1 / 42

Aims of the Formal Investigation

The Web: Access and Inclusion for Disabled People The DRC Formal Investigation into Website Accessbility Helen Petrie Centre for Human Computer Interaction Design City University London. Aims of the Formal Investigation. 1. Systematically evaluate accessibility of the Web in Great Britain

svein
Download Presentation

Aims of the Formal Investigation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Web: Access and Inclusion for Disabled PeopleThe DRC Formal Investigation into Website AccessbilityHelen PetrieCentre for Human ComputerInteraction Design City University London

  2. Aims of the Formal Investigation • 1. Systematically evaluate accessibility of the Web in Great Britain • 2. Analyse recurrent barriers to Web accessibility 3. Make recommendations for further work which wil contribute towards enabling disabled people to enjoy full access to, and use of, the Web

  3. Aim 1: • Systematically evaluate • the accessibility of the Web • in Great Britain

  4. User Panel • Established User Panel of 50 disabled people - wide range of relevant disabilities, age, gender, ethnicity, experience with technology and Internet, assistive technologies used in accessing the Web • blind • partially sighted • Deaf and hard of hearing • dyslexic • physically impaired • Wide range of ages, gender, ethnicity, geographic location, experience with Web, assistive technologies used in accessing the Web

  5. User Panel • Our sincere thanks to the User Panel for all their time and effort [in exceptionally “hot” conditions] • We are very proud to have worked with them, and to have created together a uniquely user focussed body of research on Web accessibility • Conducted interviews, focus groups, exploratory Web sessions, in-depth user evaluations of Websites

  6. Sample of 1000 websites • Took a representative sample of websites of interest and important to disabled people in Great Britain • Five main categories: • Government and information • Businesses (SMEs to multinationals) • E-commerce (banking, travel, retail…) • Entertainment and leisure • Web services (ISPs, portals, search engines, chat rooms …)

  7. Creating the sample of 1000 Websites • Generated as many sub-categories as possible within each key category: • studied portals such as yahoo, msn, firstsites • Suggestions from user panel • Produced about 75 sub-categories • Conducted searches on sub-category name + .uk • Also used a range of popularity ratings from Alexa, so not only the most popular sites

  8. Automated testing • Automated testing of the 1000 home pages • Criteria: the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (version 1.0) - those items in the Guidelines which can be checked automatically Used WebXM from Watchfire to conduct automated testing - only product providing comprehensive testing and support

  9. Results of automated testing • 19% of home pages (192) passed the automatic Priority 1 checks, so less than 19% would be fully Priority 1 compliant (WAI A Conformance) • 32.2% of government/information Website home pages passed automatic Priority 1 checks • No other differences between the sectors

  10. Results of automated testing • only 6 (0.6%) of home pages passed Priority 1 + Priority 2 automatic checks • But only 2 (0.2%) passed both automatic and manual checks at Priority 1 + Priority 2 (AA Conformance) • No home pages passed Priority 1 + Priority 2 + Priority 3 (even automatic checks) (AAA Conformance) • Conclusion: basic technical accessibility very poor

  11. Measuring accessibility in more detail • also developed two more detailed measures of website accessibility: • Designer metric = number of different Checkpoints violated • (relates to how many different things the designer needs to address) • User metric = number of instances of Checkpoint violations • (relates to the number of problems a user may experience on a page; of course an individual disabled user isn’t affected by all checkpoints and unlikely to read the entire page, but measures the potential number of problems)

  12. Example of the two new metrics • Different Checkpoints violated on a particular page: • 1.1 provide alt text on images • 12.1 title each frame • Designer metric = 2 • Instances of Checkpoint violations on a particular page: • no alt text on images 10 • frames not titled 3 • User metric = 13

  13. Designer metric • a mean of 7.7 different Checkpoints violated • per home page • plus a mean of 39 different Checkpoints warnings • User metric • a mean of 108 instances of violations • per home page • plus a mean of 239 instances of warnings • Conclusion: no wonder disabled people have problems with the Web!

  14. In-depth testing of 100 Websites • Selected 100 websites from the 1000 on the basis of a number of measures: • the 5 categories • use of different Web technologies • accessibility level on automated testing

  15. Automated testing of whole site or the first 500 pages in the site • In total we have conducted automated testing on 39,000 web pages • The largest and most comprehensive study of Website accessibility ever undertaken

  16. User evaluations • Testing whether sites conform to the WAI Guidelines is important, but what we are really trying to achieve is websites that disabled people can use • So wanted to compare the results from the automated testing with user evaluations - getting the User Panel to undertake real tasks on the Web in realistic situations

  17. User evaluations • First session: at our lab, with researcher next to the user • Procedure: free exploration • 2 representative tasks (e.g. find out current interest rate) • questions from the researcher (rating scales, open ended) • Evaluated 2 - 3 web sites this way

  18. User evaluations • Users then used the same procedure in their own time [“homework” - at home, office…] • evaluated 7 - 8 other websites for homework • each member of the User Panel evaluated 10 web sites in total • target was 1000 tasks = 50 users x 10 sites x 2 tasks • 913 tasks actually attempted, logged and analysed

  19. Success at tasks • Overall, panel members were successful on only 76% of the tasks • but also significant differences between impairment groups: • blind successful on 53% • partially sighted 76% • dyslexic 83% • Deaf/hearing impaired/physically impaired 85% • So, blind participants unable to complete nearly half the tasks

  20. Ease of task ratings • Difficult …. Easy • Blind 61% 32% • Partially sighted 48 51 • Dyslexic 43 53 • Deaf/Hard of hearing 36 63 • Physically Impaired 29 64 • So, partially sighted and dyslexic people also disadvantaged, although not as severely as blind people

  21. Problems the users encountered • 585 different problems were encountered • 55% (319) related to the WAI Checkpoints, but 45% not (266) • Need to use the Guidelines, a site which violates them will definitely not be accessible, but currently also need user testing • Guidelines are necessary but not sufficient

  22. Of the 55% (319) problems related to the checkpoints • 8 Checkpoints accounted for 82% (262) of these (45% of all 585 problems identified) • 80/20 rule - 80% problems are easy to track down, last 20% take much more effort

  23. Checkpoints accounting for most problems • 1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element [P1] • 2.2 Ensure that foreground and background colour combinations provide sufficient contrast [P2 /P3] • 6.3 Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets and other programmatic objects are turned off [P1] • 7.3 Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid movement in pages [P2]

  24. 10.1 Until user agents (=browsers, assistive technologies) allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear … [P2] • 12.3 Divide large blocks of information into more manageable groups where natural and appropriate [P2] • 13.1 Clearly identify the target of each link [P2] • 14.1 Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site’s content [P1]

  25. Interestingly, of these 8 Checkpoints: • 3 Priority 1 • 4 Priority 2 • 1 Priority 2/3 • So the Priority levels in the WAI Guidelines could be refined

  26. If developers would address these 8 issues, the Web would be a lot more accessible and usable for disabled people • These 8 Checkpoints should form the bedrock of web design • They are not enormously difficult and they do not inhibit creativity or innovation in web design

  27. The accessibility gap and the usability bonus • Controlled study of six Websites to see how disenfranchised blind people are on the Web • Three sites with high technical accessibility • Three sites with low technical accessibility • Blind and sighted users undertaking representative tasks • main measure - time taken to complete task

  28. For the sighted/non disabled users: • Average task time • High accessibility sites 36 seconds • Low accessibility sites 52 seconds • Conclusion: Accessible sites are also usable sites

  29. The good news for website developers (and owners) • The benefits of addressing accessibility issues - you also address the usability issues • Extreme website testing - test your site with disabled users and you will deal with accessibility and usability

  30. Aim 2: • Analyse recurrent barriers to • Web accessibility

  31. Survey of website owners and website developers • Sent questionnaires to 712 website owners in public and private sectors • randomly selected • 89 questionnaires returned [suggests a degree of apathy?] • Interviewed 21 website commissioners and 25 website developers • also randomly selected

  32. Website commissioners • Large organizations seemed to be well aware of the issues of Web accessibility, their responsibilities under the DDA • 68% said they took accessibility into account when commissioning their Website (unfortunately it doesn’t seem to have had much effect) • SMEs • less aware of the topics • 29% said they took accessibility into account

  33. Perceived barriers • Cost (money, time, staff resources) • Low level of knowledge of the issues and how to address them • Myths of web accessibility: • incompatibility between sophisticated Websites and accessibility • incompatibility between creativity/ innovation on the Web and accessibility

  34. Website developers • 80% said they attempted to develop accessible Websites at least some of the time • Best argument with clients for accessibility is increased in potential audience for the Website • Reported lack of interest by those commissioning Websites • Level of expertise low: only 9% claimed any sort of expertise

  35. Conclusions • Current state of Website accessibility is poor • Blind people are the most disenfranchised, but partially sighted and dyslexic people also badly affected • Doing 8 things will make a big difference to accessibility of the Web • Automated testing necessary but not sufficient • User involvement is very important - will address both accessibility and usability • Awareness and training for web developers and website owners is vital

  36. Many thanks to the research team … • At CHCID (in alphabetical order): • Christine Booth, Wendy Fisher, Kulvinder Gill, • Fraser Hamilton, Neil King, Terry Hoi-Ya Ma, • Claire Paterson and Panayiotis Zaphiris • At Watchfire: • Liam Bowes and Michael Cooper

  37. www.copac.ac.uk

  38. www.egg.com

  39. www.oxfam.org.uk

  40. sisonline.org

  41. www.whoohoo.co.uk

  42. More detailed information about the Formal Investigation can be found at: • www-hcid.soi.city.ac.uk/rhDrc.html • or contact me at: • h.l.petrie@city.ac.uk

More Related