Advertisement

Measuring the Time Impact of Web Accessibility Barriers on Blind Users: A Pilot Study

  • M. Griffith
  • B. WentzEmail author
  • J. Lazar
Conference paper
  • 41 Downloads

Abstract

As governments around the world increase or clarify the requirements related to web accessibility for public accommodations, they often require some level of cost-benefit analysis for the proposed regulation. As a part of these cost-benefit analyses, it’s important to understand not only the costs of making technology accessible, but also the costs (in terms of the value of time) to Blind users (and people with other disabilities) of not making the technologies accessible. Furthermore, as the next generation of accessibility guidelines are in development, it’s important to understand which specific accessibility barriers have the greatest impact on the productivity of users. This paper presents a literature review on the topic and also a discussion of two proposed methodologies for quantifying the impact of accessibility barriers by collecting time data on the difference between websites designed with high accessibility and those that have poor accessibility. Results from a pilot study of the first methodology will be presented.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work reported in this publication was supported, in part, by grant number 90RE5027 (Universal Interface & Information Technology Access RERC) and 90REGE0008 (Inclusive ICT RERC), from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Administration for Community Living, Department of Health and Human Services. Grantees undertaking projects with government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their findings and conclusions. Points of view or opinions do not, therefore, necessarily represent official policy of the Federal government.

References

  1. Babu R, Singh R, Ganesh J (2010) Understanding blind users’ web accessibility and usability problems. AIS Trans Hum-Comput Interact 2(3):73–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bigham J, Cavender A, Brudvik J, Wobbrock J, Ladner R (2007) WebinSitu: a comparative analysis of blind and sighted browsing behavior. In: Proceedings of ASSETS 2007, Tempe, AZ, US, 14–17 October 2007Google Scholar
  3. Bloomberg (2019) Supreme court won’t hear Domino’s Pizza website access dispute. news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telecom-law/supreme-court-wont-hear-dominos-pizza-website-access-dispute. Accessed 7 Oct 2019
  4. Disability Rights Commission (2004) The web: Access & inclusion for disabled people. disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/library/DRC-Web-FI.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2019
  5. EFTA (2014) Standard - EN 301 549. mandate376.standards.eu/standard. Accessed 9 Oct 2019
  6. GEO (2015) Equality Act 2010: Guidance. www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance. Accessed 7 Oct 2019
  7. Hochheiser H, Lazar J (2010) Revisiting breadth vs. depth in menu structures for blind users of screen readers. Interact Comput 22(5):389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lazar J, Allen A, Kleinman J, Malarkey C (2007) What frustrates screen reader users on the web: a study of 100 blind users. Int J Hum-Comput Interact 22(3):247–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lazar J, Feng JH, Hochheiser H (2017) Research methods in human-computer interaction. Morgan Kaufmann/Elsevier, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Lazar J, Goldstein DF, Taylor A (2015) Ensuring digital accessibility through process and policy. Morgan Kaufmann/Elsevier, WalthamGoogle Scholar
  11. LF Legal (2019) Big win for web accessibility in Domino’s Pizza case. www.lflegal.com/2019/01/dominos-ninth-circuit/?fbclid=IwAR17trrSpmvvPNi16D8R331AWfG1oRE5bU7HQEm1zAJdmW01_bHHEaScSbc. Accessed 23 Jan 2019
  12. National Archives (2018) The public sector bodies (websites and mobile applications) (No. 2) Accessibility regulations 2018. www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/952/made. Accessed 7 Oct 2019
  13. Watanabe T (2009) Experimental evaluation of usability and accessibility of heading elements. Disabi Rehabil Assistive Technol 4(4): 236–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. W3C (2018) Web content accessibility guidelines. www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/. Accessed 5 Oct 2019

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trace Center, HCIL, College of Information StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Shippensburg UniversityShippensburgUSA
  3. 3.Trace Center, HCIL, College of Information StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations