Advertisement

Effect of human development level of countries on the web accessibility and quality in use of their municipality websites

  • Yavuz InalEmail author
  • Rita Ismailova
Original Research
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

This study aimed to explore the relationship between human development index (HDI) of countries and level of web accessibility and quality in use of their municipality websites. A list of 146 countries was obtained from the 2016 Global Human Development Report of the United Nations. Of these countries, 49 had a very high HDI, 42 had a high HDI, 33 had a medium HDI, and 22 had a low HDI. For the analysis of web accessibility and quality in use, the official municipality websites of capital cities of each country were found. These websites were tested using automated evaluation tools. The results showed that the global rank of municipality websites, their rank within the country of location, and percentage of incoming traffic within the country of location varied depending on their HDI. Furthermore, the number of websites that passed all WCAG 2.0 success criteria was very low. The analysis on whether the number of accessibility errors in the evaluated websites changed according to the country’s HDI showed that for conformance level A, representing the “must satisfy” checkpoints, the difference was significant. The municipality websites had fewer errors in countries with a higher HDI.

Keywords

Web accessibility Accessibility evaluation Human development index Automated evaluation tools Web performance Municipality websites 

Notes

References

  1. Abanumy A, Al-Badi A, Mayhew P (2005) e-Government website accessibility: in-depth evaluation of Saudi Arabia and Oman. Electron J e-Gov 3(3):99–106Google Scholar
  2. Adepoju SA, Shehu IS, Bake P (2016) Accessibility evaluation and performance analysis of e-government websites in Nigeria. J Adv Inf Technol 7(1):49–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akgül Y (2016) Quality evaluation of E-government websites of Turkey. In: 2016 11th Iberian conference on information systems and technologies (CISTI), pp 1–7. IEEE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Akgul Y, Vatansever K (2016) Web accessibility evaluation of government websites for people with disabilities in Turkey. J Adv Manag Sci 4(3):201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Al-Khalifa HS (2012) The accessibility of Saudi Arabia government web sites: an exploratory study. Univ Access Inf Soc 11(2):201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Al-Khalifa HS, Baazeem I, Alamer R (2017) Revisiting the accessibility of Saudi Arabia government websites. Univ Access Inf Soc 16(4):1027–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alonso-Virgos L, Espada JP, Baena LR, Crespo RG (2018) Design specific user interfaces for people with down syndrome using suitable WCAG 2.0 guidelines. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 9(5):1359–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Al-Soud AR, Nakata K (2010) Evaluating e-government websites in Jordan: accessibility, usability, transparency and responsiveness. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on progress in informatics and computing (PIC), vol 2, pp 761–765. IEEE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Bakhsh M, Mehmood A (2012) Web accessibility for disabled: a case study of government websites in Pakistan. In: 10th international conference on frontiers of information technology, Islamabad, pp 342–347Google Scholar
  10. Baowaly MK, Bhuiyan M (2012) Accessibility analysis and evaluation of Bangladesh government websites. In: IEEE/OSA/IAPR international conference on informatics, electronics & vision, Dhaka, pp 46–51Google Scholar
  11. Choudrie J, Ghinea G, Weerakkody V (2004) Evaluating global e-government sites: a view using web diagnostics tools. In: Academic conferences internationalGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooper J (2015) Introducing LinkMiner by Point Blank SEO. http://pointblankseo.com/linkminer. Accessed Nov 2017
  13. Cumbie BA, Kar B (2016) A study of local government website inclusiveness: the gap between e-government concept and practice. Inf Technol Dev 22(1):15–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doulani A, Hariri N, Rashidi A (2013) Analysis of Iranian and British university websites by world wide web consortium. J Sci Res 2(1):74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gay G, Li CQ (2010) AChecker: open, interactive, customizable, web accessibility checking. In: International cross disciplinary conference on web accessibility, North Carolina, article no. 23Google Scholar
  16. Goodwin M, Susar D, Nietzio A, Snaprud M, Jensen CS (2011) Global web accessibility analysis of national government portals and ministry web sites. J Inf Technol Polit 8(1):41–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hou J, Walsh PP, Zhang J (2015) The dynamics of human development index. Soc Sci J 52(3):331–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ismail A, Kuppusamy KS (2018) Accessibility of Indian universities’ homepages: an exploratory study. J King Saud Univ Comput Inf Sci 30(2):268–278Google Scholar
  19. Ismailova R, Inal Y (2017) Web site accessibility and quality in use: a comparative study of government Web sites in Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkey. Univ Access Inf Soc 16(4):987–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jati H, Dominic DD (2009) Quality evaluation of e-government website using web diagnostic tools: Asian case. In: International conference on information management and engineering, 2009. ICIME’09, pp 85–89. IEEE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Kamoun F, Almourad MB (2014) Accessibility as an integral factor in e-government web site evaluation: the case of Dubai e-government. Inf Technol People 27(2):208–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karaim NA, Inal Y (2017) Usability and accessibility evaluation of Libyan government websites. Univ Access Inf Soc 1–10Google Scholar
  23. Kopackova H, Michalek K, Cejna K (2010) Accessibility and findability of local e-government websites in the Czech Republic. Univ Access Inf Soc 9(1):51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kurt S (2011) The accessibility of university web sites: the case of Turkish universities. Univ Access Inf Soc 10(1):101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuzma JM (2010) Accessibility design issues with UK e-government sites. Gov Inf Q 27(2):141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuzma JM, Yen D, Oestreicher K (2009) Global e-government web accessibility: an empirical examination of EU, Asian and African sites. In: Second international conference on information and communication technologies and accessibility, Hammamet, pp 83–90Google Scholar
  27. Latif MHA, Masrek MN (2010) Accessibility evaluation on Malaysian e-government websites. J e-Gov Stud Best Pract (article ID 935272)Google Scholar
  28. Lee S, Kim BG, Kim JG (2007) Accessibility evaluation of Korean e-Government. In: Stephanidis C (eds) Universal access in human–computer interaction. Applications and services. UAHCI 2007. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4556. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  29. Lujan-Mora S, Navarrete R, Penafiel M (2014) eGovernment and web accessibility in South America. In: First international conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment, Quito, pp 77–82Google Scholar
  30. Maisak R, Brown J (2014) Web accessibility on Thai higher education websites. In: The ninth international conference on software engineering advances, Nice, pp 645–650Google Scholar
  31. Makoza F (2013) The level of e-government implementation: case of Malawi. Electron J e-Gov 11(2):268–279Google Scholar
  32. Malik P, Bhargava R, Chaudhary K (2017) Assessing the effectiveness of accessibility and usability of government website at district level. Int J Comput Trends Technol (IJCTT) 49(1):58–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McGillivray M (1991) The human development index: yet another redundant composite development indicator? World Dev 19(10):1461–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miranda FJ, Sanguino R, Benegil TM (2009) Quantitative assessment of European municipal web sites: development and use of an evaluation tool. Internet Res 19(4):425–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mitsamarn N, Gestubtim W, Junnatas S (2007) Web accessibility: a government’s effort to promote e-accessibility in Thailand. In: 1st international convention on rehabilitation engineering & assistive technology: in conjunction with 1st Tan Tock Seng Hospital neurorehabilitation meeting, Singapore, pp 23–27Google Scholar
  36. Olsen MG, Nietzio A, Snaprud M, Fardal F (2009) Benchmarking and improving the quality of Norwegian municipality web sites. In: eGovMon municipality workshopGoogle Scholar
  37. Ouadah A, Hadjali A, Nader F, Benouaret K (2018) SEFAP: an efficient approach for ranking skyline web services. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 1–17Google Scholar
  38. Patra MR, Dash AR, Mishra PK (2014) A quantitative analysis of WCAG 2.0 compliance for some Indian web portals. Int J Comput Sci Eng Appl 4(1):9–23Google Scholar
  39. Pribeanu C, Marinescu RD, Fogarassy-Neszly P, Gheorghe-Moisii M (2012) Web accessibility in romania: the conformance of municipal web sites to web content accessibility guidelines. Inform Econ 16(1):28–36Google Scholar
  40. Sagara AD, Najamb A (1998) The human development index: a critical review. Ecol Econ 25(3):249–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shi Y (2006) E-government website accessibility in Australia and China: a longitudinal study. Soc Sci Comput Rev 24(3):378–385MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shi Y (2007) The accessibility of Chinese local government web sites: an exploratory study. Gov Inf Q 24(2):377–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. SimilarWeb.com (2016) Competitive intelligence tool. http://www.similarweb.com/. Accessed Oct 2017
  44. The United Nations (2016) Global 2016 human development report. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.pdf. Accessed Oct 2017
  45. The United Nations Development Program (2015) Training material for producing national human development reports. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdi_training.pdf. Accessed Dec 2017
  46. World Health Organization (WHO) http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs352/en/. Accessed on 14 Jan 2018
  47. World Wide Web Consortium (2006) Why web standard are important: an overview of W3C, its operation and current technical directions. https://www.w3.org/2006/Talks/07-ausweb-IH/Slides.pdf
  48. World Wide Web Consortium (2008) Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/. Accessed 08 Jan 2019
  49. Wu PC, Fan CW, Pan SC (2014) Does human development index provide rational development rankings? Evidence from efficiency rankings in super efficiency model. Soc Indic Res 116(2):647–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Science and Media StudiesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringKyrgyz-Turkish Manas UniversityBishkekKyrgyz Republic

Personalised recommendations