Upload
alex
View
225
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 Webmaster Accessibility
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webmaster-accessibility 1/20
Computers in HumanBehavior 2 0 (2004)26 9–28 8
www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh
Improvingweb accessibility:a study
of webmaster
perceptionsonathan Lazar*, AlfredaDudle -S onau le,
Abstract
Large percentagesof websitescontinueto be inaccessibleto peoplew ith disab ilities.Since too ls and guidelinesare ava ilab leto he lpde signersand webmastersin makingtheirweb sites accessible,it is unclearwhy so many sites continueto be inaccessible.In thispape r,w e presentthe ‘‘Web AccessibilityIntegrationModel,’’ which highlightsthemultiple points within web develop mentwhere accessib ilitycan be incorporated orforgotten.It is unc erta inwhy web-mastersdo not use the var ious tools and guidelines
that current lyare availablefor making web sitesaccessible.A surveywas created,anddata was collectedfrom 175webmasters,indicatingtheir know ledgeon the top ic of webaccess ibilityand the reasonsfor their actions relatedto web accessibility.Findingsandfuturedirectionsfor res ea rchare discussed .# 2003ElsevierLtd. All rightsreserved.
1. Introduc tion
The worldwideweb provides awealthof information, and the userpopula tion of the web is dive rse,includ ing users of all ages,educational levels, and le vels
of computing experience (Shneiderman, 2000). Many usersof the web have varioustypesof disabilities . These disabilities inc lude sensory(e.g.hearing and vision),
motor (e.g.limited useof hands)and cognitive (e.g.learning disabilit ies) impair-
ments. Theseuserswith disabilities u se variousform s of assis tivetechnologytoallow themto browsewebsites.Assistivetechnologies includehardware and soft
* Corresponding authors. Tel.:+1-410-704-2255;fax:+1-410-704-3868.
E-mailaddress: jlaza r@ towson.ed u (J. Lazar).
0747-5632/$ - seefro nt m atte r# 2003ElsevierLtd. All rights
reserved.
7/31/2019 Webmaster Accessibility
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webmaster-accessibility 3/20
J. Lazar et al. / Computersin Hu manBe havio r20 (2004)269 – 271
2. Web Accessibility Integration Model
Webaccessibi lity leve lsare low, ye t the tools and gu idelinesexistto he lp.Thus,
itremains unclearwhy this is the case. To help in understanding the problem, the
re searcherscreated a model,ca lled the Web Accessib ility IntegrationModel,whichhighlights the variousinfluenceson the accessibility,or inaccessibility ,of a web
site . The hopeis thatthis model will helpspurotherresearchersto investigateall of the
differentanglesof accessibilityand to learnhow to makesitesmore accessible.
2.1 .Societa l fou ndations
Society placesva lueon differentsk illsets. How muchis web accessibilityvalued?
Itvaries. Accessib ility , or designingcomputers for people with disabilities, is not
astandard part of any national curricu lum in Computer Science(CS), Information
Systems (IS), or Info rmation Technology(IT)(La zar, 2002). In addit ion, training inaccessibilityfor currentIT workers is rare outside of gove rnment.At the sam etime ,
policy and law in manycountriesencourageweb accessibility, and in fact,accessible or change the pa tternsof education. This is conflicting: in
Fig. 1. We baccessib ilityintegrat ion
7/31/2019 Webmaster Accessibility
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webmaster-accessibility 4/20
272 J. Lazar et al. / Computersin Hu manBe havio r20 (2004)269 –
accessibility ,is in factmissing,but accessibilityis notedby gove rnment as a
societal
2.2. Stakeholderperceptions
Societalfoundationshelp to influencethe stakeholdersinvolved in a specific
website development project. The people who de cidewhether a site will be builtforaccessibilityor not are the w ebdevelopersand the c lients.It is likely that if neitherof thesegroups of peop leare aw areof or passionateaboutwebaccessibility, thena
2.3.Web development
The societalfoundationsand stakeholder perceptions influence the actual
webdevelopment. There is another impact on both initial site designandsubsequentre -design :guidel inesand tools. Thesegu idelinesand toolshelpnot only webdeve l-
opers and webmasterswith guidance,but also theseguidelinesand tools
helpprovidethe current‘‘working definition’’ for web accessib ility. Web deve lopersandwebmastersare likely to follow the toolsand guide linesthatare ava ilable tothem.
Good, well-written guidelines, and powerfu l softw are tools are likely to helpim prove levels of accessibility.Poorly-written, confusing guidelines, andhard touseor unclearsoftwaretoo lsare like ly to keepsitesfrom becomingaccessible.
3. Research methodology
A surv eywasdeveloped,withquestions askingwebm asters about theirknowledgeof web accessibility and the ir perceptions of whenand why web sites should
orshouldnot be accessible.The goal of thissurveywas to be exploratory in nature.
Web accessibility is not a topic that has been re searched in greatdepth.While
guidelines for web acce ssibility exist, researchsurrounding the effectivenessof
thoseguidelines , how IT workers interactwith thoseguidelines,and reasonsforimplementing accessibility, donot exist . The goalof th is research is to lea rnmoreabout why webmaste rsdo or do no
7/31/2019 Webmaster Accessibility
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webmaster-accessibility 7/20
J. Lazar et al. / Computersin Hu manBe havio r20 (2004)269 – 275
Table 3
Computer
Computing Number
Expert
Intermediate
119
56
Table 4
Locationof
Locatio Number
United
StatesInternational
79
2571
Fig. 4. Comp utingexperienceof
Fig. 5. Locationof webmasters.
7/31/2019 Webmaster Accessibility
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webmaster-accessibility 8/20
276 J. Lazar et al. / Computersin Hu manBe havio r20 (2004)269 –
Table 5
Organizational
Organizational Number
Education
Government
Other
Health
care
66
20
39
10
40
Fig. 6. Organizational
For question 1, ‘‘Have you eve rcreated a website thatis accessiblefor users
withvisua lim pairments?’’, 115 respondents(65.7%)indica tedthat theyhad previously
created an accessible website,47 respondents(26.9% )indicatedthat theyhad notcreated any acce ssible website,and one respon dent(0.5% )wasnot sure.Please
notethat12 respondentsdid no t respondto thisquestion.
For question 2, ‘‘Are you fam iliar with the Sec tion508 lawsby theUS Federal
governmentor similar lawsfromothergovernments around the wor ld(i.e.Portugal,Canada, England, and Australia)?’’, 129 respondents(73.7% )indicated thattheywerefam iliar with the law s,two respondents(1.1%)ind icated that theywere notfamiliar with the laws, an d13 responden ts(7.4% )werenot su re.Ple aseno tethat31
responden tsdid not respondto thisquestion.For question 3, ‘‘Is your website subjectto the USFederalGovernment’s ru leson
accessibility?’’, 43 respond ents (24.6%)indicated thattheirwebs ites weresubject
toSection 508,101respondents (57.7%)ind icated thattheirw ebsiteswerenot subject
to Section 508,and 30 respon dents (17.1% ) were not sure.Pleasenotethat onerespondent did not respondto thisquestion.
For question 4, ‘‘Is the web site that you are cu rrently overse eingacce ssible t
7/31/2019 Webmaster Accessibility
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webmaster-accessibility 9/20
J. Lazar et al. / Computersin Hu manBe havio r20 (2004)269 – 277
Table 6
Respo nsesto qu estio ns1–
Answer Question
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Yes
No
Not sure
Left
115
47
1
12
129
2
13
31
43
101
30
1
98
38
38
1
138
29
5
3
121
50
1
3
38
132
4
1
68
105
1
1
103
37
30
5
Fig. 7. Statisticsof questions 1–
For question5, ’’Are yo u awarethatthereare so ftware tools thatcan check
your
website to s e e if it is accessible,and provideusefulfeedback?’’,138respondents
(78.9%)were familiar with the availability of softwaretools ,28 respond ents(16.0%)werenot familiar with softwaretools,and five respondents(2.9%) werenot sure.
Pleasenotetha tthreerespondentsdid not respondto thisquestion.For question 6, ‘‘Have you everuseda free web-basedaccessibility tool, e.g.
Bobby?’’, 121 resp onde nts (69.1% ) indicated that they had usedfree web-based
tools, 50 (28 .6% )resp ondents indicated that they had not, and one respondent(0.5%)was not sure.Pleasenote that threeresponde ntsdid not respond to thisquestion.
For question 7, ‘‘Have you everused a non-web-basedaccessibility tool, e.g.
A-Prompt,INFOCUS, PageScreamer? ’’,38 respond ents (21.7% )indicated thatthey
hadused non-web-basedtools, 132responden ts(75.4%) indicated thatth eyhad not
usedsuchtools, and four re spondents (2 .3%) were not sure.Pleasenote thatone
respondent did not respondto thisquestion.For question 8, ‘‘Have you evertestedyour we bsite usinga screenreader?(A
screenreader readsthe textout loud in co mpute r-synthesized speech)?’’, 68 re spo
7/31/2019 Webmaster Accessibility
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webmaster-accessibility 10/20
278 J. Lazar et al. / Computersin Hu manBe havio r20 (2004)269 –
one responden t (0.5%) was not sure.Pleasenote that one respondent did
notrespondto thisquestion.
For question 9, ‘‘Does your organizationhaveany plans to makeyourwebsiteaccessible to users withvisualimpairments in the fu ture?’’, 103respondents(58.8%)
indicated thatth eirorganization is planning on acce ssibility, 37 respondents(21.1%)indicated that no accessibility improvements wereplanned, while30
respondents
(17.1% )were not sure.Pleasenote that five respondentsdid not respondtothisquestion.
There aresom eparadoxesfrom questions 1–9.For instance, 138respondentswere
familiar w ith the existenceof automated so ftw aretools to he lp withaccessibility,but only 98 responden tsindicatedthat their web siteswere accessible. Inanotherexample, 129 respondentsindica tedthat theywere familiar with governmentlawsrelating to accessibility, even though those laws only applied to 43of the
Table 7
Familiaritywith the var iousweb accessibility initiat ive
Web accessibility initiat ive Number
Webco ntentaccessibility
guidelines
Auth oringtool accessibility
guide lines
112
1
2
40
Fig. 8. Familiarityof accessibility
7/31/2019 Webmaster Accessibility
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webmaster-accessibility 11/20
J. Lazar et al. / Computersin Hu manBe havio r20 (2004)269 – 279
guid eline s (known as WCAG), the main guidelinesfor webaccessibilityof pages.
Other guidelines from theWAI werebare ly known. Only one respondentreported
beingfamiliar with the authoring tool guidelines, and two people reported
beingfamiliar withthe useragent gu idelines.This is no t surprising,sincemostwebmasters
would only be designing web content, ratherthan authoring toolsor agents. Fortyresponden tsindica tedthat theywere not familiar with any of theWAI guidelines,
and 20 respondents did not answ erthe question.As a comparison, 129
respon en s
4.3. Open-endedquestions
Because closed-ended questions cann ot revealthe com plete story behind web -masterperceptions and actions,we decidedto includea number of open-ended
questions on the su rvey. Because these are essentia lly qualitative, and the responses
were
unpredictab le,eachquestion will includea sampling of user responses, as well as
someoveralltrendnumbersfor whenmanyresponseswere ind ica tingsimilar ideas.
Que stion 11 asked‘‘What do you think is th e biggest challenge of making awebsite accessib le for userswith visua limpairments?’’
Given that I an swered ‘no’ to all of the above que stions, I supposethateducation of webmastersm ustbecritical
Dea lingwithdesignrequirements thatcall for non-underlinedlinks.
Maintaining accessibility while also maintaining the designer’sintent
and
Tedium,cost, and compliance witha law tha tmaywell get over -turnedin th e
yearsto come.
Your clients(i.e.bosses,management)wan tglitzywebsitesthatare di cuffi lt tomakeaccessible.
‘Selling’ the importance of accessibility to variousstakeholders. . .[it’s ]
often
For those survey respo ndents that answeredthis question, 24 respondentsmentioned the challenge of balancing accessib ility and graphical design,
23
respo ndents m entionedthe challenge of convincing clients and management of the im portance of accessibility, 21 respondents mentioned technical challenges,
nine responden ts m entione d the lack of funding to address accessibility,
7/31/2019 Webmaster Accessibility
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webmaster-accessibility 12/20
280 J. Lazar et al. / Computersin Hu manBe havio r20 (2004)269 –
Table 8
Responsibility for website
Responsible Number
Webmaster
Systemsanalyst/engineer
Programmer
Help deskmanager
Disabilitycompliance
143
83
96
28
87
mentioned the need for training,better software tools.
and six respondents mentioned the need for
Que stion 12 asked‘‘Who do you think should be responsible for making a
websiteacce ssiblefor userswithvisualimpairments?’’ The re sponse s to this question werevery interesting. Pleasenote that re spon-
dentswereallowedto selectmore than one choice. A large percentage of therespondents (143 )indicated that webmas tersare responsible. Programme rs were
notedas responsible by 96 respondents,the disability compliance o ceffi wascitedby87 respond ents,system sanalystswere cited by 83 respondents, and the help
desk
managerwascited by 28 respondents.These da taare prese nted in Table 8. Intheiropen-endedresponses,mostof the respondents indicatedthataccessib ility wasnot
It is everyone’s responsibility to ensure that we do all we can for th e
handicapped.
You do not ge t accessibility withouta jo inteffort from numerouspeople
with
It’s in everyone’s bestinterest but not everyonehas all the answ ers .All
can
The Internetmustbe availableto all and all IT professionals havea responsi-bility to ensureit’s achieved.
If the site is to be truly accessib le everyone should be involved/concerned/
responsible.
The deve loperis responsible
Noneof the above!Uppermanagement hasto mandate it and lead
7/31/2019 Webmaster Accessibility
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webmaster-accessibility 13/20
J. Lazar et al. / Computersin Hu manBe havio r20 (2004)269 – 281
Question 13 asked‘‘What factors would influenceyou to makeyour current
sitegovernmen , corpora e, an or persona access e or users w v sua
Knowing that a significant portion of my user population has
visual
If the gove rnment to ld us thatw e had to [makeour siteaccessible].
If suchuserswould showinterest-contact us , we wouldrespond
If it’s the law
Tax breaksand otherfinancia l incentivesto make it feasible and attractive
to
Legislation would move it [accessibility]up my prio rity
Nothing less than [governm ent]man date. I am sympathetic with
visually
For tho sesurveyrespondents that answeredthis question, 20 respondentsindi-
catedtha tgo vernment req uirements wouldinfluence themthe most, 19 respondentssaidthat theirwebsite alreadyis accessible,16 respondentssa id thatknowingthatuserswith visual im pairment are using their site would influencethem,
eightrespondentssaidoutside fundingwould influen cethem ,sevenrespond entssa id
thatoutside pressure from management or clientswould influence them,four respon-
dentssaid thattraining would influencethem,and four respondentssaid tha t
Yes,but we are limited as to time and re sources.We do as much as wecan.
Yes, unfortunately. Withouthavingto cons idersuchmatters, our sites
would
We are rede signingour site and makingit accessib le is oneof our
It’s alwayson the back of our mind,but our guidelines are not reallygood
at
For my clients,I emphasize the im portanceof makinga site
It crosses m y m ind,but I don’tknowwhatit wouldtake.
7/31/2019 Webmaster Accessibility
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webmaster-accessibility 14/20
282 J. Lazar et al. / Computersin Hu manBe havio r20 (2004)269 –
No. W e on ly [designfor]th osewho routinely visit the site .
For thosesurveyrespondents that answ eredth is question,10 4respondents indi-
catedthatwhentheyupdate theirsite, theydo consideraccessibility; 28respondents
indicated that theydo not consideraccessibility; and 16 responde ntsind icatedthattheytry to consideraccessibility.
All fouropen-ende dquestions providedglim psesinto the world of thewebmaster.
Webmasters cited challengesto accessib ility such astechnical challenges,convincingmanagement and clientsof the need for accessibil ity,and try ingto strike abalancebetweengood graphical designand accessibility.Nearly all respondentsindicatedthataccessibility is a groupgoal,thatwebmasters alonecannot so lvetheproblem,and that accessibility must be incorporated throughout the deve lopmentandmaintenance lifecycle. More government regu lations, or knowing that userswith
4.4. Ethical d imen sionsof web
Question 15 of the survey asked:‘‘Do you considerethics in planning and/orupdating you rcurrentwebsites? Why?Or, Why not?’’ The question was addedto determ inehow computerprofessionals wou ldrespondto the issueof ethics and webdesign.The research teamdeliberatelydid notgive
anexp lanation of the definition of ethics or what we were imply ing regarding thisquestion. This wasdoneto help insurethe desiredoutcom efrom the respondents
withoutinjecting pe rsonalbiasesfrom the rese archers .Ethics, when applied to technolog y-related issues,is recognized as cyberethics.
Cyberethics is defined as ethical quandaries with a technological dimension(Spinello,
2003). There is a plethora of viewpoints regarding the subject of cyberethics (Scharff
&
Dusek, 2003). For instance, one major question that many professionals withinand
without the computer community consider is the following : Is cyberethics differentf rom
‘‘regular’’ ethics? Ethics can be defined as making a choice between right and wrongin a
situation that involves a dilemma (Pence, 2000). This definition can be applied
7/31/2019 Webmaster Accessibility
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webmaster-accessibility 15/20
J. Lazar et al. / Computersin Hu manBe havio r20 (2004)269 – 283
The repliesto this question are significant because theyallow the researchers
a
4.5. Responses
Out of the 175 responsesto this question, 166 respondents replied yes. Thefo llo wing are somesa mple statem entsfrom respondents:
Yes, in the sense that I will not use material that is not mine unless I have
permis-
Absolutely. It’s my job as an information professionalto considerethics
in
Yes. I work for a web development firm, and I think our website makesastatementas to our philosophiesabout accessibleweb de ve lopmentdesign.
Yes,becauseeth icallysoundbusinesses garn er
Yes. If I don’t do tha t,how can I say that I try to be ethicalin everythingI
Of the 175respondents, sevenrespondents indicated that theydid not
consider
We deliverfactsnot
No I haveneverheardof this be forethis survey.
To be hones t,I haven’treallythought of building my webpagesas an ethical
issue.I ju stseeit as partof my job.
No, we make client directed updates,theycan think about
I do, but sadlythe powers thatbe do not. Websitesare designed by people
whocarelessaboutblind peopleand theyare paid by executives that only give
Of the responses, two responseswere not clearly yes or
no.
I find that question insulting. If you’re im plying that not creating a
visually
Ethics? What do you meanby that?Th is questionis too vague to be answered,
and I don’t wantto guesswhatyou mightmeanby it. . .
7/31/2019 Webmaster Accessibility
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webmaster-accessibility 16/20
284 J. Lazar et al. / Computersin Hu manBe havio r20 (2004)269 –
Most respondents viewed web accessibilityas an eth ical issue. Other
respondentspointedto ethics as the responsibility of the client, or the concern of others. And
finally, a few respondents se emed honestly insu ltedby the question . Whileethicalanalyses of the issueof webaccessibility havegenerally pointedto web
accessibility
5. Conclusion
Given that tools and guidelines are ava ilable to help in building accessible
websites ,and giventhatpublicpo licy generallysupports we b accessibility,it issurpris -ing thatso many web sitesare inaccess ible. Th is studyis a firs tstepinunderstandingwhyso m anywebsitesrem aininaccessible. Most webmastersthatresponded to the
surveysupported the concep tof web accessibility,but citedroadblocks toaccessi-bilitysuchas lack of time, lackof training,lackof managerial support,lack of client
support, inadequate softwaretools,and confusing accessibilityguidelines.However,
Appendix A
Section 508 Guidelinesfor web
a. A textequivalent for eve rynon-tex t elemen tshal lbe provided (e .g .via
‘‘alt’’,
‘‘longdesc’’,or in elementcontent).Equiva lentalternativesfor any multimed iapresentationshallbesynchronized
with thepresentation.Web pages shallbe des igned so that all information conveyedwith colorisalso availablewithoutcolor, for example from contextor markup.Documents shall be organized so they are readable without requiringanasso ciatedstyle shee t.
Redundant text links shallbe providedfor eachactiveregionof a server-side
im age map.
b.
c.
d.
e .
f.
g.h.
7/31/2019 Webmaster Accessibility
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webmaster-accessibility 17/20
J. Lazar et al. / Computersin Hu manBe havio r20 (2004)269 – 285
i. Framesshall be titled with text that facilitatesframe identification
andnavigation.
Pages shallbe designedto avoid causingth e screento flickerwith afrequencygreater than2 Hz and lower than55Hz.A text-onlypage,with equivalent information or functionality, shall be
providedto makea web site comply with the provisions of this part,whencompliance cannotbe accom plished in any otherway. The contentof the
text-on lypageshallbe upda tedwhenever the primary pa gechanges.
When pages utilize scripting languages to display content, or tocreateinterface elements,the in formation providedby the script shallbeidentifiedwith functional textthatcan be readby assistivetechnology.When a webpage requiresthat an applet,plug-in or otherapplication bepresenton the client system to in te rp re tpage content,the pagemustprovide
a
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
p.
q. When a timed responseis required, the use r shallsu cffi ient time to indicatemoretime is required.
be ale rted and given
(from http://www.section508. gov)
Appendix B
SurveyFor WebmastersSurveyQuestions for WebMasterscre ated by: J. Lazar,A. Dudley-Sponaugle, K. Greenidge
Department of Computer and Information Sciences,
InformationTechnology,TowsonUniversity
Center for Applied
DemographicsWhat is yourgender?
Male Female
What is yourage?
18–24
25–35
36–45
46–60 60–70
70+
7/31/2019 Webmaster Accessibility
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webmaster-accessibility 18/20
286 J. Lazar et al. / Computersin Hu manBe havio r20 (2004)269 –
Chooseyourorganizationalarea: Health Care Government
Corporate Education Othe r:
How would you classify your com puting experience?
ExpertIntermediate
Novice
Not SureHow manyhoursa weekdo you spendon the
web? 1
2–4
5–6
7–10
morethan10 hours
Questions1. Have you ever created a website that is accessible
impairments?
Yes
for userswith visual
No
Not Sure
2.Are you familiar with the Sect ion50 8lawsby theU. S. Federa lgovernmentorsimilar laws from othergovernmentsaroundthe world (i.e.,Portugal, Canada,England, Australia)?
Yes No
Not Sure3. Is your websitesubjectto the U.S. Federa lGovernment’s ruleson accessibility?
Yes
No Not Sure4. Is the website thatyou are currentlyoverseeing acce ssibleto userswith
visualimpairments? No
Not Sure5. Areyo uaw aretha tthe rearesoftw are toolsthatcancheckyou rw ebsite to seeif
it is accessible ,and provideusefu lfeedback? Yes
No Not Sure6. Haveyou everuseda freeweb-basedaccessibi litytool,e.g.,Bobby?
7/31/2019 Webmaster Accessibility
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webmaster-accessibility 19/20
J. Lazar et al. / Computersin Hu manBe havio r20 (2004)269 – 287
Yes No
Not Sure
7. Have you ever used a non-web-based accessib ility tool, e.g., A-Prompt,INFOCUS, PageScreamer?
Yes No
Not Sure8. Ha veyo uevertestedyourw ebsite using a screenreader?(A screenread er
readsthe text out loud in computer-synthesized speech.) No
Not Sure
9. Doesyourorganization have any plansto make your w ebsite accessib le to
userswith visualimpairments in the future ? No
Not Sure
10.Are you familiar with any of the follow ingaccessibility guidelinesfrom
theWeb Accessibility Initiative? (Checkall thatapply): Authoring Tool Accessibility
User AgentAccessibilityNot familiar with any accessib ility guidelines
11. Whatd o you th ink is the biggest challengeof makinga website accessib le
foruserswith visua limpairments?Explain.12. Who do you think should be responsible for makinga websiteaccess ible
for System sAnalyst/Engineer Programmer Help DeskManager
Disability Compliance OfficeWhy?
13.What factors would influenceyou to makeyour currentsite (government,
corporate,and/or personal) accessib lefor userswithvisualimpairments?
14 .When youm akeupdatesto yourw ebsite, do youcons iderthefa ctorof
making
15.Do you considerethics in planning and/orupdating your currentwebsites?
Why or Why not?
7/31/2019 Webmaster Accessibility
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webmaster-accessibility 20/20
288 J. Lazar et al. / Computersin Hu manBe havio r20 (2004)269 –
References
Ceaparu,I., & Shneiderman, B. (2 0 0 2 ).Improving We b-base dcivic informationaccess:a ca sestu dyof
th e50US States.Proceedingsof theIEEE International Symposium on Te ch nologyand Socie ty, 275–
282.
Dudley-Sponaugle,A., & Lazar, J. (2 0 0 3 ). The ethicalim plic ations of webaccessibilityfor users
with
disabilities. Proceedingsof the InformationResource Management Association 2003
International
Conference, 109–111.
Ivory,M., Mankoff, J., & Le, A. (2003).Us ing automated tools to improvewebsiteusageby users
with
diverseab ilities.IT andSociety, 1(3),195–236.
Johnson,D. (2001).Computerethic s(3rded .).Up per Sad dleRive r, NJ: Pre nticeHall.
Lazar, J. (200 2).Integ ratingaccessibility into the inform ation sys tem s cu rriculum. Proceedingsof the
International Assoc iatio nfo r ComputerIn fo rm ationSys te ms, 373–379 .
Lazar,J., Bee re,P., Greenidge,K., & Nagappa, Y. (2003).Webaccessibi lity in the mid -Atlantic
United
States:a studyof 50 we bsites.Un iversal Accessin theIn forma tionSociet y,2(4 ),1–1 1.
Lazar, J., Greenidge,K. (2003).One year older,but not nece ssarilywiser:an eva luationof
homepage
accessibility p roblems overtime(u nd errevie w) .
Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (1999).Designing and imple menting we b-b asedsurve ys.Jou rnalof
Computer
Information Sy stems, 39(4),63 –6 7.
Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (2 0 0 1 ).Using electronicsurveysto evaluatenetworkedresources:from
idea
to implementation. In C. McClure, & J. Berto t (E ds. ),Evaluatingnetworkedinformation services:
techniques,p olicy,andissu es(pp .137–1 54).Medford,NJ: Information Today.
Paciello,M. (2000).Webaccessibil ityfor peo plewithdisa bilities. Lawrence,KS: CMP Books.
Pence,G. (2 0 0 0 ).A dict iona ryof co mm onph iloso ph icalterms. Ne w Yor k: The McGraw-Hill
Companies .
Sharff,R., & Dusek,V. (Eds .).(20 03 ).Ph ilosophy of techno log y:th etechnological condition.Malden,
MA: