php
Lazar, J. (2002). Integrating accessibility into the information systems curriculum. Proceedings of the International Association for Computer Information Systems, 373-379.
Lazar, J., Dudley-Sponaugle, A., & Greenidge, K. (2004). Improving web accessibility: A study of webmaster perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 269-288. Access Denied 53
Lazar, J., & Greenidge, K. (2006). One year older, but not necessarily wiser: An evaluation of homepage accessibility problems over time. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(4), 285-291.
Leuthold, S., Bargas-Avila, J. A., & Opwis, K. (2007). Beyond web content accessibility guidelines: Design of enhanced text user interfaces for blind internet users. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(4), 257-270.
Loiacono, E., & McCoy, S. (2006). Website accessibility: A cross-sector comparison. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(4), 393-399.
MacLean, L. M., Meyer, M., & Estable, A. (2004). Improving accuracy of transcripts in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 14(1), 113-123.
Mandreck, E. (2007). Communicating accessibility: A study of architectural communication in wheelchair accessible washrooms in BC. Unpublished master‟s thesis, Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC.
May, M., & Henry, S. L. (Eds.) (2005). User agent accessibility guidelines. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/uaag.html
Moss, T. (2004). How to sell accessibility Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.sitepoint.com/article/sell-web-accessibility/
Moss, T. (2006). WCAG 2.0: The new W3C accessibility guidelines evaluated. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/wcag- guidelines-20.shtml
Neufeldt, A. H. (2003). Growth and evolution of disability advocacy in Canada. In D. Stienstra, A. Wight-Felske & C. Watters (Eds.), Making equality: History of advocacy and persons with disabilities in Canada (pp. 11-32). Concord, ON: Captus Press.
Nomensa. (2006). United Nations global audit of web accessibility. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/documents/fnomensarep.pdf
O'Grady, L. (2005). Accessibility compliance rates of consumer-oriented Canadian health care web sites. Medical Informatics & the Internet in Medicine, 30(4), 287-295.
Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4), 1.
Oravec, J. A. (2002). Virtually accessible: Empowering students to advocate for accessibility and support universal design. Library Hi Tech, 20(4), 452 - 461.
Papa, M., Singhal, A., & Papa, W. (2006). Organizing for social change: A dialectic journey of theory and praxis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Access Denied 54
Peters, C., & Bradbard, D. (2008). Web accessibility: An introduction and implications for a corporate social responsibility marketing strategy. Journal of Internet Commerce, 6(4), 27- 54.
Peters, Y. (2003). From charity to equality: Canadians with disabilities take their rightful place in Canada's constitution. In D. Stienstra, A. Wight-Felske & C. Watters (Eds.), Making equality: History of advocacy and persons with disabilities in Canada (pp. 119-136). Concord, ON: Captus Press.
Petrie, Helen, Hamilton, Fraser, & King, Neil. (2004). Tension, what tension?: Website accessibility and visual design. W4A '04: Proceedings of the 2004 International Cross- Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility, New York City. 13-18.
Ringaert, L. (2003). History of accessibility in Canada from the advocacy perspective. In D. Stienstra, A. Wight-Felske & C. Watters (Eds.), Making equality: History of advocacy and persons with disabilities in Canada. Concord, ON: Captus Press.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 46-62.
Seeman, L. (2004). The semantic web, web accessibility, and device independence. ACM SIGCAPH Computers and the Physically Handicapped, (76), 19-20.
Shakespeare, T. (2003) The social model of disability. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (2nd ed., pp.197-204). New York: Routledge.
SitePoint. (n.d.). Glossary. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.sitepoint.com/glossary.php?q=A#term_61
Slatin, J. M., & Rush, S. (2003). Maximum accessibility: Making your web site more usable for everyone. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Sloan, D. (2006). Two cultures? The disconnect between the web standards movement and research-based web design guidelines for older people. Gerontechnology, 5(2), 106-112.
Spillman, B. C. (2004). Changes in elderly disability rates and the implications for health care utilization and cost. Milbank Quarterly, 82(1), 157–194.
Statistics Canada. (2007). Participation and activity limitation survey. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-628-x/89-628-x2008005-eng.htm
Stienstra, D., & Wight-Felske, A. (2003). Introduction: Making equality and history. In D. Stienstra, A. Wight-Felske & C. Watters (Eds.), Making equality: History of advocacy and persons with disabilities in Canada (pp. 1-11). Concord, ON: Captus Press. Access Denied 55
Stienstra, D., Wight-Felske, A., & Watters, C. (Eds.) (2003). Making equality: History of advocacy and persons with disabilities in Canada. Concord, ON: Captus Press.
Thatcher, J. (2008). Accessibility testing. In S. Harper, & Y. Yesilada (Eds.), Web accessibility: A foundation for research (pp. 407-458). London: Springer.
Thatcher, J., Kirkpatrick, A., Urban, M., Lawson, B., Henry, S., Burks, M. R., et al. (2006). Web accessibility: Web standards and regulatory compliance. New York: FriendsofED.
Treviranus, J. (2008). Authoring tools. In S. Harper, & Y. Yesilada (Eds.), Web accessibility: A foundation for research (pp. 127- 158). London: Springer.
Vanderheiden, G. (2000). Fundamental principles and priority setting for universal usability. CUU '00: Proceedings on the 2000 Conference on Universal Usability, Arlington, VA. 32- 37.
Waddell, C. (2006). Overview of law and guidelines. In J. Thatcher, et al. (Eds.), Web accessibility: Web standards and regulatory compliance (pp. 85-100). New York: FriendsofED.
Xu, Z. (2001). No disability in digitalized community. Retrieved June 2, 2009, from http://www.icdri.org/inspirational/no_disability_in_digitalized_com.htm
Zaparyniuk, N., & Montgomerie, T. (2005). The status of web accessibility of Canadian universities and colleges: A charter of rights and freedoms issue. International Journal on E- Learning, 4(2), 253-268.
Zeng, X., & Parmanto, B. (2004). Web content accessibility of consumer health information web sites for people with disabilities: A cross sectional evaluation. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6(2).
Zvulony, G. (2005). Web accessibility law in Canada. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.zvulony.com/accessibility.html Access Denied 56
Appendix A: Glossary
Definitions are confined to their application to web accessibility even though terms may have a broader scope.
Acrobat Acrobat is Adobe software to create electronic files in the Portable Document Format (PDF). The format is popular on the Web as it allows for documents to be displayed on a monitor or printed with more precision and consistency than other online formats. The PDF format has been criticized for rendering text unperceivable to visually disabled users. However, recent versions of Acrobat offer increased accessibility support.
Adobe US-based software company, Adobe, is the leader for Internet and multimedia production software through such products as Acrobat, ColdFusion (online application development), Dreamweaver, Flash, FrameMaker (for large document creation), and PhotoShop (for image creation).
Alternative input devices Input devices allow users to enter data to their computer hardware or Internet applications. Devices other than a keyboard or mouse are sometimes considered alternative input devices and include on-screen keyboards, head-mounted pointers, voice recognition software, touch screens, and trackballs.
Alt text (also known as alt tag) Text attached to an online object, most often an image or form field, to provide an accessible alternative that can be displayed to a user or read aloud by a screen reader.
Assistive technology Software or hardware designed to aid disabled people to perceive, use, or interact with online content. Assistive technology may work by converting inaccessible content (e.g. on-screen text) to an accessible format (e.g. spoken text) or by enabling alternative means to input data. Examples of assistive technology include screen readers, screen magnifiers, alternate input devices, Braille embossers, and voice recognition software.
Authoring tools Software used to facilitate the creation of websites and online content. This includes software to create webpages (e.g. Dreamweaver), applications to enable blogging or wikis, content management systems, and multimedia and specialty format software such as Adobe‟s Flash and Acrobat. To encourage the creation of accessible content, authoring tools can offer accessibility options by default or through promotion and education. In addition, authoring tools should be accessible to disabled people. Recognizing the important role of authoring tools, the W3C created Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) in 2000.
Access Denied 57
Content management system (CMS) An application to create, store, publish, and manage Web data. Often users enter data into a database via a web-based interface and create pre-scripted templates, then publish this data to a website. Content management systems are a form of authoring tool and thus share similar accessibility issues.
Code library A collection of code organized by specific functionality to facilitate easy reuse and thus optimize development. Code libraries can be in the form of freely available Internet sources or private collections for individuals or companies. Free online code libraries can be developed by open source communities or profit-driven companies relying on advertising.
Dreamweaver A market leader of authoring tools by Adobe. Through a visual interface, users can create webpages without knowledge of web code or they can edit the code directly.
Flash A product by Adobe, Flash refers to software to create online multimedia (any combination of text, audio, graphics, and video), the software‟s file format, the resulting content, and browser player plug-in application. As an authoring tool, a user agent, and web content format, various accessibility components impinge on Flash. Criticized for poor accessibility, Flash content can, however, be effective for delivering information for people with print disabilities.
Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) A language to render documents for the World Wide Web. Data coded in HTML instructs browsers on how to interpret and display content. To make accessible webpages one must use of specific HTML commands (known as tags) and characteristics (known as attributes).
Access Denied 58
Appendix B: Interview Details
Below are the dates, format, and pseudonyms of interview participants. To protect confidentiality, all names are pseudonyms and no information which could be used to identify participants is disclosed.
Pseudonym Interview Date Interview Format Andy March 9, 2009 Email Angela March 10, 2009 Telephone Barry March 8, 2009 Telephone Beth March 13, 2009 Blog comments Bruce April 1, 2009 Email Cindy March 23, 2009 Email Clark March 12, 2009 Telephone Douglas March 11, 2009 Social network site comments Grace March 24, 2009 Email James March 5, 2009 Email Jean March 5, 2009 Telephone Jill March 11, 2009 Social network site comments Jordan March 24, 2009 Email Lisa March 27, 2009 Email Lucy March 6, 2009 Telephone Mark March 10, 2009 Email Olivia April 1, 2009 Email Paul March 30, 2009 Email Sarah March 10, 2009 Telephone Shelley March 11, 2009 Social network site comments Steve March 26, 2009 Email Susan March 13, 2009 Telephone Tina March 13, 2009 Telephone
Access Denied 59
Appendix C: Participants‟ Thoughts on Requiring Web Accessibility
Considering that Ontario is moving ahead with requiring websites of Ontario organizations (private or public) to be accessible, the topic of requiring accessibility was timely and contentious for participants. Participants revealed inherent challenges with requiring accessibility, and philosophical disagreements with such legislation. Consideration of the experience of those on the front lines will be useful to the success of any future Canadian policy.
James: “Not sure how you'd legislate accessibility - interesting concept, and valuable certainly for government, but is bad design something that should be criminalized? I mean, half of
MySpace would have to be shut down.”
Steve: “I would be reluctant to legislate something that is so vaguely defined. Incentives might be better than deterrents, but in what form?”
Jill: “I'm not a fan of big government or a lot of legislation. That said, I think business probably isn't going to pay attention to this stuff unless legislation forces it to. But we need to be careful about how that legislation gets written. There are key differences between web accessibility and things like sidewalk or washroom accessibility. For one, you have a single, final version of a sidewalk or washroom accessibility build. Web pages and code that handles them goes through version after version, each iteration providing an opportunity to forget to include or keep the alt codes, etc. I'd sure hate to be the company that got fined because we are legally obliged for all our pages to be accessible but a developer working quickly to fix something the night before forgot or accidentally deleted something that made us compliant ... and exposed us to a fine or a lawsuit. So before we could be fined or sued there would need to be something that protects us if we've made a good faith effort.” Access Denied 60
Susan: “Morally, I think all websites should be accessible, but it would be very difficult to make people comply.”
Tina: “I‟d be for a law as long as the law is written specifying exactly how to do this and that. I used to work in a packaging company, and when the law for nutrition info came in we got a huge binder with instructions. I tried to question people at the government for more info and it was a nightmare. I was working for a big company and they had to have a full time expert just to figure it out. If they do this they have to be clear on what they want with clear instructions – that‟s important.”
Olivia: “I think certain kinds of websites should be legislated to be accessible; anything that provides corporate information or offers objective content should be accessible to anyone.
Anything that has entertainment value should be accessible if the marketers deem that they would like to include this audience.”
Jordan: “Accessibility will be an afterthought in a great chunk of web development as long as the target group is considered marginal. The fact that governments mandate accessibility for websites that receive government funding or are directly related to a government department is one solution. Similar to the requirement to build sites in both official languages, an accessibility requirement ensures that the work gets done.”
Andy: “If you mean to suggest that the law should somehow require Canadian sites to be accessible, I say no, there are too many instances where the audience is specifically NOT those with disability.”
Angela: “It would be good idea. We would go ahead and do it if legally required.”
Mark: “ No, all Canadian websites do not need to be accessible. The vast majority could benefit from being accessible but there are many where it simply wouldn't make any sense. The Health Access Denied 61
Canada site should be accessible. The blog on motorcycle track days in Ontario does not need to be.”
Beth: “Handicapped access is not a legislative priority in Ontario like it is in BC, and so it's not a business priority. There's no progressive culture putting pressure on business or government, so it doesn't happen, and the client base is small enough that the cost outweighs the "benefits."
Now, that being said, I'm loathe to advocate for legislation of this sort of thing on the Web, because ... oh, for so many reasons. But maybe a tax credit.”
Paul: “The only thing I can see working is peer pressure and regulation. My preference is for the former cause it works, and enforcement of regulation isn't practical.”
Sarah: “I‟m totally for it, why shouldn‟t you? It‟s a basic human right. But if they do, the government needs to step up and offer support both education and funding.”