WIWWWWWIHWWIWIWWWI

   

[1»??va
LIBRARY

I Michigan State
University

775‘ SUM/'35

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

projectACCESS! INFORMATION AND TECHNIQUES FOR
CREATING ACCESSIBLE WEBSITES

presented by

ADINA AFFREEN HUDA

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MASTER OF degree in TELECOMMUNICATION,
ARTS INFORMATION STUDIES AND
MEDIA

 

 

72' In M ‘
Major Professor’s Signature

(Jo-or"

 

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

PLACE IN REIURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

mt '. .~ 7m
ingest!)

 

Ii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c/cficmeotmm-pns

 

projectACCESS! INFORMATION AND TECHNIQUES
FOR CREATING ACCESSIBLE WEBSITES

By

Adina Afi‘reen Huda

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media

2005

ABSTRACT

projectACCESS! INFORMATION AND TECHNIQUES
FOR CREATING ACCESSIBLE WEBSITES

By

Adina Affreen Huda

The production part of this thesis is an accessible website, called projectACCESS! that
will help Web developers and designers with the techniques of practicing Web
accessibility. The primary purpose of this project was to create an effective online tool to
make creating accessible websites easy for Web developers. The site provides users with
simple, step-by-step tutorials; detailed examples and quick implementation tips. The
thesis also explores techniques for creating accessible websites and the production

process.

The second objective was to get a basic idea if Web developers and designers, who are
new to the concept of Web accessibility, are willing to consider it. Results of the
exploratory survey show that people’s interest in creating accessible websites increased
as a result of exploring the projectACCESS! website. However, a more detailed study

with a larger sample size need to be conducted to statistically establish the results.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Brian Winn for his support and feedback during this project and
throughout the DMAT program. Carrie Heeter for her valuable inputs and also, for her
course on design research that got me fascinated with usability issues and eventually led
to my interest in accessibility. Thanks to Sarah Swierenga for her helpful feedback about
accessibility issues and survey results. I would also like to thank Lisa Whiting Dobson

for helping me stay motivated and on track during the whole process.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES - .. -- ...................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... vii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ........... - . ............................................................................................. 1
Background .................................................................................................................... 1
Project Objectives .......................................................................................................... 2

CHAPTER 2

ACCESSIBILITY ...................................................................................................... 4
Functional Disabilities ................................................................................................... 4
Situational Disabilities ................................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 3

REASONS FOR MAKING WEBSITES ACCESSIBLE ............................................................... 8
Compliance with Guidelines and Legal Requirements ................................................. 8
Buying Power ................................................................................................................ 9
Social and Ethical Considerations ............................................................................... 10
Other Reasons .............................................................................................................. 11

CHAPTER 4

TARGET AUDIENCE ................. .............................. - ....... 12
Persona Analysis .......................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER 5

METHODS ......................................................................................................................................... 15
Pre-production ............................................................................................................. l 5
Production .................................................................................................................... 17
Flash and Accessibility ................................................................................................ 26
Accessibility Testing and Evaluation .......................................................................... 31

CHAPTER 6

POST-PRODUCTION RESEARCH .............................................................................................. 33
Research Method ......................................................................................................... 33
Survey Results and Findings ....................................................................................... 34

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 50

 

iv

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................... - - .......................................... 53

 

 

 

 

GENERAL REFERENCES ..... - ................................................... 55
APPENDD( A: Crucial Problems Encountered By People With Disabilities ............................. 56
APPENDIX B: Recruiting Advertisement - ........................ 57
APPENDIX C: Consent Form - _ - ..................................... 58
APPENDD( D: Survey Instrument - .................................. S9
APPENDD( E: Responses Of Participants Who Do Not Create Websites ................................. 65

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Americans with Disabilities .................................................................................. 6
Table 2. Americans with Disabilities having Internet Access ............................................. 6
Table 3. Access Keys ......................................................................................................... 22
Table 4. Age Range of Participants ................................................................................... 34
Table 5. Years of Involvement in Creating Websites ........................................................ 34
Table 6. Participant Description ........................................................................................ 34
Table 7. Using Handheld Devices to Browse the Web ..................................................... 35
Table 8. Participants and Accessibility .............................................................................. 36
Table 9. Interest in Creating an Accessible Website ......................................................... 37
Table 10. Change in Interest in Creating Accessible Websites ......................................... 37
Table 11. Participants Description of the Website ............................................................ 44
Table 12. Awareness of Available Options (Content/Navigation) .................................... 44
Table 13. Understanding the Purpose of the Website ........................................................ 44
Table 14. Section Participants Spent Most Time In .......................................................... 45
Table 15. Interest in Different Sections ............................................................................. 46
Table 16. Features of the Website that Persuaded Participants to Consider Web
Accessibility ...................................................................................................... 47
Table 17. Returning to ProjectACCESS! Website for Help .............................................. 47

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Site Map ............................................................................................................. 17
Figure 2 Site Navigation .................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3. Print, E-mail and Text Resizing Options ........................................................... 24
Figure 4. E-mail Window .................................................................................................. 24
Figure 5. Print Version ...................................................................................................... 25
Figure 6. Flash and Microsoft Active Accessibility .......................................................... 26
Figure 7. Flash Accessibility Panel ................................................................................... 28
Figure 8. Site Map of Flash Tutorial ................................................................................. 30
Figure 9. Screen Shot of Flash Tutorial ............................................................................. 30
Figure 10. Flowchart of the Testing Process ..................................................................... 32
Figure 11. Skill Levels for HTML, XHTML, CSS and JavaScript ................................... 35
Figure 12. Familiarity with Web Accessibility Prior to Visiting projectACCESS!
(Gender) ............................................................................................................ 38
Figure 13. Currently Consider Web Accessibility (Gender) ............................................. 38
Figure 14. Change in Interest after Visiting projectACCESS! (Gender) .......................... 39
Figure 15. Familiarity with Web Accessibility Prior to Visiting projectACCESS! (Age
Groups) .............................................................................................................. 40
Figure 16. Currently Consider Web Accessibility (Age Groups) ..................................... 40
Figure 17. Change in Interest after Visiting projectACCESS! (Age Groups) ................... 41
Figure 18. Familiarity with Web Accessibility Prior to Visiting projectACCESS!
(Background) ..................................................................................................... 42
Figure 19. Currently Consider Web Accessibility (Background) ..................................... 43
Figure 20. Change in Interest after Visiting projectACCESS! (Background) ................... 43

vii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Background

Accessibility is about users being able to obtain the contents of a website in a logical,
understandable fashion under different circumstances. There are people with disabilities
who are not able to experience the Web the same way as those without physical
disabilities. They may have to use an intermediary device such as a screen reader to
access the contents of a website. Being accessible means the intermediary device will be
able to deliver the contents meaningfully. Accessibility also enhances the usability of a

site leading to a better user experience for all.

In United States 47.9 million people have some type of disability—that’s 19.3% of the

> population (US Census Bureau report, 2003). The World Bank website mentions that
10% of the world’s population has some form of disability. National Organization on
Disability President Alan A. Reich says, “Americans with disabilities want to be involved
in all aspects of life, and modern technology is making it more possible then ever. The

Internet offers real hope!” (lntemet Use, 2002)

The Web has come a long way since its inception. Internet provides new opportunities for
people with disabilities—it is a means to connect, obtain information and move around
the world in ways never possible before. Examples: the deaf or hard of hearing can

converse in real time using instant messaging; the blind can read any news they choose to

using screen readers, the mobility impaired who have difficulty shopping without human
assistance can do so more easily at an online store; provided that the site, of course, is
accessible. Still, greater strides need to be taken. A study by the Disability Rights
Commission (2004) found that 81% of websites did not meet the basic Web Accessibility
Initiative guidelines]. The study also found that “Website designers have inadequate
understanding of the needs of disabled users‘and how to create accessible websites.” As a
result, a large number of people with disabilities are left out, leaving a trail of legal,
social, and business implications. Along with digital innovations came “the digital

divide.”

Project Objectives

The primary objective of this production thesis is to create an accessible website that will
assist Web developers with the techniques of implementing Web accessibility. The
website will provide information on accessibility, functional and situational disabilities,
and make accessibility easy to practice through simple tutorials and detailed examples.

Users will be able to navigate to various sections to obtain the information they want.

There are many resources on the Web about accessibility, a lot of these sites suggest
things that can be done to make the Web accessible, but very few detail how. This
production thesis aims to fill this gap, by providing information, step-by-step guidelines

and quick tips for any developer interested in creating accessible websites.

 

l The study by Disability Rights Commission tested the homepages of 1000 websites using commercial
software; 10% of these sites were evaluated by a group of 50 users with the following disabilities:
blindness, poor sightedness, deaf/hard of hearing, learning disabilities and motion impairment.

2

The design challenges include creating an accessible and standards compliant site, using
style sheets (CSS) for table-free layout, and ensuring that the site displays and works well
across different browsers and platforms without compromising design and usability

principles.

The secondary objective is to get a basic idea if Web developers and designers, who are
new to the concept of Web accessibility, are willing to consider it. This will be achieved
by conducting a brief qualitative survey asking. Users will be asked to complete a
voluntary survey after they have browsed the site for a while and have been exposed to

some basic information about Web accessibility.

CHAPTER 2
Accessibility

Web accessibility is a measure of how easy it is to access, read and understand the

contents of a website. It is about everyone being able to use your website effectively.

Although the primary focus of Web accessibility is functional impairments like blindness
where a user has to use a screen reader or limited motion where the user is confined to the
tab key for navigation, accessibility also encompasses situational limitations related to
wireless/handheld devices, mouse—less situations, low bandwidth, language barriers, etc.
Accessibility is about more people being able to use websites effectively in more

situations (Thatcher et al., 2002).

Functional Disabilities

Blindness

A user with no vision may use a screen reader to hear the contents of your website. A
screen reader reads the HTML of a site back to the user. A person who is both blind and
deaf will use a Braille display, where nylon or metal pins raise upwards to form Braille

characters. An improperly marked up page is confusing/meaningless to the blind user.

Partial/poor sight
A person with partial/poor sight needs to have the ability to increase the size of your

website’s elements—text, images, etc. While most browsers support text resizing, hardly

any has the capacity to resize graphical elements. A screen magnifier can enlarge the text,

image and anything else to the necessary size.

Color blindness

Approximately one in 12 men and one in 200 women have one or other form of color
blindness (IEE, 2004). One in 20 visitors to a website is estimated to have some form of
color deficiency. If only color is used to convey information in a website, a user who is
unable to distinguish colors may completely miss the point. For example, many
colorblind people have trouble finding the required fields of online forms if are indicated

in red, or blue.

Deaf/hard of hearing
A hearing impaired person uses the Web in almost the same way as someone without any
hearing disabilities. A website that is audio/video oriented will not be accessible to them

unless transcripts or captioning are provided.

Mobility Impaired
For those who have limited motion (esp. hands) and have difficulty typing or using the
mouse, page navigation is a big issue. The users are confined to mostly the tab, then shift-

tab and return keys. Unordered tabbing can make a website very difficult to navigate.

Learning Disabled
Images and audio may be helpful to a user with dyslexia, but they may distract someone

with another form of learning disability. This is a broad group and the hardest to cater to.

Language Barriers
Users unfamiliar with industry jargon may not be able to comprehend your website and
understand acronyms. Non-English speaking users or those whose first language is not

English may have difficulty understanding complex text or audio.

According to a 2003 Pew Internet & American Life Project studyz, 38% of those with
disabilities use the Internet. Table l and 2 shows data, published about Americans with

disabilities by the Survey on Income and Program Participation (SIPP) in 1999 (Clark,

2003).
:‘VDIsabIIIty Number Percent
LVISIon Problems w_fl__fl____fl731oooo 35%
gerearIng Problems“ 4 6961000 ,, ; 33% _
gprIfficulty Using H?09§.---... W6272 000 . . 1 .. 30% _
,Learning Disabilities , ., ___2_945 000 ._ . 1.4%

Table 1. Americans with Disabilities

:Drsablllty Number With Internet Access ‘ Percent
5,-V's'onPr0b'ems V. 1542 410 211/ _,
E...Hearmg Problems 11893392 272/ . .
E‘DIfficultyUSIng Hands .. N 1411200 .f ., 225%W _
.Leammspisabmt'es 1242790 425%-“.

Table 2. Americans with Disabilities having Internet Access

 

2 See http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP Shifting Net pop reportpdf

Situational Disabilities

Handheld, small screen and wireless devices

Every year more people are accessing the Web via handheld devices. Most of these
devices do not yet provide good support for large images, JavaScript, Flash and even
CSS. Almost all are mouse-less and have slow download speed. Catering to other types

of disabilities also helps the users of these devices.

Slow connections

Not everyone has broadband. In the US, as of July 2004 62% of users still connects to
the Internet using dial-up (N ielsen/lNetRatings, 2004). In the U.K., 73 % used dial-up
(Cheap broadband, BBC, 2004) Dial up can be very slow especially for images; having
ALT attributes for images will let users know what the image is about in less time. Some

users may even turn off images to decrease download time.

No JavaScript or Other Plug-ins

As of this writing, 4% of users (9,880,473) are browsing the Web without JavaScript
(thecounter.com, 2005). A lot of users may not have the latest plug-ins (e. g. Flash,
Shockwave, QuickTime) needed to view many sites. Some may find it time consuming
and difficult to download and install before they can view the website; this can cause

them to leave the site.

CHAPTER 3

Reasons for Making Websites Accessible

There are legal, economic, social and ethical demands for companies and individuals to
create accessible websites. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)3, Section 5084 of
the US. Government’s Rehabilitation Act, and governments of some other countries
established guidelines to assist in developing websites accessible to a wider audience.
These standards and guidelines were set up to remove barriers in information technology

and to make available new opportunities for the disabled.

Compliance with Guidelines and Legal Requirements

The W3C’s Web Accessibility Initiative’s (WAI) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
comprise a set of Checkpoints (design practices). There are three ranks of these
checkpoints, defined by the WAI as Priorities 1, 2 or 3. Compliance with W3C’s
guidelines is voluntary. The W3C includes some guidelines that are not a part of Section

508.

Section 508 requires that all Federal agencies make their electronic and information
technology accessible to people with disabilities. It does not require public organizations
to be compliant; but Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) can find them liable. On

November 4, 1999 the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) filed a lawsuit against

 

3 See http://www.w3.ogg/TR/WAl-WEBCONTENT
4 See http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&lD== 12

8

America Online (AOL) identifying the following: (1) violation of the ADA’s
communication barriers removal mandate; (2) violation of the ADA’s auxiliary aids and
services mandate; (3) violation of the ADA’s reasonable modification mandate; and (4)
violation of the ADA’s full and equal enjoyment of services mandate (Waddell, 2000).
There was an out of court agreement, NF B did not continue with litigation, and AOL
adopted a corporate policy on accessibility, formed an Accessibility Advisory
Committee, and released versions of its software that have shown steadily improving

compatibility with assistive technology (Chong, 2003).

In 1999, Bruce Macguire brought a lawsuit against the 2000 Sydney Organizing
Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG). Their website, www.olympics.com, failed
to meet accessibility standards and was inaccessible to him as a blind person. On August
2000, the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (HREOC)
ordered the website to be made accessible before the start of the Sydney Olympics. Later
SOCOG was fined $20,000 (AUS) by the HREOC for not complying with the ruling

(Worthington, 2003).

Buying Power

According to a Harris Poll, Internet use among people with disabilities is increasing at
double the rate of non-disabled users (Internet Use, 2002). A lot of people with
disabilities may not be physically able to go to shopping centers, but with the help of
accessible websites and/or assistive technology may be able to purchase goods online.

52% of disabled Internet users are likely to buy a product when they go online (Pew,

2003). According to the National Organization on Disability, the disability community
has over $220 billion in collective spending power and responds positively to companies
who take disability into account while marketing their products (Economic participation,

n.d.).

Social and Ethical Considerations

People with disabilities have the right to enjoy the conveniences of the Internet like the
non-disabled. They should be able to obtain the same goods and services as everyone
else. Imagine not being able to pay your own bills, not buying your own shirt without
asking for assistance, not having the space in a store to browse the products, not being
able to read the news on your own, not being able to browse the headlines at your own

pace, not buying your own music, or not being able to converse on the phone.

Making the opportunities provided by the Internet accessible—shopping, bill payment,
tax filing, entertainment, news, information—leads to easier lives for those with
disabilities, a lot of whom may find physically traveling to places very difficult. For
someone who cannot physically go to a store and compare prices before buying
something, the lntemet provides cost-saving opportunities. More importantly, valuable
medical/health resources are available online. It can connect the disabled to people and
resources. The Internet is a means of making the world more accessible and thus, it must

be accessible.

10

Other Reasons

Accessible websites are standards compliant, meaning more browsers support them and
will work similarly in most of the popular ones. They take less time to download and
usually search engines rank them higher. The meaningfiil use of the ALT attribute for
images and multimedia content makes them visible to search engines which, generally
cannot understand or find information for images and multimedia without alternate
descriptions. Accessible websites are usually lighter (no unnecessary codes and nested
tables) and download faster. This also makes them more adaptable to hand-held and

wireless devices, the usage of which is increasing tremendously.

Accessible websites are easier to manage because content (HTML) is separate from
presentation (CSS). This is especially true if absolutely no tables are used for layout, only
CSS. It is much simpler to make changes to a single CSS file rather than each and every

page of a site.

Creating an accessible website is not only good practice but absolutely necessary. It

increases the sites’ reach to people with functional and situational disabilities and

improves usability for those without any disabilities.

11

CHAPTER 4

Target Audience

projectACCESS! is designed for Web developers who are new to the concept of Web
accessibility. The Web developers will be the primary users of the product, but can also
be used as a resource by students and anyone else interested in the topic. It is expected
that the primary audience has basic knowledge and understanding of HTML, CSS and
JavaScript; can use tools like Macromedia Dreamweaver, Adobe GoLive and Microsoft

FrontPage; and has created professional-quality websites.

Persona Analysis

Primary persona: The Web developer

Jana Willis, 29, works for a small company called Blue Bug Design and does most of
their Web work. She graduated from Michigan State University with a degree in
Computer Science. Recently, she has been hearing about accessibility. The only thing she
knows about accessibility is providing alt tags; she’s a bit confused about what to do for
spacer images and wants to learn more. She has a very busy schedule and wants to pick
up accessibility tips during downtime at work. Her company is small and can’t afford to
pay for external training/courses. She had searched for accessibility on Google and found
a lot of websites talking about the issue but could not find a site with straight forward tips

and techniques.

12

She has a 17—month old son and barely has time once she gets home from work to sit
down with a book. Jana has always been goal oriented and likes to be the first to know
about anything that can help her excel. She has always given knowledge top-priority and
finds it frustrating because she is unable to do so now. Every now and then, she goes
online at night to check her e-mails and communicate with friends and family and catch

up with news. She also likes to browse design sites and blogs.

Secondary persona: The graphic designer

Onida Taggart, 35, has 10 years of experience. Lately her clients have been asking for
site designs that are more usable and accessible. Compared to just a few years ago,
recently she has been doing way more reiterations of her designs. She is used to giving
her creativity full reign and creating Photoshop files that her clients’ Web developers
would slice up and lay out using complex tables. Now she is getting requests for designs
that can be translated easily into accessible websites. She is pretty set in her ways and
doesn’t understand what the big deal is about. Her attitude: so what? But for the sake of
keeping her clients happy she has unwillingly decided to learn just the bare minimum and
nothing more. She has no interest in buying a book or getting professional training. She is

just going to find whatever is out there on the Internet.

Tertiary persona: The project manager
Kirk Duvall, 43, manages most of the projects that his firm gets from external clients. He
understands and appreciates the need for accessible sites, and wants to pitch it to his

clients. He has years of Web development experience and understands the process well,

13

but accessibility is a new arena. He wants to learn more about implementing accessibility
so he can better analyze project costs, create detailed design documents and proposals for

his clients.

The client

Wants to know just how much extra work accessibility is and what it’s going to cost him.

He wants to make sure he is not being over charged.

14

CHAPTER 5

Methods

Pre-production

Comparative analysis

Popular search engines (Google, Yahoo and MSN) were used to search for sites on Web
accessibility. The top ranked results were reviewed for their usability of layout,
navigation, and content. Special attention was paid to their definitions of accessibility and
their tutorials. The various tutorials were analyzed for the type of information they
provided, the length and clarity of instructions and the topics they covered. Most were
extremely text heavy, difficult to read and six or seven pages long. It was difficult to scan
a page and find something specific on a topic. Tutorials were broken up into multiple
pages, interrupting text flow. The user would have to go back a few pages to refer to
something they read earlier. Many suggested things that can be done to create accessible
websites, but not how (e. g. one site suggested use of “long desc” for images, but did not
provide further instruction). HTML syntaxes and clearly detailed implementation

instructions were not provided in most places. Some examples were difficult to follow.

Secondary Research

Various books, reports, articles and websites were reviewed for information on different
types of disabilities and assistive technologies; latest statistics on disabilities, Internet use
and Web accessibility; current research on issues related to accessibility; various

guidelines, standards and laws; practices and techniques for creating accessible websites;

15

and, available testing and validation software and methods. Information gathered during
the secondary research process has been used in previous sections and also during the

production of the projectACCESS! website.

16

Production

Content and Information Design

Information generated during the pre—production phase was used to generate content for
the website. The book and websites in the reference section were used to compile text for
the various sections of the website. Special care was taken in developing the contents of

the tutorials section, since that is the core of this project.

The website is arranged into these following main sections: Home (Accessibility
Overview), Disabilities, Tutorials, Testing, Quick Tips, Standards, and Resources. Other
sections include Accessibility Features, Contact, About, Site Map and Submit Tutorials

(Figure l).

I I I I I I I I I I

Disabilities Tutorials Testing Quick Tips“ Standards Resources sum“ WIN" Contact About
I 7 , Tutorials Features

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 508

Layout

Navigation

 

Tables
Forms
Images

Color

 

Multimedia

Figure 1. Site Map

17

Home (Accessibility Overview)
Describes what Web accessibility is, its importance, and mentions when and how to

practice it.

Disabilities
Contains information about different types of disabilities—vision, hearing, mobility,

technology—and the technological implications for Web developers.

Tutorials

The tutorials are divided according to topics—Layout, Navigation, Tables, Forms,
Images, Color and Multimedia. A lot of websites visited during the pro-production
process told users what to do, but provided very little information on how to achieve it.
The tutorials section of projectACCESS! aims to fill that gap. Syntaxes, code and
examples are provided to make Web accessibility easy to practice. The tutorials clearly
list important information and make them easily discemable while scanning a page. The
multimedia section also explores accessibility in Flash by providing an introductory

tutorial.

Testing
This section talks about the different ways to test for accessibility and software available
currently that can help someone test for accessibility. A simple flow chart of the process

is provided as a quick guide.

18

Quick Tips
This section is essentially a bullet list of quick things that the user can do when
something needs quick implementation. If the user wants more information, he/she can

then go to the relevant tutorial.

Standards
This section links to the Section 508, World Wide Web — Web Content Accessibility and

IBM’s guidelines on creating accessible Web content.

Resources
A list of books, websites, articles and reports that can help the user learn more about
accessibility, its current status, CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) to separate presentation

from content, accessibility issues for Macromedia Flash, etc.

The other sections (Accessibility Features, Contact, About, Site Map and Submit
Tutorials) include information about the website. The section Accessibility Features talks
about accessibility of the projectACCESS! website and provides a list of short cut/access

keys that can be used to navigate the site.

Navigation Design
Navigation for the site was designed with Web accessibility in mind. The navigation is
always visible and stays constant, so users can easily find their way around without

having to look for links that changed or disappeared. The site employs top and right

19

navigation. The top navigation leads to these main sections of the website—home,
disabilities, tutorials and testing. The right (sub) navigation houses Quick Tips,
Standards, Resources, and Submit Tutorials. There are also print, e-mail and text resize
options on the right navigation. A link to the survey was also provided while it was in

progress, but was taken down as soon as it was over.

The first two links available on all pages are skip navigation and accessibility features
(Figure 2). The skip navigation link allows the blind and motion impaired user to go
directly to the main content without tabbing through the main navigation and other links.
Various sites (cnn.com, bbc.co.uk, fidelity.com) visited during the pre-production process
use invisible skip navigation links keeping them out of the way of visual design. The skip
navigation link for this site is kept visible, because an invisible link, while useful to those
using a screen reader serves no purpose for the motion-impaired or those viewing the site

in a mouse-free situation.

20

Skip Navigation Accessibility Features

35}'F.I.*F.'rfl'3.ill‘.~j‘-"l if», is: 2212139“;lié’égili-‘i'li' initial Wide: SWCL'HL)

 

—
I— In. an m .p-g.‘ ..¢-,. *
. - 3.3.. 'v o
2' v- . u A 7 s 1? .... f- 0
II -

 

 

 

 

J Home “Disabilities“ Tutorials fl Testing I

 

 

Welcome to projectACCESS!

(harn’lws

Our goal is to Introduce you to accessibility and make it easy for you to practice. If you're new . Wit? *‘vr-‘vrirnz:"a-—i ,.: lilifiviii‘r? 31??
to accessibility. you may have heard some ofthe biggest myths - that accessible sites are “‘4 -*‘J"?’~‘ 3”” rm“ '3 ‘5"‘-‘*

boring, text only and difficult to make. In reality, you are only limited by your creatiwty, and ’ " 3'4 ‘5‘ l "Ii-’I‘GHH-‘al Tm
accessibility Is not that hard. Read on to find out the what. why. who. how, when and where of 1‘ ~‘ 7"”

acceSSIbillty - :‘u' in: nus; til. mare ens-.2

"."x'IH‘ii ”and 21:1»; line
I mule

What is accessibility? ..
Steuoasns

So, what exactly is accessibility? It is about all users being able to access the contents of ~ i;%g«_l._l:=.rr_i flit»?
your site In a Ioglcal, understandable fashion under different circumstances. There are peOple . FEW;
with disabilities who are not able to experience the web the same way as those without . lily!

disabilities. They may have to use an intermediary device such as a screen reader to access
the contents of your website. Being accessible means the intermediary device will be able to
deliver your contents meaningfully.

RI:- 2: o be i: E e
- Books

Accessibility also encompasses situational limitations related to wireless/handheld devices. . E91351}?!-
mouse-less situations. low bandwidth. lanouaoe barriers. etc. Accessibilitv is about more

 

Figure 2 Site Navigation

21

The accessibility features link takes users to the page with a list of short cut/access keys
that can be used to navigate the site. The access keys defined for this site are listed below
(Table 3). The page also includes information about using access keys for different

browsers and operating systems.

 

Navigating the site:

Access Key Purpose

go to Home page

go to Disabilities page
go to Tutorials page
go to Testing page

go to Quick Tips page
go to Standards

go to Resources

go to Contact page
go to About page

go to Site map page
go to Accessibility Features page

 

><OCDN<DUIbOJNAO

 

Navigating within a page:

Access Key Purpose

go to the main content of the page

go to the right navigation of the page

go to the sub-navigation of the page (tutorials section only)
go to top of the page

 

4mm:

 

 

 

Table 3. Access Keys

The links—top, main content, and right navigation—are also available at the bottom of

all pages to help navigation.

22

Layout and Interface Design

Design principles were considered for the layout so the site is not only accessible, but
also usable, and aesthetically pleasant. Adobe Photoshop CS was used to create the
graphic elements for this website. To ensure that content is separate from presentation,
CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) was used for layout and also to control font type, size,
color, spacing and underline effect. Tables were used only for information purposes, not
for layout. Camtasia Studio was used for screen capture of examples showing how screen
readers work. The files were saved in the SWF format so users can view them with a
regular Flash Player. The tutorial about implementing accessibility in Flash was created

in Macromedia Flash MX.

Macromedia Dreamweaver MX was used for HTML and CSS editing. Some problems
related to CSS were experienced during the development process. Not all-browsers are
standards compliant, so the website would display erroneously in different browsers and
operating systems. The CSS had to be manipulated quite a bit to ensure cross-platform,
cross-browser look and functionality. Comments were removed from all HTML
documents; Internet Explorer was unable to handle comments and would not display the
pages properly. The CSS and HTML were validated throughout the development process
to endure proper mark-up usage. Accessibility testing was also repeated. Important
segments of the content and the right navigation were kept within the safe areas of 800 by

600 pixels.

23

Other Features

All font sizes of the HTML documents are relative. Text resizing options are provided
directly on the pages, so users can easily manipulate the text to their desired size (Figure
3). E-mail function is also provided so users can directly send the link to a particular page
they like to themselves or someone they know, instead of going through the process of
logging into their e-mail, and then copying and pasting a link before hitting a send button
(Figure 4). A separate CSS file was also created for the print version of the site, which
displays only the main banner and the text for the section being printed (Figure 5) There
is a submit tutorials section that the users can take advantage of if they want to add to a
tutorial or submit a new tutorial entirely for the projectACCESS! website. PHP scripts

were used for the e-mail and submit tutorials section.

 

 

‘ Your Name ?

*E-mailAddress 1‘

 

 

 

 

Message ; I A .
(250 characters
max.) 2
. _ "‘ Required fields 3
Prlnt Email A 23.: A++ 431—1
Figure 3. Print, E-mail and Text Resizing Figure 4. E-mail Window

Options

24

 

 

  
 

 

ProjectAccess Page 1 of 2

“a

  

 

~~~~~

Welcome to projectACCESS!

Our goal isto introduce you to accessibility and make it easy for you to practice. tfyou're new
to accessibiity. you may have heard some of the biggest myths - that accessible sites are
boring. text only and difficult to make. In reality, you are only limled by your creativity, and
accessibility Is not that hard. Read on to find outthe what, why. who, how. when and where
a accessibilty

What is accessibility?

So. what exactly is accessibility? It is about all users being able to access the contents of
your site in a logical, understandable fashion under different circumstances. There are
people with disabilities who are not able to experience the web the same way asthose
without disabilities. They may have to use an intermediary device such as a screen readerto
accessthe conterts ofyourwebsite. Being accessible means the intermecialy device will be
able to deliver your contents meaningfully.

Accessibility also encompasses situational limitations related to wirelessthandheld devices,
rmuse-Iess situations. low bandwidth. language barriers, etc. Accessibility is abou more
people being able to use websies more effectively in more situations.

Why is accessibility important?

Why not? lt'sthe right thing to do. You not only caterto those with physical disabilties but
330 to those who are using newertechnologies t‘ke handhelds and wireless devices.
Because. you also believe in the best user experience possible. Other reasons: broadens
your site's reach; ranks your site higher in search engines (thanks to meaningful e11:
attributes, etc); increases usability; takes less time to download; easierto manage because
content(HTML) is separate from presentation (CSS); comply with standards (thus. more
browsers supportthem); aid it makes you look good cause you know all the tricks. Also, It's
the law.

Who sh ouid practice accessibility? Who benifits?

Who should practice accessibility? Youl Who benefts? You and your users. You get lauded
for creating wonde and considerate sites. Your users benefit from a site that is easy to
use and access.

How?

How should you practice accessibllty? By leamhg a few simple things. Thls site Includes

When?

AMays. You should keep accessibility in mind anytime you are building a website. The

 

Figure 5. Print Version

25

 

Flash and Accessibility

Flash has been bringing rich media content to the non-disabled users for a long time.
Now with enhanced features for accessibility, Flash can be easily used to create engaging
content for people with disabilities. The accessibility feature of Flash is fairly new, thus
very few assistive software support it at the moment, and resources about creating
accessible Flash content are hard to find. The purpose of creating accessible Flash content

for projectACCESS! was to explore accessibility issues related to Flash.

When appropriately authored and used with technology that supports it, Flash content can
become accessible. Because of Flash’s multimedia support and audio capabilities,

visually disabled users can use Flash content without the help of screen readers. Flash has
the capability to provide highly interactive content and can be used to supplement HTML

content with rich and engaging materials for users with disabilities.

T echnologv

Flash uses Microsofi Active Accessibility (MSAA) to deliver information about Flash
movies to screen readers and other assistive technologies. MSAA uses COM-based
technology (COM-Component Object Model) to interface between applications and
assistive technology that runs on Microsoft Windows (Microsoft Active Accessibility,

n.d.). MSAA is the intermediary between the Flash player and screen reader (Figure 6).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flash movie Assistive technology
(Running on Flash ngzzzztiafitive 7 (Screen readers.
Player 6 or higher) ty Braille displays. etc.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6. Flash and Microsoft Active Accessibility

26

System Requirements

Since Macromedia Flash uses MSAA, accessible Flash content is only available to screen
readers and other assistive technology running on Windows. Microsofi Internet Explorer
is the only browser that supports MSAA. The assistive technologies that currently
support Flash content are currently Freedom Scientific’s JAWS and GWMicro’s Window
Eyes. Macromedia Flash Player 6 or above is needed to access Flash content via screen

readers.

How Flash Interacts with Screen Readers

When a screen reader comes across Flash content, it announces the beginning and end of
the movie. Once the screen reader enters the Flash movie, it reads the content as it would
a typical HTML page, given that the movie was properly authored for accessibly.
Currently, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer is the only browser where this can happen. Some
browsers other than IE usually skip over Flash content; others allow the users to enter
Flash content either by clicking on it or using the tab key. Once users enter Flash content,
they normally have to click outside the movie to leave. Unless the content is Accessible,
users of screen readers and mouse-free devices can get stuck inside the Flash movie.

They will then have to close the browser to get out of the movie.

Screen readers consider motion as an update to the page. As Flash content changes, the
screen reader goes back to the top of the movie and starts going through the content
again. Looping elements cause screen readers to refresh constantly and start reading from

the beginning again. To avoid this, child objects or entire movies can be made

27

inaccessible. This can be done by making objects within a movie or even entire movies
inaccessible by deselecting "Make Child Objects Accessible" or "Make Object
Accessible" in the Accessibility panel. Designers can also choose to enable or disable

accessibility by using ActionScript (Figure 7).

      

 

 

 

 

' it at
‘ . .‘- ’;~§- “ ‘ ' _ f-uj ‘ . '3’: 1"}
'a-s’t-I-tItch-{mitem-‘dwdba'zbwn.rztt-z-ruaetrzeéem-e;-;-";r‘..-r...~‘.-T Lists; ‘ ;gg:;gg;-_.l,;;z;.;.;-_;§.c.:.,‘.; ._ .., _._.___._.,,. ..,_.,..,...,-...;.',..J
I7 Make 0W"?t A0053“? I- §Make Object Accessible;
I. Make Child Objects Accessible I'- M :51. e 1;. ,in 2,15 ,,,,, -

 

Name: IA green teat

 

Description

 

Shortcut I

Figure 7. Flash Accessibility Panel

To optimize the accessibility of F lash content, text equivalents should be provides for
graphic elements. Either the Accessibility panel (Name or Description field)) or
ActionScript (F9) can be used. Text equivalents are not supported for graphic symbols.

You have to save your object as a movie symbol or a button.

By default, screen readers read all text objects in a Flash movie. Changes to text objects
are not required to make it readable by screen readers. If multiple text and graphic
elements are arranged to form words, they will not be read correctly as text. These
elements can be converted to a movie clip symbol; meaningful text equivalent should be

provided. Dynamic text elements can also have meaningful text equivalents. Screen

28

readers will overlook any change in the dynamic text box and read the alternate text

instead.

Screen readers will read text placed within buttons when they access the button symbol.
If there is more than one text element in a button, then Flash randomly picks which text
item to read. If there is no text in the button element, there should be an alternate text

description for the screen reader to read so the user can know the button’s purpose.

As long as there are text equivalents and accessibility is enabled for different types of
objects and proper tab order is maintained, screen readers can meaningfully deliver the

contents of a Flash movie to users with disabilities.

Flash in projectACCESS!

The design, navigation and contents of the Flash tutorial were kept simple to make it as
accessible as possible. The content covered some of the basics of accessible Flash
movies. The different sections of the movie are: Overview, Visual Elements, Text,
Animation, Buttons, Best Practices and Conclusion (Figure 8). The navigation is always
visible and users have the option to skip the intro movie (Figure 9). Transitions were
avoided, because movies within movies and passing of variables can confuse the screen

reader.

29

I Intro Movie I

Overview

Visual Elements

 

Figure 8. Site Map of Flash Tutorial

  

Animation
. . . Example

1 r Visual Elements 3 In this example, the child objects (leaves) have been
made inaccessible. Separate text equivalents for the

parent (tree) and the child objects (leaves) were not

; _. Animation 3 provided. Instead, the relationship between the

'5 , elements are conveyed by using “Leaves falling from
I I Buttons tree" in the name field. Deselecting ”Make child

'3 r Best Practices ' objects inaccessible" tells the screen reader to ignore
everything else thats happening inside a movie.

   
  

 

;,' r Oveerew

  
  
  
  
  
  

'1 1r Text

' " 'r Conclusion

 

Name. ILuvos falling from (m _

r Previous: Looping elements

- I.

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. Screen Shot of Flash Tutorial

30

 

Accessibility Testing and Evaluation

The projectACCESS! website was tested during and after the production process to
ensure correct syntax, compliance to laws and guidelines, meaningful content and
accessibility. The goal both during the development and testing phase was to convey
meaningful information no matter how the website was looked at in terms of device and
browsers. Available tools and methods were used to minimize errors and find problems.
These tools varied in their scope of testing and the things they checked for. Thus, manual
checking was conducted along with using multiple applications. Figure 10 shows the

process that was used for testing the website.

The HTML and CSS for all pages of the site was validated using W3C’s online validation
services, and are indicated by the icons at the bottom of each page of the
projectACCESS! website. To test for keyboard accessibility, the site was navigated
without a mouse using the tab, shifi, return, and arrow keys. The access keys were also
used. The Lynx browser was used to see how the site worked as text-only version. The
Opera browser was intensively used to look at the site in various ways: as text only, with
tables disabled, images turned off, in high contrast and in the accessibility layout view.
Bobby and Wave were used to check for WCAG and Section 508 standards. To see how
the site would look in different handhelds, a Wapalizer at www.gelon.net was used.
Unfortunately, it is currently not available. IBM Homepage Reader version 3.02 and
JAWS version 6.10 were used to see how the site performed in screen readers. The site

was also viewed on different browsers and platforms (PC and MAC) over different

bandwidths.

31

 

[T Webpage Samnling l l

 

Fix Start

 

O

i | Markup (HTML&CSS) Validation ] ]

 

ls valid

 

4?.
0

Yes

J
[ I Keyboard Accessibility I I

 

 

Is valid

<>.

Yes
i
Screen Reader and Text Browser

Validation

 

 

 

 

 

 

ls valid

 

<>.

Yes

L
U WCAG/Section 508 Compliance I ]

 

 

No Is valid

 

Yes
&

Accessibility (Layout, Navigation,
interaction, Content) Validation

 

 

 

 

 

 

is valid

 

l
I
0

Yes

i
l [ User Testing ] I

 

 

 

ls valid

4
Z
0

Yes

9

Figure 10. Flowchart of the Testing Process

32

CHAPTER 6

Post-Production Research

Research Method

Objective
The goals of the post-production research are: (1) to find out if the site is useful (2) to
find out how this production can help the target users learn about and implement Web

accessibility, and (3) to evaluate the effectiveness of this project.

Procedure

The target audience was students or professionals who create websites, and are either
completely unfamiliar or somewhat familiar with the concept of accessibility. E-mails
were sent out to undergraduate and graduate students in the Digital Media Art and
Technology program and webmasters’ electronic mailing list at Michigan State
University informing them of the project, its purpose, duration of the survey, and the
website link (See Appendix B: Recruiting Advertisement). Participants were asked to
browse the website before completing an online survey (See Appendix D: Survey
Instrument). The link to the survey was available on all pages on the website; it was
removed afierwards. Twenty-three people (12 male, 11 female) completed the survey. Six
people answered “Do not create websites.” Since they are not part of the target audience
their data were not included as part of the following analysis (See Appendix E:

Responses of Participants Who Do Not Create Websites).

33

Survey Results and Findings

General Information about Participants

The survey results (only for the target audience) show that the participants (9 male, 8
female) are from varying age groups and display different skill levels. All participants
answered that the Web is their most common method of obtaining information on a new

topic. The tables below (Tables 4, 5) show information about the participants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number-Esacw-jage Numb” WWW!“
22 or i Do not create web81t950.i 0%

LOQQQEr-Z .-1_2W°/9.__ Lessthan1year _- 1 6%

2329 11 6.51- 1W2ygg-rsW- 4 ‘-24/ A,
3039 3 18/ 2.3years 6 .. 35/
2041-0-92... :3-4years 2 -_12/
50 or older; 1 i 6% i50r more years 4 i 24% _i

 

 

Table 4. Age Range of Participants Table 5. Years of Involvement in Creating Websites

The majority of the participants described themselves as “Web developer”, “Web
designer”, “Web programmer” or “Webmaster” (Table 6). Participants could choose

more than one answer for this question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

._+. , t Number] Berger-(age. -
Web developer 3 i 18%
Web designer _ .1 8 lm. 4770....---
WemeQ-rammer 2 -12-%
___Webmaster . . _--;. __3 - ; WWI-33(9- ._ ;
Other i 5 29% ..__._.i

 

 

Table 6. Participant Description

34

The highest number of expertise was seen in HTML. Only eight people were either
“intermediate” or “somewhat” expert in CSS. XHTML and J avaScript had the highest

number of “novices” (Figure 11).

 

 

 

 

 

I Expert
0 Somewhat Expert

 

E1 lnterrnediate i

 

 

5 Somewhat Novice

 

‘ uJinEeJr W“ "—

El Novice ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HTML XHTM. CSS JavaScript
Skill Level

 

Figure 11. Skill Levels for HTML, XHTML, CSS and JavaScript

. Table 7 shows that about half of the participants never used handheld devices to browse

the Web. Thirty-five percent used it sometimes.

r. . _-_ -_._W._ . _ . - . .. . .. - W. .. .. W, -W- - -.-.,-. --,.-..- .- e.. .___._._._..._m-._ . .nah...______._.._...»._.. ..- .1

W--- W _____ Number 3‘ Percentage
--..Never.-. 8 47% '

 

 

 

 

fiéiéiy -W2W 12%
Often 1 J32.

 

 

 

 

i
Always 0 1-----.Q.%
Table 7. Using Handheld Devices to Browse the Web

35

Participants and Accessibility

Almost a fourth of the participants were “hardly” or “not at all familiar” with Web
accessibility. A little over a third were “somewhat familiar”, about a fifth were “fairly
familiar” and almost a quarter of the participants “very familiar” with the concept.
Despite 76% of the participants being “somewhat”, “fairly” and “very familiar”, about a
quarter of the respondents said they “always” consider accessibility. Another 31% said
they “often” or “sometimes” consider accessibility. When asked reasons for not
considering accessibility, 35% said they “did not think about it”, 6% said “didn’t know

how to implement”, and 59% chose “other” (Table 8).

 

 

[FEET-giant. with, NWQQA-caessibititx 95635 ' valiant-7.919199% CESSI.if“Lilli-fiber:Bergentage'.i

i-N.9.t.-at_ail._farniliar -_ .. 3 18%-
f-H-a-Igiy-.iami.liaJI-W- -- -_ _ _. . -_- WW- - . _ -_ W
Somewhatfamlliar -.. . -

Fairlyfamiliar

 

 

 

...._k..M_—-w......~.~.. .M .........

W§ZLW .

 

a. wgog-s
A
°3
a

 

Very Familiar

_ _ _ _- .....W-.- ._.........-..__-_ ..-. ........-.._ _. -.....__...W-W.._.___. w-.- -_..__....._... _ ........-. _ ._ .... Wm“..- _ -._.___t-....-..... - .. .. N-.. . .. ._.__.- W... J...___._

 

 

 

 

 

..QH-WQMIXEQUSI'QQK-W99..§999§§ibiliti’fit (if
i Never

i

l

l
.i.

i
i
I

.. Number...-§-E§._rcentage

 

 

 

3 j 18%
' 18%

 

f Rarely
iOfte" --
Always ..- .. -_. .-_... ., _. ,., ,w ,, ,-.. . . -W

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. BQE§QQ§IQF {19’-QQQsfilgé-Uflg..§9§9-§§19.’l!i¥_ _ _ V .. - - . . .. . . .

 

3 ”NW

_A Number .-.!?ercsnt@ge V.

i
i

 

Do not create websites _ - 0 0%
Don’t know what accessibility is 0%
ngg not think about it

TooComplicatedtoimplement -- _ .. . .. - .. _-.. -
, Don’t know how to implement

 

 

 

 

i
i-
!

 

i-a o o o :o

 

 

i

H,

i Other - 10WW59/

 

Table 8. Participants and Accessibility

36

A majority (88%) of the respondents “strongly agreed” and “agreed” that they were
interested in creating accessible websites (Table 9).

.... ._ V ' Number Bate-entaae
Strongly Disagree _~______~__V 0 __l» 0%
l'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disagree ._ 0 . , W Q%_-_- .-
-. Neutral _. -_.._-. .. __ _, _, .. _ _. - . . _ 1 _. .. __ 6% .
rAar-e-e-__W-_.¥.__-__ _ -__ -§-__..- 29% __-

__,_Strongly Agree 10 59% Mi

 

 

Table 9. Interest in Creating an Accessible Website

Fifty-three percent of the participants said their interest “increased” as a result of visiting
the projectACCESS! website. About a quarter of the participants said their interest

“slightly increased” (Table 10).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W __ Number ___, Percentage."
Decreased 0 0%
_Snglltly Decreased A 0 0%
Did not Change _p 3 18%
WSjghtly Increased LL 5 29%
Increased -- . 9 53%

 

 

 

 

Table 10. Change in Interest in Creating Accessible Websites

37

Gender and Accessibility
Figure 12 shows that 7 males and 6 females were “somewhat”, “fairly” and “very
familiar” with Web accessibility. Four participants (2 males and 2 females) were “not at

all” and “hardly familiar” with Web accessibility.

0 Did Not Know

Number of Participants

 

Figure 12. Familiarity with Web Accessibility Prior to Visiting projectACCESS! (Gender)

More males (78%) than females (50%) said they “sometimes”, “often” and “always”
considered Web accessibility while creating Web pages. Only half of the female

participants (4) said they “sometimes , often” and “always” considered Web

accessibility (Figure 13).

 

 

 

 

 

 

l fflifi

l a l Currently Consider

\ g 7 7 EDoes Not Consider

. g 6 7 — _ 7,
U

l E 5 ——vm7 7‘ _7 i

l n. 4 )7 ,7 7#

l 3 3 7 77 ~#7
0

l ‘E’ 2 #—

l E 1 , 7 7 a

l o

‘ Male Female l

 

Figure 13. Currently Consider Web Accessibility (Gender)

38

Only 6 of the male participants “agreed” and “strongly agreed” that their interest in
creating accessible websites increased as a result of visiting the projectACCESS! website.
All the female participants “agreed” and “strongly agreed” that their interest went up

after visiting the site (Figure 14).

 

r I hcreas‘edfi-

Numbor of Participants
0 _. N w A or r.» N on col

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 14. Change in Interest after Visiting projectACCESS! (Gender)

39

Age Group and Accessibility

All the participants who were 22 or younger and between “33-39” were “Somewhat”,
“Fairly” and “Very Familiar” with Web accessibility. Eight (73%) of the participants
between 23 and 29 were “Somewhat”, “Fairly” and “Very Familiar” with Web

accessibility (Figure 15).

l
I

 

 

 

 

NumberofParticlpants
O _. N u A 0! O: N on O

L J a J

 

 

 

 

 

I 22 or 23-29 30-39 40-49 so or older
l younger

 

 

__2

Figure 15. Familiarity with Web Accessibility Prior to Visiting projectACCESS! (Age Groups)

 

Not everyone who said they were familiar with Web accessibility practiced it. The

highest disparity was in the 30—39 age group; the second highest in the 23—29 group

(Figure 16).

 

 

ii Qirrently Consider L
it: Does Not Consider

 

   

 

 

Number of Partlclpante
O .3 N 00 «h 0| 0: N on

 

 

 

 

 

F 220r 23-29 30-39 40-49 500rolder!
l , _ _YOI} m! -

_ e __ __ _ _ ___--. _ 22... J

 

Figure 16. Currently Consider Web Accessibility (Age Groups)

40

For participants of the 23 — 29 age group, 73% “Agreed” and “Strongly agreed” that their
interest increased. For all other age groups, 100% “Agreed” and “Strongly agreed” that
their interest in creating accessible websites went up as a result of visiting the

projectACCESS! website (Figure 17).

 

 

 

I hcreased ,
---~LE Dd Not Change

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J

Number of Participants 2
I
l
l
l
l
l
l

 

 

 

 

 

22 or 23-29 30-39 40-49 50 or older
younger

 

._._—_. ._ .v. . . . !__,_f ___..2- fl ._‘_2

 

 

Figure 17. Change in Interest after Visiting projectACCESS! (Age Groups)

41

Background and Accessibility

All webmasters said they were “Somewhat”, “Fairly” and “Very Familiar” with Web
accessibility. Only one-third of the Web developers and half of the Web programmers
said they were “Somewhat”, “Fairly” and “Very Familiar”. Eighty-eight percent of Web
designers and sixty percent of those with other background said they were “Somewhat”,

“Fairly” and “Very Familiar” with Web accessibility (Figure 18).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Participants
0 —b N w 48 0'! 0’ N on

 

 

Web designer Web Webmaster Other
programmer l

Figure 18. Familiarity with Web Accessibility Prior to Visiting projectACCESS! (Background)

 

Less than two-third of the Web developers, designers, programmers and Webmasters said
they “Sometimes”, “Often” and “Always” considered Web accessibility while creating

Web pages (Figure 19).

42

6 in Currently Consider
-7 , “in Do Not Consider

 

 

 

' ‘l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Participants :
(.0

Web Web Web Webmaster Other
developer designer programmer

Figure 19. Currently Consider Web Accessibility (Background)

More than 50% of the participants said their interest increased as a result of visiting the

proj ectACCESS! website. Web designers showed the greatest increase in interest.

j. hcreased ié
i:
i in Did NotChange

4,—. _. __ .. _ _— _._..__— __ — —..-_ . ___“ ___ ___—.3

 

 

 

     

 

  

L

 

 

 

Number of Participants
0 A M w -h 0! O) N on

 

 

Web Web Web Webmaster Other 1
developer designer programmer |

‘7
l
I
l
I
l
l

 

Figure 20. Change in Interest after Visiting projectACCESS! (Background)

Was this site effective?
Looking at the overall data about participants and accessibility, and also in terms of

gender, age, and background, we can safely say the site was able to increase participants

interest in considering accessibility while creating websites.

43

The projectACCESS! Website

Participants were asked to rate the site on a scale of 1 to 7. One being “Very
Informative”, “Very Attractive”, “Very Useful”, “Very Inspiring” and 7 being “Not”. On
that note “Informative” and “Useful” got a high score. “Attractive” and “Inspiring”

average scores (Table 11).

 

 

- e w ,AJ._6-Ve@g_e:-_f"l
{infermative . V ,. 265 i
Attraq-tIy-e-W - , __-§_1_2-__
Inspirjgg l 3.47 j

 

 

 

Table 11. Participants Description of the Website

All participants “agreed” and “strongly agreed” that they could immediately tell what

options (navigation/content) were available to them (Table 12).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l-.__.__ ,. e _ e. _ . NQEJDQC ‘ _,E§_r¢-eatage.. ._
.-.§-tr-9_nalx-E2i-§§9ree _. _ . _ , .--Q- ,._ --9%
Disagree ---___O 0%
Neutral _g 0 0% __j
Agree --__--_1-2 ___-.- ._---__-__7_1_‘_’@-__ - - __ _.
iStronglyAsre-e i 5 12%

 

 

 

 

Table 12. Awareness of Available Options (Content/Navigation)

All participants “agreed” and “strongly agreed” that they could immediately understand

the purpose of the website (Table 13).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number ' Percentage j
-§£r9Q9U-D_Is_agree ---.9---_--.-._ ., -. DYE-___.-.-
,.Qi§a9r-e§-_-_--- . _ _ _ ,. . 0 . __ .. -0% . .

Neutral fi__ _______Q_ __Q‘Zz __
Agree _ 7 41%
Strongly Agree l 10 59%

 

 

 

 

Table 13. Understanding the Purpose of the Website

44

Table 14 shows that respondents spent the most time in “Home” and “Tutorials.” The
second most time was spent in the “Multimedia” section. The table could be interpreted
in different ways. First, users spent majority of their time in the sections of most interest
to them. Second, they spend their time in sections that contained information they did not
know much about. Third, users were not drawn into least visited sections with
navigational and visual cues. And, fourth, users may have gone back and forth among the
various tutorial topics and were not sure which of the tutorials they spent most time in

and thus, decided to choose “Tutorials” in general.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Sectlon- . ,- _ __.. .. ._ , . -qulzer. V-1...”.Eer991rztaae-l
-tlgms-m-e- - -_ 5 l 29% 1
lash-119* - -_.- ___1 6% 1
DisablllyeL- ,. 0..- 1 0% -1
Resources __j 1 j 6% l
1._Qy.i.<:.l.<._t-ies-_----_- 1 ---§-%-- 1,
-A.99e§§i-Qili_tx-l=-9§ty.res_-.m-- 1 .- 6179- 1
Tutorials _______ -_-----§___. 1 29% -,
LayouttytorléL- 0. 1- _ 0%---
Navigation tutorial 0 0%
__Iatzleatqtgr-ial --.. -9. 0%-
Forms tutorial _ o 0%_____
lma e__s__ tutorial ____0____ 0%
_Multimedia tutorial 3 18% W“

 

 

 

 

Table 14. Section Participants Spent Most Time In

Users were asked to rate their interest in the different content areas of the website. One
being “Extremely Disinterested” and 7 being “Extremely Interested.” Users displayed the
most interest in the “Multimedia tutorial” (41%). The next highest percentage was 24 for

a few other sections. The projectACCESS! website has to cater to these interests and also

45

improve the sections with lower scores to increase users’ interest in those sections (Table

15).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Features Average Score
Home (Accessibility Overview). _ ----_ 4.88

Testing 5.06 -
.Resoqrces -. - a . _.-----5--1.9---
Accessibility Feature§__W____ W419_4___‘
Tutorials _--1-_.--_----___§-_9§-.~_-_.-_.J
..-!‘£-a;y.i-9.a_tion tutorial _ i A. .--§.-3-1-- -
w-Iaues-tytorial _- 5.38 .1
lmaggs tutorial _ 5.25 “—1
991-9511419191-.----.-._...._._.---.-,_______..._.__;.._. .. 5-2-5- .,
Multimedia tutorial 1 5.50

 

 

Table 15. Interest in Different Sections

Users were asked to rate the persuading features of the website (1 = strongly disagree, 7 =
strongly agree). The feature with the highest score was “The site showed that
accessibility is important” (Table 16). “It’s not far from what I already know” received
the lowest score, indicating that the information on the site was quite different from

users’ current knowledge.

46

s-.-»-u.~-..-~r».., ._._.... _ ......_.. .... as- _ -. -......_..- .. - _..- . .. .7- -2 .. ,W -w..._... “___...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Features Average Score 1
7717-i7earihg7audio7617scie3ii7re7ad7ers77 '7 7 7 5.07 1
Going through thetutorials 5.47 i
The tutorials explained the steps very clearly 77 7 [77757207 7 i
7Readtng the overview section 7 75747 i
“The site showed—{cassmlblllty IS easy to practice 7' 7’ 77 7 [775.7477
7 It's not too far from what I already know 7 7 77747007777 7
7The site showed me that implementing accessmlltty will not be too '7 M 51757 7 7
different from what I already practice
The site showed that accessmlllty is important 7 7 7 7 7 7775797573777 7
The Site ShOWed how I can build better websites 7 77587777 7
Other 77 77 3.17 7

 

 

 

Table 16. Features of the Website that Persuaded Participants to Consider Web Accessibility

The majority of the users (94%) “agreed” and “strongly agreed” that they will return to
the projectACCESS! site for help (Table 17). One user said, ““I think the site explained
accessibility in very clear and simple terms. I have bookmarked the site for future

reference.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 Number .17.-.- Percentage Wi
Strongly Disagree 0% 0 i
Disagree 6% 1 1
Neutral -_- - 0% g _:
Strongly Agree 41 % 7 J

 

 

 

 

Table 17. Returning to ProjectACCESS.’ Website for Help

Was this site usable and useful?

In terms of usability, most users said they could immediately understand its purpose and
could easily tell the navigation and contents available to them. The site also received high
scores for informativeness and usefulness. Most users also agreed that they will return to

this site for help. Participant comment: “The site is useful and to the point.”

47

Participants ’ Comments

Some participant comments about what appeals to them about considering Web
accessibility when they create websites:

“Appealing to a wider audience.”

“It will make the site user friendly and be an useful utilization of their time.”

“Since it will be accessible, few would leave the site and continue to browse with case.”
“It attracts more people.”

“Broad audience”

“Till date nothing. But realizing its necessity and size of audience, I believe it is a must
to consider at the stage of web-designing”

“Knowledge rich website. I have been a designer for 5 years. Unknowingly I have been
taking some of the talked steps while designing pages. But after going through the
website it adds structure and legitimacy to my thoughts”

“That the website would be acceptable to more people. That it will meet future standards.

Mainly that it would widen my target audience.”

Participant comments about what does not appeal to them about considering web
accessibility when they create websites:

“Focusing too much on accessibility often makes the site drab looking which can act as a
low visual appeal for users and take their interest away.”

“It's more thinking to do.”

“Lack of tools”

“There is a lot to learn and I think I will take a more developmental time”

48

“Lack of awareness”
“Color selection. Color tutorial mentions particular combinations of colors. This may

restrict a designer’s freedom.”

Participant comments about the site affecting their opinion on web accessibility:
“It was a good attempt to educate web builders on accessibility. The site is useful and to
the point.”

“It has made me aware of its importance. I was aware of the importance to some extent
and now I shall comply with utmost religiously”

“Great work! Information has been well gathered. And all aspects of web accessibility
has been touched. From designing layout to multimedia and the most critical how and
where to test.”

“I appreciate the research work. It will save lots of my time and definitely add to my

knowledge about web accessibility”

49

CHAPTER 7

Conclusion

The main purpose of this project was to create a website with basic information about
building accessible websites, and also, to find out if people’s interest in creating
accessible websites changed once they learned more about it. The target audience was
website designers and developers with little or no knowledge about accessibility. An
online survey was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the website and to explore if
participants’ interest in Web accessibility would change. Since all participants voluntarily

went to the website, there is a self—selection bias in the result.

Although results of the exploratory survey show that people’s interest in creating
accessible websites increased after visiting the projectACCESS! website, a more detailed
study with a larger sample size needs to be conducted to statistically establish the results.
In terms of site design and usability, the survey results indicated that the site was
effective. But more can be done to hold the interests of the users and show that practicing
Web accessibility is not that difficult. Most of the participants were interested in the
tutorial about multimedia accessibility. This shows that the site can be broadened to

attract multimedia designers. The content and look can be tweaked and more information

about multimedia can be included. The Flash tutorial can also be expanded to include
more than introductory techniques. There were sections where the participants did not

spend much time in. Those sections can be made more attractive with graphics and

50

interactivity. Navigational cues from the most visited sections can be used to draw users

to these sections.

Currently the projectACCESS! website only provides basic and early intermediate level
tutorials. More advanced tutorials and information about accessibility can be added to
make the site more comprehensive. Moreover, it may be safe to assume that with
emerging and changing technology, means of making websites accessible will change
too. Tutorials and content may have to be changed and updated to keep the site current.
The site can also continue to have mini surveys to evaluate its effectiveness and people’s

interest in accessibility.

Development of new technologies for the Web, have brought new opportunities for those
with disabilities. Along with these positive changes, there are disadvantages too. Many
assistive technologies are expensive and they are not changing as fast as other
technologies. Many website designers/developers do not consider accessibility issues in
the early stages of development. There is a need for increased awareness about Web
accessibility for website designers/developers/programmers to make sure their sites work

with screen readers and other assistive technologies.

All participants in the survey indicated they look for information about a new topic on the

Web. More resources about accessible websites need to be available on the Internet, so

Web developers can find them and slowly start integrating the techniques into their sites.

51

People with disabilities are yet to enjoy the full benefits of rich media. Macromedia has
recently made attempts to make Flash content more accessible, but the technology is still
new and limited to only the Windows platform and one browser. Other platforms and

browsers still provide no support for accessible Flash content.

It is likely that as the word gets around, demand for accessible content increase and
website developers move towards accessibility, various companies will start to respond to
these demands by providing new and easier ways of creating accessible content. It is my
hope that projectACCESS! will keep up with new trends in technology; attract more
people who are interested; continue to increase awareness of accessibility issues on the

Web; and help Web designers, developers and programmers create accessible websites.

52

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BBC News. (2004, June 18). Cheap broadband lures UK surfers. Retrieved November
30, 2004, from http://news.bbc.co.r$/l/hi/technologv/3818639.stm

Chong, C. (2003, May) America Online: Is it accessible now? The Braille Monitor, 46
(5). Retrieved April 26, 2005, from
http://www.nfb.org/bm/bm03/bm0305/bm030509.htm

Disability Rights Commission (2004). The Web: Access and inclusion for disabled
people, [Report]. Retrieved November 28, 2004, from
http://www.drc-gb.oglpublicationsandreports/2.pdf

IEE. (2004). Color vision defects: A health & safely fact sheet produced by the IEE,
(Issue 2.1). Retrieved November 29, 2004, from the Institution of Electrical Engineers
Web site http://www.iee.org/policy/areas/health/colourvisiondefects.pdf

Lenhart, A., Horrigan, J., Rainie, L., Allen, K., Boyce, A., Madden, M., & O’Grady, E.
(2003, April 16). The ever-shifting Internet population: A new look at Internet access and
the digital divide, 30-31. Retreived December 3, 2004, from Pew Internet & American
Life Project Web site http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP ShifiingiNet pop_report.pdf

MSDN. (n.d.) Microsoft Active Accessibility start page. Retrieved May 10, 2005, from
http://msdn.microsofi.com/librm/defaultasrflurlfllibrarv/en-
us/msaa/msaastart_9w2t.asp

National Organization on Disability. (n.d.). Economic participation: Marketing to people
with disabilities. Retrieved November 30, 2004, from
http://www.nod.org/index.cfm?firseaction=Pe_tge.ViewPag&PageID=l 5&

National Organization on Disability. (2002, January 15). Internet use among people with
disabilities on the rise, but still trails online activity of those without disabilities.
Retrieved November 30, 2004, from
mp://www.nod.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID= l 43 0&nodeID=1 &F
eatureID=550&redirected=1&CFID=2457539&CFTOKEN=51999067

Nielsen/lNetRatings. (2004, August 18). US. broadband connections reach critical mass,
crossing 50 percent mark for web surfers, according to Nielsen//NetRatings, [Press
release]. Retrieved November 20, 2004, from http://www.nielsen-

netratings.com/pr/pr 04081 8.pdf

Thatcher, J ., Bohman, P., Burks, M., Henry, S. L., Regan, B., Swierenga, S. J ., Urban, M.
D., & Waddel, C. D. (2002). Constructing Accessible Websites. Berkeley: Glasshaus.

TheCounter.com. (2005, April 27). JavaScript Stats. Retrieved April 27, 2005, from
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/April/javas.php

53

Waddell, C. D. (2000). The National Federation of the Blind sues AOL. Human Rights
Magazine. Retrieved April 26, 2005, from the American Bar Association Web site
h_ttp://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winterOOhumanrights/waddel12.html

Waldrop, J ., & Stern, S. M. (2003, March). Disability status: 2000. Census 2000 Brief.
Retrieved November 29, 2004, from US. Census Bureau Web site
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-1 7 .pdf

World Bank. (n.d.). Disability Statistics. Retrieved November 30, 2004, from the World
Bank Web site
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALPROTECTION/
EXTDISABILITY/0.,contentMDK:20192597~menuPKz4l 7619~pagePKz 148956~piPKz
216618~theSitePK2282699,00.html

Worthington, T. (2003, November 1). Making an Accessible and Functional Website for

the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Retrieved April 26, 2005, from
http://wwwtomw.net.au/2003/bws.html

54

GENERAL REFERENCES

BBC News. (2002, March 12). Olympic website targets disabled. Retrieved April 26,
2005, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1868566.stm

 

Clark, J. (2002). Building accessible websites. Retrieved November 15, 2004, from
h_ttp://ioeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/

Clark, J. (2001 , October 30 & 2004, April 9). Reader ’s guide to Sydney Olympics
accessibility complaint, [Weblog]. Retrieved April 26, 2005, from
http://www.contenu.nu/socog.html

Macromedia. (n.d.). Accessibility and Macromedia Flash MX 2004. Retrieved November
16, 2004, from mp://www.m_acromedia.com/macromedia/accessibilitv/features/flash/

Moss, T. (2004, April 6). How to sell accessibility. Retrieved November 28, 2004, from
http://www.sitepoint.com/article/sell-web-accessibiliLv

Pilgrim, Mark (2002). Dive into accessibility. Retrieved December 4, 2004, from
http://diveintoaccessibilitv.org

55

APPENDIX A: CRUCIAL PROBLEMS

ENCOUNTERED BY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

 

 

Key problems experienced by blind users

' Incompatibility between screen reading software and web pages, e.g., the assistive technology
not detecting some links, or it proving impossible to highlight text using text-to-speech
software (26)

Incorrect or non-existent labelling of links, form elements and frames (24)

Cluttered and complex page structures (23)

ALT tags on images non-existent or unhelpful (l6)

Confusing and disorienting navigation mechanisms (16)

Key problems experienced by partially sighted users

0 Inappropriate use of colours and poor contrast between content and background (20)
Incompatibility between accessibility sofiware (e.g., for magnification) and web pages (19)
Unclear and confusing layout of pages (18)

Confusing and disorienting navigation mechanisms (16 )

Graphics and text size too small (10)

Key problems experienced by physically impaired users

0 Confusing and disorienting navigation mechanisms (20)

° Unclear and confusing layout of pages (19)

0 Graphics and text size too small (1 1)

- Inappropriate use of colours and poor contrast between content and background (10)

Key problems experienced by hearing impaired users

- Unclear and confusing layout of pages (23)

- Confusing and disorienting navigation mechanisms (12)

- Lack of alternative media for audio-based information and complex terms/language (10)
0 Inappropriate use of colours and poor contrast between content and background (9)

0 Graphics and text too small (9)

Key problems experienced by dyslexic users

0 Unclear and confusing layout of pages (41)

- Confusing and disorienting navigation mechanisms (32 )

- Inappropriate use of colours and poor contrast between content and background (20)
- Graphics and text too small (14)

- Complicated language or terminology (7)

 

Source: Disability Rights Commission5 (2004)

 

5 The study by Disability Rights Commission tested the homepages of 1000 websites using commercial
software; 10% of these sites were evaluated by a group of 50 users with the following disabilities:
blindness, poor sightedness, deaf/hard of hearing, learning disabilities and motion impairment.

56

 

APPENDIX B: RECRUITING ADVERTISEMENT

Participate in the projectACCESS! Survey!

projectACCESS! is a thesis project of Adina Huda, M.A. student in the department of
Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media at Michigan State University.

It is a website about web accessibility, and discusses how to design for people with physical
disabilities like blindness and motion impairment and also, for those with situational disabilities
like using mouse-free devices—handhelds, PDAs, etc.

The purpose of this survey is to conduct usability testing of the website, to explore how this
production can help users learn about web accessibility, and to evaluate the effectiveness of this
project. The survey will take around 15 — 30 minutes to complete.

Participation is entirely voluntary. There is a short consent form at the beginning of the survey.
You will not be asked for your name and confidentiality of data will be maintained.

The study will be conducted from [start date] to [end date].

Please follow the link below to go to projectACCESS!
http://proiectaccess.tc.msu.edu

If you have any questions about this project, please contact one of the investigators:

Principal Investigator
Brian Winn
winnb@msu.edu

Secondary Investigator
Adina Huda
hudaadin@msu.edu

If you have any questions about your rights as a study participant, you may contact Peter
Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180; fax: (517) 432-4503; e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu; or regular
mail: 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.

57

APPENDIX C: CONSENT FORM

Instructions

This survey is part of a production thesis called, projectACCESS! - Information and Techniques
for Creating Accessible Websites. You are being asked to explore the website, and answer
questions in the survey.

If you agree to participate, you can begin the survey by clicking the “I Agree” button at the
bottom of this page. Please read the consent form carefully.

Survey Procedure

The survey will take around 15 — 30 minutes to complete. The purpose of this survey is to
conduct usability testing of the website, to explore how this production can help users learn about
web accessibility, and to evaluate the effectiveness of this project. Participation in the survey is
entirely voluntary. The survey will not start unless you click the “I Agree” button. You may stop
participating at any time for any reasons. You do not have to answer any questions you do not
want to.

Confidentiality

Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent permissible by law. All responses will be
anonymous. Your name will not be asked for. The results of this survey will be used only by the
investigators.

Contact Information
If you have any questions about this project, please contact one of the investigators:

 

 

 

 

Principal Investigator Secondary Investigator
Brian Winn Adina Huda
(517) 353-5497 hudaadin@msu.edu

‘ winanmsuedu

 

 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact—anonymously, if you
wish—Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517)355-2180; fax: (517) 432-4503; e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu; or
regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Consent

I voluntarily agree to participate in this survey

 

 

I Do Not Agree. Exit IAgree
(Clicking this button will close this window.) (Clicking this buttoniwill take you to the survey. By clicking
this button you are voluntarily agreeing to participate in
the survey.)

58

APPENDIX D: SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Gender:
[3 Male
El Female

Age range:

[I] 22 or younger
El 23 to 29

El 30 to 39

E] 40 to 49

El 50 or older

How many years have you been involved in creating websites?

I do not create websites
Less than 1year

1 — 2 years

2 - 3 years

3 — 4 years

5 or more years

DDDDDD

Do you have any disabilities or impairments? (Please check all that apply)

Cl No/not impaired El Hearing impaired

CI Rather not say Cl Deaf

El Color blind El Motion impaired

[:1 Vision impaired El Cognitively impaired
El Blind C] Other

 

 

1. What operating system did you use to view the project ACCESS! website?

Windows 2000
Vlfindows XP
MAC OS X
MAC OS 9
LINUX

Other

Don’t know

 

DDDDUDD

2. Which browser did you use to view this website?

Firefox

lntemet Explorer
Safari

Mozilla
Netscape

l-Cab

Other

Don’t know

DDDDDDDD

59

3. Do you know the version of your browser?

[3
[:1

Yes, version
No

4. How would you describe yourself?

DDDDD

Web developer
Web designer
Web programmer
Webmaster
Other

 

5. Please indicate your skill level for the following:

NoviCe Somewhat
. Novice
HTML El E1
XHTML E] E]
CSS El E1
JavaScrlpt E] El

intermediate Somewhat
Expert

DUDE]
ClClClEl

Expert

DUDE]

6. What is your most common method of obtaining information on a new topic?

El

Web El Books

1:] Courses

7. Do you use handheld devices to browse the web?

Never
El

Rarely Sometimes Often

E]

D

E]

El Other

Always

8. Did you know about web accessibility before visiting the projectACCESS! website?

Not at all familiar Hardly familiar Somewhat familiar Fairly familiar

E]

E]

El

[:1

9. Do you currently consider web accessibility when you create websites?

Never
[:1

Rarely Sometimes Often

D

[I

60

[:1

Very familiar
El

Always

10. If you do not currently consider web accessibility when you create websites, what are your
reasons?

Do not create websites

Don't know what web accessibility is
Did not think about it

Did not need to do it

Too complicated to implement

Don't know how to implement it
Other

DDDUDDU

 

11. How would you describe this website?

Very Informative 1 2 3‘ 4 5 6 7 Not lnfOrmative
‘ Very Attractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Attractive

Very Useful 1 2 2 4 5 6 7 Not Useful

Very Inspiring 1 2 2 4 5 6 7 Not inspiring

12. I could immediately tell what options (navigation/content) were available to me.

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree
[3 E] E] El El

13. i could immediately understand the purpose of the projectACCESS! website.

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree
El E] El El El

14. Which section did you spend the most time in?

El Home [I] Accessibility Features El Forms

Cl Testing [3 Tutorials C] images

El Disabilities El Layout El Color

E] Resources [1] Navigation El Multimedia
El Quick tips El Tables

61

15. Please rate your interest in the following content areas. (1 -extremely disinterested, 7-
extremeiy interested).

Extremely Extremely

Disinterested Interested
Home (Accessibility Overview) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Testing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
‘ Disabilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Resources 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Quick tips 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
_ Accessibility Features 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Tutorials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Layout tutorial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Navigation tutorial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Forms tutorial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Tables tutorial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
, lmagestutoriai 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
_ Color tutorial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
_ Multimedia tutorial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. I am interested in creating an accessible website.

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree
[3 El E] El III

17. My interest in creating accessible websites changed as a result of visiting the
projectACCESS! website.

Decreased a lot Decreased a Did not change Increased a little Increased a lot
little
E] El El Cl C]

62

18. The following features of the website persuaded me to consider web accessibility when I
create websites. (1-strongly disagree, 7-strongly agree).

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
Hearing audio of screen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
readers
Going through the tutorials 1 2 3 4 5 6
The tutorials explained the 1 2 3 4 5 6
steps very clearly
Reading the overview section 1 2 3 4 5 6
The site showed accessibility 1 2 3 4 5 6
is easy to practice
It’s not too far from what I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
already know
The site showed me that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
implementing accessibility will
not be too different from what
i already practice
The site showed that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
accessibility is important
The site showed how i can 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
build better websites
Other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Please Explain:

19. I will return to projectACCESS! for help, if i build an accessible website in the future.

Strongly DiSagree A. Neutral If Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree
C] D Cl E] El

20. What appeals to you about considering web accessibility when you create websites?

21. What does not appeal to you about considering web accessibility when you create
websites?

63

22. Do you have any other comments about whether this site affected your opinion on web
accessibility?

Thank you for completing the projectACCESS! Survey.

 

64

APPENDIX E: RESPONSES OF PARTICIPANTS WHO DO NOT CREATE

WEBSITES

Six of the 23 participants checked “Do not create websites.” Five of them described themselves:
Web browser, information security consultant, counselor, system administrator, and trainer on
Web design. The following tables show a summary of their responses.

General Information about Participants

Number Percentage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 or younger 0 0%

23-29 3 50%

30-39 1 17%

40-49 0 0%

50 or older 2 33%

Table El. Age Range of Participants
Numbers
HTML XHTML CSS JavaScript

Novice 2 3 3 3
Somewhat Novice 1 1 1 0
Intermediate 0 2 1 3
Somewhat Expert 3 0 1 0
Expert 0 0 0 O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table E2. Skill Levels for HTML, XHTML, CSS and JavaScript

Number Percentage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never 4 67%
Rarely 0 0%
Sometimes 2 33%
Often 0 0%
Always 0 0%

 

Table E3. Using Handheld Devices to Browse the Web

65

Participants and Accessibility

Number Percentagg_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not at all familiar 0 0%
Hardly familiar 1 17%
Somewhat familiar 2 33%
Fairly familiar 2 33%
Very Familiar 1 17%

 

Table E4. Knowledge of Web Accessibility Prior to Visiting projectACCESS!

 

 

 

 

 

Number Percentage
Never 3 50%
Rarely 0 0%
Sometimes 1 1 7%
Often 1 1 7%
Always 1 17%

 

 

 

 

 

Table E5. Currently Consider Web Accessibility

Number Percentage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do not create websites 3 50%
Don’t know what accessibility is 0 0%
Did not think about it 0 0%
Did not need to do it 1 17%
Too Complicated to implement 0 0%
Don’t know how to implement 0 0%
Other 2 33%
One participant responded “I inform others of this need”

 

Table E6. Reasons for Not Considering Accessibility

Number
3 50%

0%

Neutral 17%

    

17%
17%

Table E7. Interest in Creating an Accessible Website

66

Number Percentage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decreased 0 0%
Slightly Decreased 0 0%
Did not Chang: 2 33%
Slightly Increased 3 50%
increased 1 1 7%

 

Table E8. Change in Interest in Creating Accessible Websites
as a result of Visiting projectACCESS!

The projectACCESS! Website

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Averagef
lnforrnative 2.20
Attractive 2.60
Useful 2.20
lnspirim 3.60

 

Table E9. Participants Description of the Website

Number

1 7%
0%

Neutral 33%
50%
0 0%

Table E10. Awareness of Available Options (Content/Navigation)

 

Number
Strongly

Neutral Neutral

Strongly

 

Table E11. Understanding the Purpose of the Website

67

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Web Pafi Number Percentgge

Home 3 50%
Testfig 0 0%
Disabilities 0 0%
Resources 0 0%
Quick tips 0 0%
Accessibility Features 0 0%
Tutorials 1 17%
Layout tutorial 0 0%
Navigation tutorial 1 17%
Tables tutorial 0 0%
Forms tutorial 0 0%
Images tutorial 0 0%
Color tutorial 0 0%
Multimedia tutorial 1 17%

 

 

 

 

Table E12. Section Participants Spent Most Time In

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Features Average Score
Home (Accessibility Overview) 5.67
Testing 4.33
Disabilities 4.67
Resources 5.00
Quick tips 5.33
Accessibility Features 4.83
Tutorials 5.33
Layout tutorial 4.83
Naflation tutorial 4.83
Tables tutorial 4.83
Forms tutorial 4.83
images tutorial 5.00
Color tutorial 5.17
Multimedia tutorial 5.00

 

 

 

Table E13. Interest in Different Sections

68

 

Features Average Score ‘
Hearing audio of screen

 

 

 

 

 

 

readers 4.33
Going through the tutorials 5.00
The tutorials explained the

steps very clearly 5,50
Readiryq the overview section 4.83
The site showed accessibility

is easy to practice 5.33
it's not too far from what I

already know 5.00

 

The site showed me that
implementing accessibility will
not be too different from what I

 

 

 

 

 

 

already practice 5.17
The site showed that

accessibility is important 5.33
The site showed how I can

build better websites 5.67
Other 4.50

 

Table E14. Features of the Website that Persuaded Participants to Consider Web Accessibility

Number
0%
0%

Neutral 17%
33%
3 50%

Table E15. Returning to projectACCESS! website for help

 

Participants’ comments about what appeals to them about considering Web
accessibility:
“attractiveness and information”

“saving time, new ideas.”

69

“The fact that Web developers need to think about it at the very beginning stages, not as
an after thought because by then, it may be too late to spend the time to fix a Website or

pages.”

Participants’ comments about what does not appeals to them about considering
Web accessibility:

“1. my lack of knowledge on this 2. lack of perceived need”

“different methods to create websites”

“Although it can be a little more time consuming during the creation phase, the benefits

at the end pay off greatly.”

70

   

llllllllfljllflljlilliljljlfl