Accessibility of academic library web sites in North America Current status and trends (2002-2012)

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present longitudinal data on the accessibility of 56 North American academic library web sites, as well as insights into the connection between accessibility and certain design methods and technologies. Design/methodology/approach – Bobby 3.1.1 was used to evaluate compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Also studied were the main method of page layout (CSS versus HTML tables), whether a content management system was used, and whether skip-navigation links were employed. Findings – The percentage of Bobby-approved pages has remained consistent around 60 per cent in 2010 and 2012. However, the percentage of errors per page, a metric more sensitive to the pervasiveness of accessibility barriers, has steadily and significantly decreased. Sites whose layouts are built with cascading style sheets have fewer errors per page than those that use tables for layout. Sites that use a CMS have considerably higher percentages of approved pages and fewer errors per page than sites that are not built with a CMS. Research limitations/implications – The principal tool used, Bobby 3.1.1, is capable of detecting only a subset of accessible design principles. Future studies should examine compliance with the newer WCAG 2.0 guidelines. Practical implications – The use of a content management system may have a positive impact on accessibility. While this study reveals some promising trends, more education and continued advocacy is needed to increase web accessibility at libraries. Originality/value – This is the only study that provides up-to-date trend information about the accessibility of a broader set of academic library web sites (a set not limited to one state) over an extended time period. It is also the only accessibility study comparing academic library web sites that use a content management system to those that do not. Keywords Academic libraries, Accessibility, People with disabilities, Web design, Content management systems (CMS), Cascading style sheets (CSS), United States of America, Canada Paper type Research paper Introduction To a large extent, disability is a social construct. To look at disability as a condition residing within certain individuals, as a malfunction or medical problem of sorts, does The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0737-8831.htm LHT 31,1 8 Received November 2012 Revised December 2012 Accepted December 2012 Library Hi Tech Vol. 31 No. 1, 2013 pp. 8-33 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0737-8831 DOI 10.1108/07378831311303903 not do justice to the matter; nor does it do those affected by it any good. If we conceptualize disability in terms of what people can do, or cannot do, under certain conditions, these conditions are at least as important to the overall picture as specific bodily (dys)functions (see also Jones, 1996; and Liachowitz, 1988). This applies not only to the physical environment, but also to the online world. For example, for blind people who use screen readers (software) to access information on the web to be successful, the sites they visit have to be designed with accessibility for all in mind. Two key authoritative documents provide guidance on how to design accessible web sites: worldwide, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines developed by the Worldwide Web’s Web Accessibility Initiative (W3C/WAI), first issued in 1999 and re-issued in 2008 in their revised version (WCAG 2.0); and in the United States (US), the federal Access Board standards issued under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1964, as amended in 1998, and in effect since 2001 (World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), 1999, 2008; United States Access Board, 1998, 2001). Especially in the world of academia, access to information is of utmost importance. The accessibility of a university library web site, which functions as a gateway to its many information resources (catalog, article databases, digital collections, online tutorials, e-reserve, etc), is thus of particular concern. Without access, neither students nor faculty can pursue the research necessary for their advancement. Schmetzke (2001) observed that only a handful of universities in the US had adopted web accessibility policies. In a similar vein, WebAIM (2004) contended that the majority of universities do not have a policy designed to ensure across-campus web accessibility. Only a few years later, Schmetzke (2005) found web accessibility policies for 12 of the 13 larger campuses within the University of Wisconsin System (University of Wisconsin Library, 2005). In 2007, Bradbard et al. (2010) collected data indicating that the vast majority of land-grant universities (50 out of 58) now had web accessibility policies in place. However, a number of policy elements were not covered by over half of the institutions. Most often neglected were “time frame for implementation” (78 percent) and “violations of the standards” (88 percent). No nationwide data specific to accessible web policies at academic libraries are available. A cursory web search yielded surprisingly few hits – Penn State University Libraries (n.d.), Yale University Library (n.d.), and the University Library at California State University, Long Beach (n.d.). Institutions, which have a campus-wide policy in place may not have seen a need for library-specific policies. Regardless of whether academic libraries have their own accessible web policies, or whether the respective design issues are covered under the broader campus policies, it remains questionable whether they are sufficient (see the Bradbard et al. study above) and whether they are properly implemented. Data revealing the actual conformance of library web pages to accepted accessible design principles are thus as badly needed today as they were when the web was still in its infancy. This study provides insight into the accessibility of academic library web sites by looking at data collected over the course of the past ten years. By comparing data from previous studies (2002 data, published by Schmetzke, 2003; and 2006 data, published by Comeaux and Schmetzke, 2007) and two sets of more recently collected data (2010 and 2012), this study provides a current snapshot of web accessibility at selected North American libraries, as well as insights into trends and changes that have occurred over the past decade.