.tipuri Dizabilitate Cercetare [619615]

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Improving web accessibility: a study of
webmaster perceptions
Jonathan Lazar *, Alfreda Dudley-Sponaugle,
Kisha-Dawn Greenidge
Department of Computer and Information Sciences and Center for Applied Information Technology,
Towson University, 8000 YorkRoad, Towson, MD 21252, USA
Abstract
Large percentages of web sites continue to be inaccessible to people with disabilities. Since
tools and guidelines are available to help designers and webmasters in making their web sites
accessible,itisunclearwhysomanysitescontinuetobeinaccessible.Inthispaper,wepresentthe ‘‘Web Accessibility Integration Model,’’ which highlights the multiple points within webdevelopment where accessibility can be incorporated or forgotten. It is uncertain why web-
masters do not use the various tools and guidelines that currently are available for making
web sites accessible. A survey was created, and data was collected from 175 webmasters,indicating their knowledge on the topic of web accessibility and the reasons for their actions
related to web accessibility. Findings and future directions for research are discussed.
#2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The world wide web provides a wealth of information, and the user population of
the web is diverse, including users of all ages, educational levels, and levels of com-putingexperience( Shneiderman,2000 ).Manyusersofthewebhavevarioustypesof
disabilities. These disabilities include sensory (e.g. hearing and vision), motor (e.g.
limited use of hands) and cognitive (e.g. learning disabilities) impairments. Theseusers with disabilities use various forms of assistive technology to allow them tobrowse web sites. Assistive technologies include hardware and software such asscreen readers, voice recognition, alternative pointing devices, alternate keyboards,and refreshable Braille displays ( Paciello, 2000 ).
Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&&)&–&
www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh
0747-5632/$ – see front matter #2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.018* Corresponding authors. Tel.: +1-410-704-2255; fax: +1-410-704-3868.
E-mail address: [anonimizat] (J. Lazar).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Users with disabilities can only utilize a web site if it is designed to be compatible
with the various assistive technologies. A web site that is sufficiently flexible to beused by all of these assistive technologies is called an accessible web site ( Slatin &
Rush, 2003 ). An accessible web site is very similar to an accessible building. An
accessible building offers curb cuts, ramps, and elevators to allow a person withdisabilities to enter and navigate through the building with ease. An accessible website offers similar functionality.
Accessibility is not just a high-level theoretical goal. Currently, there are guide-
lines that web developers can follow so that their web sites can be accessible. Forinstance, the Web Accessibility Initiative provides guidelines, called the Web Con-tent Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) to help developers make their web sites
accessible (http://www.w3.org/wai). The United States Government offers similar
guidelines toweb developers, which are included in the Section 508initiative (http://www.section508.gov). A copy of the Section 508 guidelines is included in Appendix
A.Inaddition,automatedsoftwaretoolsareavailabletohelpfindaccessibilityflaws
in web sites before the sites are publiclyposted. These software toolsinclude Bobby,RAMP, InFocus, and A-Prompt ( Ivory, Mankoff, & Le, 2003 ). In addition, new
versions of web development tools (such as DreamWeaver and FrontPage) includetoolsthatassistdeveloperswithaccessibility-relatedissues.Giventhattheguidelines
andtoolsarethere,itseemshopefulthatmostwebsiteswouldbeaccessible.Infact,
many governments make web accessibility a requirement for government inform-ation on the web. The United States, England, Canada, Portugal, and Australiarequire some types of government information to be accessible ( Slatin & Rush,
2003).
Unfortunately, most web sites are not currently accessible. Recent studies point
out that large percentages (70–98%, depending on the category of site) of websites are not accessible. For instance, in recent studies, private and non-profit
web sites ( Lazar, Beere, Greenidge, & Nagappa, 2003 ), for-profit commerce web
sites (Sullivan & Matson, 2000 ), USstate web sites ( Ceaparu & Shneiderman,
2002), and even USFederal web sites ( Stowers, 2002 ) were found to have major
accessibility problems. In addition, over time, web sites are getting more inac-cessible (Lazar & Greenidge, in preparation ), as accessibility violations have been
added to sites.
Websitesneedtobeaccessibletoallusers, includingthosewithdisabilities.Given
all of the resources available for making web sites accessible, it is unclear why they
remainsoinaccessible. Our goal is to learn more about why sites are not accessible.
Since the person that has the greatest influence on currently-existing web sites isthe webmaster, the researchers decided to start the investigation with webmasters.The researchers created a survey to learn more about webmasters and their per-ceptions and knowledge on the topic of web accessibility. The results of that surveyare discussed in this paper. In addition, we have created a model, called the WebAccessibility Integration Model, which describes the various ways that accessibilityflaws enter a web site. Our goal with this research is to increase the knowledge
about why web sites are not accessible, so that we can make the web a more
accessible place.2 J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–&

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2. Web Accessibility Integration Model
Web accessibility levels are low, yet the tools and guidelines exist to help. Thus, it
remains unclear why this is the case. To help in understanding the problem, the
researchers created a model, called the Web Accessibility Integration Model, whichhighlights the various influences on the accessibility, or inaccessibility, of a web site.The hope is that this model will help spur other researchers to investigate all of thedifferent angles of accessibility and to learn how to make sites more accessible.
In the Web Accessibility Integration Model, there are three categories of influ-
ences on web accessibility: societal foundations, stakeholder perceptions, and webdevelopment. Fig. 1presents a graphical representation of these categories and the
components within each category.
2.1. Societal foundations
Societyplacesvalueondifferentskillsets.Howmuchiswebaccessibilityvalued?It
varies. Accessibility, or designing computers for people with disabilities, is not astandard part of any national curriculum in Computer Science (CS), InformationSystems(IS), or Information Technology (IT) ( Lazar, 2002 ). In addition, training in
accessibility for current IT workers is rare outside of government. At the same time,
policy and law in many countries encourage web accessibility, and in fact, manygovernmentwebsitesarelegallyrequiredtobeaccessible.Presentstatisticsonacces-sibilityareshocking,yettheydonotseemtoinfluencepeopletomakemorewebsitesaccessible or change the patterns of education. This is conflicting: education in
Fig. 1. Web accessibility integration model.J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–& 3

ARTICLE IN PRESS
accessibility, is in fact missing, but accessibility is noted by government as a societal
priority.
2.2. Stakeholder perceptions
Societal foundations help to influence the stakeholders involved in a specific web
site development project. The people who decide whether a site will be built foraccessibility or not are the web developers and the clients. It is likely that if neitherof these groups of people are aware of or passionate about web accessibility, then aweb site will be built to be inaccessible. What influences the stakeholders on theirperceptions of web accessibility? Societal foundations such as education, training,
government policy, and accessibility statistics in the news can all help form the
perceptions of web developers and stakeholders.
2.3. Web development
The societal foundations and stakeholder perceptions influence the actual web
development. There is another impact on both initial site design and subsequent re-design:guidelinesandtools.Theseguidelinesandtoolshelpnotonlywebdevelopers
and webmasters with guidance, but also these guidelines and tools help provide the
current ‘‘working definition’’ for web accessibility. Web developers and webmastersare likely to follow the tools and guidelines that are available to them. Good, well-written guidelines, and powerful software tools are likely to help improve levels ofaccessibility. Poorly-written, confusing guidelines, and hard to use or unclear soft-ware tools are likely to keep sites from becoming accessible.
Giventhatwebdevelopersandwebmastershavealotofinfluenceonwhetherweb
sites become accessible, we are interested in learning what these groups know, what
their perceptions of accessibility are, and how changes could be made (in tools,
guidelines, education, law, etc.) to improve current levels of web accessibility. Whilethis study focuses on webmasters (people who manage currently-existing web sites),we do think that in the future, web developers are an important group to study.
3. Research methodology
Asurveywasdeveloped, with questionsaskingwebmastersabouttheir knowledge
of web accessibility and their perceptions of when and why web sites should orshould not be accessible. The goal of this survey was to be exploratory in nature.Web accessibility is not a topic that has been researched in great depth. Whileguidelines for web accessibility exist, research surrounding the effectiveness of thoseguidelines, how IT workers interact with those guidelines, and reasons for imple-menting accessibility, do not exist.
The goal of this research is to learn more about why webmasters do or do not
make their web sites accessible, and provide avenues for future, more focused
research. After development, the survey was then pre-tested for clarity, and the4 J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–&

ARTICLE IN PRESS
survey was then posted on the web. Guidelines for good web survey usability were
followed ( Lazar & Preece, 1999 ). Information about the survey was distributed to a
numberoflistservers(inthefieldsofIS,CS,ManagementInformationSystems,and
Library Science) that include webmasters, and webmasters that were known to the
research team were also invited to participate. Since the goal of the survey was notto create population estimates, a diverse sample, rather than a random sample, wassufficient, and the methods used were appropriate for ensuring a diverse sample(Lazar & Preece, 2001 ). A copy of the survey is included in Appendix B . A total of
175 webmasters responded to the survey.
4. Results
Since this is a paper focusing on the topic of accessibility, the researchers decided
to present data in tabular format, even if the same data is available in graphicalformat. We feel that this helps improve the accessibility for users with assistivetechnology such as screen readers.
4.1. Demographics
Of the 175 respondents, 103 indicated that they were male, and 72 respondents
indicated that they were female. Table 1andFig. 2report these data. Table 2and
Table 1
Respondents by gender
Gender Number
Male 103
Female 72
Fig. 2. Gender of webmasters.J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–& 5

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 3report the age of survey respondents. Of the respondents, seven reported that
theyarebetween18–24yearsold,86reportedthattheyarebetween25–35yearsold,47reportedthattheyarebetween36–45yearsold,29respondentsreportedthatthey
are46–60yearsold,fiverespondentsreportedthattheyarebetween60–70yearsold,
and one respondent reported that they are above 70 years old. Table 3andFig. 4
address the experience level reported by survey respondents. Interestingly, no oneconsidered himself/herself a novice user, while 119 respondents indicated that theyare computer experts, and 56 indicated that they are intermediate computer users.Data inTable 4andFig. 5show that the respondents not only represented the
United States, but agood number ofrespondents were also from other countries. Inaddition, different types of organizations (e.g. education, government, health care,
and corporations) are well-represented. The data for the organization type is avail-
able inTable 5andFig. 6.
4.2. Responses to main survey questions
Questions 1–9 are closed-ended questions, focusing on current and future web site
accessibility, webmaster knowledge, and webmaster experience with various soft-ware tools. Table 6displays the frequencies for each question, and Fig. 7displays
the data graphically.
Table 2
Age group
Age group Number
18–24 7
25–35 86
36–45 47
46–60 29
60–70 5
70+ 1
Fig. 3. Age groups of survey respondents.6 J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–&

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 3
Computer experience
Computing experience Number
Expert 119
Intermediate 56
Fig. 4. Computing experience of respondents.
Fig. 5. Location of webmasters.Table 4
Location of webmasters
Location Number
United States 79
International 25
Left blank 71J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–& 7

ARTICLE IN PRESS
For question 1, ‘‘Have you ever created a web site that is accessible for users with
visual impairments?’’, 115 respondents (65.7%) indicated that they had previouslycreated an accessible web site, 47 respondents (26.9%) indicated that they had not
createdanyaccessiblewebsite,andonerespondent(0.5%)wasnotsure.Pleasenote
that 12 respondents did not respond to this question.
For question 2, ‘‘Are you familiar with the Section 508 laws by the US Federal
governmentorsimilarlawsfromothergovernmentsaroundtheworld(i.e.Portugal,Canada, England, and Australia)?’’, 129 respondents (73.7%) indicated that theywere familiar with the laws, two respondents (1.1%) indicated that they were notfamiliarwiththe laws, and 13 respondents (7.4%) were not sure. Please note that 31respondents did not respond to this question.
Forquestion3,‘‘IsyourwebsitesubjecttotheUSFederalGovernment’sruleson
accessibility?’’, 43 respondents (24.6%) indicated that their web sites were subject toSection 508, 101 respondents (57.7%) indicated that their web sites were not subjectto Section 508, and 30 respondents (17.1%) were not sure. Please note that onerespondent did not respond to this question.
For question 4, ‘‘Is the web site that you are currently overseeing accessible to
users with visual impairments?’’,’’ 98 respondents (56.0%) indicated that their cur-rent web site is accessible, 38 respondents (21.7%) indicated that their current web
site was not accessible, and 38 respondents (21.7%) were not sure. Please note that
one respondent did not respond to this question.
Fig. 6. Organizational types.Table 5
Organizational type
Organizational area Number
Education 66
Government 20
Other 39
Health care 10
Corporate 408 J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–&

ARTICLE IN PRESS
For question 5, ’’Are you aware that there are software tools that can check your
web site to see if it is accessible, and provide useful feedback?’’, 138 respondents
(78.9%)werefamiliarwiththeavailabilityofsoftwaretools,28respondents(16.0%)were not familiar with software tools, and five respondents (2.9%) were not sure.Please note that three respondents did not respond to this question.
For question 6, ‘‘Have you ever used a free web-based accessibility tool, e.g.
Bobby?’’, 121 respondents (69.1%) indicated that they had used free web-basedtools, 50 (28.6%) respondents indicated that they had not, and one respondent(0.5%) was not sure. Please note that three respondents did not respond to this
question.
For question 7, ‘‘Have you ever used a non-web-based accessibility tool, e.g. A-
Prompt, INFOCUS, PageScreamer?’’, 38 respondents (21.7%) indicated that theyhad used non-web-based tools, 132respondents (75.4%) indicated that they hadnotused such tools, and four respondents (2.3%) were not sure. Please note that onerespondent did not respond to this question.
For question 8, ‘‘Have you ever tested your web site using a screen reader? (A
screen reader reads the text out loud in computer-synthesized speech)?’’, 68 respon-
dents (38.9%) indicated that they had tested web sites using screen readers, 105
respondents (60%) indicated that they had not tested sites using screen readers, and
Fig. 7. Statistics of questions 1–9.Table 6
Responses to questions 1–9
Answer Question
1234 56789
Yes 115 129 43 98 138 121 38 68 103
No 47 2 101 38 29 50 132 105 37Not sure 1 13 30 38 5 1 4 1 30
Left blank 12 31 1 1 3 3 1 1 5J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–& 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS
one respondent (0.5%) was not sure. Please note that one respondent did not
respond to this question.
For question 9, ‘‘Does your organization have any plans to make your web site
accessible to users with visual impairments in the future?’’, 103 respondents (58.8%)
indicatedthattheirorganizationisplanningonaccessibility,37respondents(21.1%)indicated that no accessibility improvements were planned, while 30 respondents(17.1%) were not sure. Please note that five respondents did not respond to thisquestion.
Therearesomeparadoxesfromquestions1–9.Forinstance,138respondentswere
familiarwiththeexistenceofautomatedsoftwaretoolstohelpwithaccessibility,butonly 98 respondents indicated that their web sites were accessible. In another exam-
ple,129respondentsindicatedthattheywerefamiliarwithgovernmentlawsrelating
toaccessibility,eventhoughthoselawsonlyappliedto43oftherespondents.Sadly,only 103 of the respondents indicated that their organizations are planning to haveaccessible web sites in the future.
Thenextquestion,question10,askedrespondentsiftheywerefamiliarwiththethree
setsofguidelinescomingoutoftheWebAccessibilityInitiative(http://www.w3.org/wai).Table 7displays the raw data and Fig. 8displays the data graphically. Interestingly
enough,112peopleindicatedthattheywerefamiliarwiththewebcontentaccessibility
Table 7
Familiarity with the various web accessibility initiative guidelines
Web accessibility initiative guidelines NumberWeb content accessibility guidelines 112
Authoring tool accessibility guidelines 1
User agent accessibility guidelines 2
Not familiar with any 40
Fig. 8. Familiarity of accessibility guidelines.10 J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–&

ARTICLE IN PRESS
guidelines (known as WCAG), the main guidelines for web accessibility of pages.
Other guidelines from the WAI were barely known. Only one respondent reportedbeing familiar with the authoring tool guidelines, and two people reported being
familiarwiththeuseragentguidelines.Thisisnotsurprising,sincemostwebmasters
would only be designing web content, rather than authoring tools or agents. Fortyrespondents indicated that they were not familiar with any of the WAI guidelines,and 20 respondents did not answer the question. As a comparison, 129 respondentsindicated that they were familiar with Section 508 and similar governmental rulesfor web accessibility. A few more reported being familiar with Section 508 (129)versus the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (112), but the results were similar.
4.3. Open-ended questions
Because closed-ended questions cannot reveal the complete story behind web-
master perceptions and actions, we decided to include a number of open-endedquestionsonthesurvey.Becausetheseareessentiallyqualitative,andtheresponseswereunpredictable, each question will include a sampling of user responses, as well assome overall trend numbers for when many responses were indicating similar ideas.
Question 11 asked ‘‘What do you think is the biggest challenge of making a web-
site accessible for users with visual impairments?’’
Sample of answers:
Given that I answered ‘no’ to all of the above questions, I suppose that edu-
cation of webmasters must be critical
Dealing with design requirements that call for non-underlined links.
Maintaining accessibility while also maintaining the designer’s intent and aes-
thetic sensibility.
Tedium, cost, and compliance with a law that may well get over-turned in the
years to come.
Your clients (i.e. bosses, management) want glitzy web sites that are difficult to
make accessible.
‘Selling’ the importance of accessibility to various stakeholders …[it’s] often
perceived as trivial/non important.
For those survey respondents that answered this question, 24 respondents
mentioned the challenge of balancing accessibility and graphical design, 23respondents mentioned the challenge of convincing clients and management of theimportance of accessibility, 21 respondents mentioned technical challenges, nine
respondents mentioned the lack of funding to address accessibility, nine respon-
dents mentioned the lack of time to address accessibility, seven respondentsJ. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–& 11

ARTICLE IN PRESS
mentioned the need for training, and six respondents mentioned the need for
better software tools.
Question 12 asked ‘‘Who do you think should be responsible for making a web
site accessible for users with visual impairments?’’
The responses to this question were very interesting. Please note that respon-
dents were allowed to select more than one choice. A large percentage of therespondents (143) indicated that webmasters are responsible. Programmers werenoted as responsible by 96 respondents, the disability compliance office was cited by87 respondents, systems analysts were cited by 83 respondents, and the help desk
manager was cited by 28 respondents. These data are presented in Table 8. In their
open-ended responses, most of the respondents indicated that accessibility was notan individual effort. People at all levels, through the development and maintenanceof a web site, should be involved. A very small number of respondents did indicatethat it was not the webmaster’s responsibility, pointing to either the web developeror to upper management.
Sample of answers:
It is everyone’s responsibility to ensure that we do all we can for the handi-
capped.
You do not get accessibility without a joint effort from numerous people with
different responsibilities.
It’s in everyone’s best interest but not everyone has all the answers. All can
contribute.
The Internet must be available to all and all IT professionals have a responsi-
bility to ensure it’s achieved.
If the site is to be truly accessible everyone should be involved/concerned/
responsible.
The developer is responsible
None of the above! Upper management has to mandate it and lead it.Table 8
Responsibility for web site accessibility
Responsible party Number
Webmaster 143
Systems analyst/engineer 83Programmer 96
Help desk manager 28
Disability compliance office 8712 J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–&

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Question 13 asked ‘‘What factors would influence you to make your current site
(government,corporate,and/orpersonal)accessibleforuserswithvisualimpairments?’’
Sample of responses:
Knowing that a significant portion of my user population has visual impair-
ment would be most influential.
If the government told us that we had to [make our site accessible].If such users would show interest-contact us, we would respond
If it’s the law
Tax breaks and other financial incentives to make it feasible and attractive to
businesses.
Legislation would move it [accessibility] up my priority list.Nothing less than [government] mandate. I am sympathetic with visually
impaired users, but they are a minority group.
For those survey respondents that answered this question, 20 respondents indi-
cated that government requirements would influence them the most, 19 respondentssaid that their web site already is accessible, 16 respondents said that knowing thatusers with visual impairment are using their site would influence them, eightrespondents said outside funding would influence them, seven respondents said thatoutside pressure from management or clients would influence them, four respon-
dents said that training would influence them, and four respondents said that better
accessibility software tools would influence them.
Question 14asked ‘‘Whenyou make updates toyour website, doyou consider the
factor of making the site accessible to all users?’’
Yes, but we are limited as to time and resources. We do as much as we can.Yes, unfortunately. Without having to consider such matters, our sites would
be better.
We are redesigning our site and making it accessible is one of our priorities.It’s always on the back of our mind, but our guidelines are not really good at
this point.
For my clients, I emphasize the importance of making a site accessible.
It crosses my mind, but I don’t know what it would take.J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–& 13

ARTICLE IN PRESS
No. We only [design for] those who routinely visit the site.
For those survey respondents that answered this question, 104 respondents indi-
cated that when they update their site, they do consider accessibility; 28 respondents
indicated that they do not consider accessibility; and 16 respondents indicated thatthey try to consider accessibility.
Allfouropen-endedquestionsprovidedglimpses intotheworldofthewebmaster.
Webmasters cited challenges to accessibility such as technical challenges, convincingmanagement and clients of the need for accessibility, and trying to strike a balancebetween good graphical design and accessibility. Nearly all respondents indicatedthat accessibility is a group goal, that webmasters alone cannot solve the problem,
and that accessibility must be incorporated throughout the development and main-
tenance lifecycle. More government regulations, or knowing that users with dis-abilities were using their web sites, seemed to be the greatest incentives towebmasters to make their sites accessible.
While most webmasters either are trying to make their sites accessible, or want to
make their sites accessible given better resources (e.g. funding, training, softwaretools, etc.), there were a few respondents to the survey that scoffed at accessibility,consideringitunnecessary,inappropriate,andanintrusionintotheirgraphicaldesign
sensibilities.Thisissurprising,butitmightbesomethingimportanttonote,thateven
if government policy is stronger, even if software tools are better, and guidelines areclearer,therestillmightbesomeoppositiontomakingwebsitesaccessible.
4.4. Ethical dimensions of web accessibility
Question 15 of the survey asked: ‘‘Do you consider ethics in planning and/or
updating your current websites? Why? Or, Why not?’’
The question was added to determine how computer professionals would respond
to the issue of ethics and web design. The research team deliberately did not give anexplanation of the definition of ethics or what we were implying regarding thisquestion. This was done to help insure the desired outcome from the respondentswithout injecting personal biases from the researchers.
Ethics, when applied to technology-related issues, is recognized as cyberethics.
Cyberethics is defined as ethical quandaries with a technological dimension ( Spinello,
2003).Thereisaplethoraofviewpointsregardingthesubjectofcyberethics( Scharff&
Dusek, 2003 ). For instance, one major question that many professionals within and
withoutthecomputercommunityconsideristhefollowing: Iscyberethicsdifferentfrom
‘‘regular’’ethics? Ethicscanbedefinedasmakingachoicebetweenrightandwrongina
situationthatinvolvesadilemma( Pence,2000 ).Thisdefinitioncanbeappliedtoany-
thingincludingcircumstancesinvolvingcomputertechnology( Johnson,2001 ,p.4).
Another major question professionals consider is the following: Is cyberethics
important? According to Tavani (in press) , ‘‘Few would dispute the claim that the
use of cybertechnology has had a significant impact on our moral, legal, and social
systems. Some also believe, however, that cybertechnology had introduced new and
unique moral problems (p. 6).’’14 J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–&

ARTICLE IN PRESS
The replies to this question are significant because they allow the researchers a
window to webmasters’ perceptions of how they apply ethics.
4.5. Responses
Out of the 175 responses to this question, 166 respondents replied yes. The fol-
lowing are some sample statements from respondents:
Yes, in the sense that I will not use material that is not mine unless I havepermis-
sionfromtheownertouseit.Ialsoavoidviolatingtheprivacyofotherindividuals.
Absolutely. It’s my job as an information professional to consider ethics in
planning/or updating my current websites.
Yes. I work for a web development firm, and I think our website makes a
statement as to our philosophies about accessible web development design.
Yes, because ethically sound businesses garner trust.
Yes. If I don’t do that, how can I say that I try to be ethical in everything I do?
Of the 175 respondents, seven respondents indicated that they did not consider
ethics. ‘‘’’The following are some sample responses:
We deliver facts not religion.No I have never heard of this before this survey.
To be honest, I haven’t really thought of building my web pages as an ethical
issue. I just see it as part of my job.
No, we make client directed updates, they can think about ethics.I do, but sadly the powers that be do not. Websites are designed by people who
care less about blind people and they are paid by executives that only give a
crap about flashy wizzy useless content that disabled people can barely use.
Of the responses, two responses were not clearly yes or no.
Here are the responses:
I find that question insulting. If you’re implying that not creating a visually
impaired version of our site is ‘unethical’
Ethics? What do you mean by that? This question is too vague to be answered,
and I don’t want to guess what you might mean by it …J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–& 15

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Most respondents viewed web accessibility as an ethical issue. Other respondents
pointed to ethics as the responsibility of the client, or the concern of others. Andfinally, a few respondents seemed honestly insulted by the question. While ethical
analyses of the issue of web accessibility have generally pointed to web accessibility
beingamatterofethics( Dudley-Sponaugle&Lazar,2003 ),somerespondentsmight
not have wanted to consider the fact that their behavior, while they viewed it asjustified, was possibly unethical.
5. Conclusion
Given that tools and guidelines are available to help in building accessible web
sites, and given that public policy generally supports web accessibility, it is surpris-ingthatsomanywebsitesareinaccessible.Thisstudyisafirststepinunderstandingwhy so many web sites remain inaccessible. Most webmasters that responded to thesurvey supported the concept of web accessibility, but cited roadblocks to accessi-bilitysuchaslackoftime,lackoftraining,lackofmanagerialsupport,lackofclientsupport, inadequate software tools, and confusing accessibility guidelines. However,there were some webmasters that outright objected to the idea that web sites should
be accessible, did not like the interference in ‘‘their’’ web design, and would only
make web sites accessible if the government forced them to. Future research shouldexamineeachofthesetopicsinmoredepth,andalsoexaminetheperceptionsofwebaccessibility held by other stakeholders, such as web developers, managers, andclients.
Appendix A
Section 508 Guidelines for web accessibility
a. A text equivalent for every non-text element shall be provided (e.g. via ‘‘alt’’,
‘‘longdesc’’, or in element content).
b. Equivalentalternativesforanymultimediapresentationshallbesynchronized
with the presentation.
c. Web pages shall be designed so that all information conveyed with color is
also available without color, for example from context or markup.
d. Documents shall be organized so they are readable without requiring an
associated style sheet.
e. Redundant text links shall be provided for each active region of a server-side
image map.
f. Client-side image maps shall be provided instead of Server-side image maps
exceptwheretheregionscannotbedefinedwithanavailablegeometricshape.
g. Row and column headers shall be identified for data tables.
h. Markup shall be used to associate data cells and header cells for data tables
that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers.16 J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–&

ARTICLE IN PRESS
i. Frames shall be titled with text that facilitates frame identification and
navigation.
j. Pagesshallbedesignedtoavoidcausingthescreentoflickerwithafrequency
greater than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz.
k. A text-only page, with equivalent information or functionality, shall be
provided to make a web site comply with the provisions of this part, whencompliance cannot be accomplished in any other way. The content of thetext-only page shall be updated whenever the primary page changes.
l. When pages utilize scripting languages to display content, or to create
interface elements, the information provided by the script shall be identifiedwith functional text that can be read by assistive technology.
m. When a web page requires that an applet, plug-in or other application be
presentontheclientsystemtointerpretpagecontent,thepagemustprovidealink to a plug-in or applet that complies with x1194.21(a) through (l).
n. When electronic forms are designed to be completed on-line, the form shall
allow people using assistive technology to access the information, field ele-ments,andfunctionalityrequiredforcompletionandsubmissionoftheform,including all directions and cues.
p. A method shall be provided that permits users to skip repetitive navigation
links.
q. When a timed response is required, the user shall be alerted and given suffi-
cient time to indicate more time is required.
(from http://www.section508.gov)
Appendix B
Survey For Webmasters
Survey Questions for Web Masterscreated by: J. Lazar, A. Dudley-Sponaugle, K. GreenidgeDepartment of Computer and Information Sciences, Center for Applied Infor-
mation Technology, Towson University
Demographics
What is your gender?
__Male__FemaleWhat is your age?__18–24__25–35__36–45__46–60
__60–70
__70+J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–& 17

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Choose your organizational area:
__Health Care__Government
__Corporate
__Education__Other: ________How would you classify your computing experience?__Expert__Intermediate__Novice__Not Sure
How many hours a week do you spend on the web?
__0__1__2–4__5–6__7–10__more than 10 hoursQuestions
1. Have you ever created a website that is accessible for users with visual
impairments?__Yes__No__Not Sure2. Are you familiar with the Section 508 laws by the U. S. Federal government orsimilar laws from other governments around the world (i.e., Portugal, Canada,England, Australia)?
__Yes
__No__Not Sure3. Is yourwebsite subject to the U.S. Federal Government’srules on accessibility?__Yes__No__Not Sure4. Is the website that you are currently overseeing accessible to users with visual
impairments?
__Yes__No__Not Sure5.Areyouawarethattherearesoftwaretoolsthatcancheckyourwebsitetoseeifit is accessible, and provide useful feedback?__Yes__No
__Not Sure
6. Have you ever used a free web-based accessibility tool, e.g., Bobby?18 J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–&

ARTICLE IN PRESS
__Yes
__No__Not Sure
7. Have you ever used a non-web-based accessibility tool, e.g., A-Prompt,
INFOCUS, PageScreamer?__Yes__No__Not Sure8.Haveyouevertested yourwebsiteusingascreenreader? (Ascreenreaderreadsthe text out loud in computer-synthesized speech.)__Yes
__No
__Not Sure9.Doesyourorganizationhaveanyplanstomakeyourwebsiteaccessibletouserswith visual impairments in the future?__Yes__No__Not Sure10. Are you familiar with any of the following accessibility guidelines from the
Web Accessibility Initiative? (Check all that apply):
__Web Content Accessibility Guidelines__Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines__User Agent Accessibility Guidelines__Not familiar with any accessibility guidelines11. What do you think is the biggest challenge of making a website accessible forusers with visual impairments? Explain.12. Who do you think should be responsible for making a website accessible for
users with visual impairments? (Check all that apply.)
__Webmaster__Systems Analyst/Engineer__Programmer__Help Desk Manager__Disability Compliance OfficeWhy?__________________________
13. What factors would influence you to make your current site (government,
corporate, and/or personal) accessible for users with visual impairments?__________________________14.Whenyoumakeupdatestoyourwebsite,doyouconsiderthefactorofmakingthe site accessible to all users?_______________________________15. Do you consider ethics in planning and/or updating your current websites?Why or Why not?
__________________________J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–& 19

ARTICLE IN PRESS
References
Ceaparu,I.,&Shneiderman,B.(2002).ImprovingWeb-basedcivicinformationaccess:acasestudyofthe
50 USS tates. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society , 275–282.
Dudley-Sponaugle, A., & Lazar, J. (2003). The ethical implications of web accessibility for users with
disabilities. Proceedings of the Information Resource Management Association 2003 International Con-
ference, 109–111.
Ivory, M., Mankoff, J., & Le, A. (2003). Using automated tools to improve web site usage by users with
diverse abilities. IT and Society ,1(3), 195–236.
Johnson, D. (2001). Computer ethics (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lazar, J. (2002). Integrating accessibility into the information systems curriculum. Proceedings of the
International Association for Computer Information Systems , 373–379.
Lazar, J., Beere, P., Greenidge, K., & Nagappa, Y. (2003). Web accessibility in the mid-Atlantic United
States: a study of 50 web sites. Universal Access in the Information Society ,2(4), 1–11.
Lazar, J., Greenidge, K. (2003). One year older, but not necessarily wiser: an evaluation of homepage
accessibility problems over time (under review).
Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (1999). Designing and implementing web-based surveys. Journal of Computer
Information Systems ,39(4), 63–67.
Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (2001). Using electronic surveys to evaluate networked resources: from idea to
implementation. In C. McClure, & J. Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information services: techni-
ques, policy, and issues (pp. 137–154). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Paciello, M. (2000). Web accessibility for people with disabilities . Lawrence, KS: CMP Books.
Pence, G. (2000). A dictionary of common philosophical terms . New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Sharff,R.,&Dusek,V.(Eds.).(2003). Philosophy of technology:the technological condition .Malden,MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Shneiderman, B. (2000). Universal usability: pushing human–computer interaction research to empower
every citizen. Communications of the ACM ,43(5), 84–91.
Slatin, J., & Rush, S. (2003). Maximum accessibility . New York: Addison-Wesley.
Spinello,R.(2003). CyberEthics:moralityandlawincyberspace (2nded.).Boston,MA:JonesandBartlett
Publishers.
Stowers, G. (2002). The state of federal web sites: the pursuit of excellence. Available at: http://endow-
ment.pwcglobal.com/pdfs/StowersReport0802.pdf.
Sullivan, T., & Matson, R. (2000). Barriers to use: usability and content accessibility on the web’s most
popular sites. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Universal Usability , 139–144.
Tavani,H.(2004). Ethics technology: ethical issues in an age of information and communication technology .
New York: John Wiley and Sons.20 J. Lazar et al./Computers in Human Behavior &(&&&& )&–&