Abstract
Socially marginalised groups experience hostility in daily life, and hostility online adds to psychological pressure. For example, hate speech, typically defined as attacks on an individual or socially marginalised group, may impact access to web content for socially marginalised groups. In addition, rendered invisibility, for example being unable to choose your gender in a web form, may act as a psychological and practical barrier to accessing web content for groups, such as genderqueer, intersex and transgender persons. Research has yet to investigate the intersectionality of web accessibility. Preliminary results from semi-structured interviews with a select group of persons that experience multiple forms of discrimination suggest that marginalized individuals expect to experience oppressive content and consider oppressive content as a part of interacting with the web. In this paper, we examine a variety of oppressive mechanisms, including ableism, racism, and transphobia, and how in combination they relate to accessing and using web content. We argue that by ensuring the accessibility of web content substantively, future researchers and practitioners can promote a more universally accessible web. By taking into consideration experiences of hostility, web developers can better support access to information and communication on the web for everyone.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Abascal J, Barbosa SD, Nicolle C, Zaphiris P (2015) Rethinking universal accessibility: A broader approach considering the digital gap. In: Stephanidis C, Antona M (Eds.) Universal access in the information society: Aging and assistive environments. Springer
Bertot JC, Jaeger P, Hansen D (2012) The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly 29(1): 30-40
Blanck P (2014) eQuality: The struggle for web accessibility by persons with cognitive disabilities. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA
BLID (2009) Norway universally designed by 2025. The Norwegian government’s action plan for universal design and increased accessibility 2009-2013, p. 9. Available at: www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/bld/nedsatt-funksjonsevne/norway-universally-designed-by-2025-web.pdf (Accessed in November 2015)
Brown J, Hollier S (2015) The challenges of Web accessibility: The technical and social aspects of a truly universal Web. First Monday 20(9)
Crenshaw K (1991) Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241-1299
De Andrés J, Lorca P, Martínez AB (2010) Factors influencing web accessibility of big listed firms: An international study. Online Information Review 34(1): 75-97
Ellis K, Kent M (2015) Disability and the Internet in 2015: Where to now? First Monday 20(9)
Giannoumis GA (2015a) Auditing Web accessibility: The role of interest organizations in promoting compliance through certification. First Monday 20(9)
Giannoumis GA (2015b) Transnational convergence of public procurement policy: A ‘bottom-up’ analysis of policy networks and the international harmonisation of accessibility standards for information and communication technology. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology (ahead-of-print): 1-24
Goggin G (2015) Disability and mobile Internet. First Monday 20(9)
Green RA, Huprich J (2009) Web accessibility and accessibility instruction. Journal of Access Services 6(1-2): 116-136
Jaeger P (2004a) Beyond section 508: The spectrum of legal requirements for accessible e-government web sites in the United States. Journal of Government Information 30(4): 518-533
Jaeger P (2004b) The social impact of an accessible e-democracy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 15(1): 19-26
Jaeger P (2008) User-centered policy evaluations of section 508 of the rehabilitation act: Evaluating e-government web sites for accessibility for persons with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 19(1): 24-33
Jaeger PT (2015) Disability, human rights, and social justice: The ongoing struggle for online accessibility and equality. First Monday 20(9)
Johnson A, Ruppert S (2002) An evaluation of accessibility in online learning management systems. Library Hi Tech 20(4): 441-451
Klein D, Myhill W, Hansen L, Asby G, Michaelson S, Blanck P (2003) Electronic doors to education: Study of high school Website accessibility in Iowa. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 21: 27-50
Kuzma JM (2010) Accessibility design issues with UK e-government sites. Government Information Quarterly 27(2): 141-146
Lazar J, Jaeger P, Adams A, Angelozzi A, Manohar J, Marciniak J et al. (2010) Up in the air: Are airlines following the new DOT rules on equal pricing for people with disabilities when websites are inaccessible? Government Information Quarterly 27(4): 329-336
Olalere A, Lazar J (2011) Accessibility of U.S. federal government home pages: Section 508 compliance and site accessibility statements. Government Information Quarterly 28(3): 303-309
Persson H, Åhman H, Yngling AA, Gulliksen J (2014) Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: Different concepts-one goal? On the concept of accessibility-historical, methodological and philosophical aspects. Universal Access in the Information Society (4): 1-22
Petrie H, Savva A, Power C (2015) Towards a unified definition of web accessibility. In: Proceedings of the 12th Web for all Conference, pp. 35, Florence, Italy
Risam R (2015) Toxic femininity 4.0. First Monday 20(4)
Ritchie H, Blanck P (2003) The promise of the internet for disability: A study of on-line services and web site accessibility at Centers for Independent Living. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 21: 5-26
Rubaii-Barrett N, Wise LR (2008) Disability access and e-government: An empirical analysis of state practices. J. Disabil. Policy Stud. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 19(1): 52-64
Schiek D, Lawson A (Eds.) (2011) European Union non-discrimination law and intersectionality. Investigating the triangle of racial, gender and disability discrimination. Ashgate, London, UK
Stewart R, Narendra V, Schmetzke A (2005) Accessibility and usability of online library databases. Library Hi Tech 23(2): 265-286
Tatomir J, Durrance JC (2010) Overcoming the information gap: Measuring the accessibility of library databases to adaptive technology users. Library Hi Tech 28(4): 577-594
Williams R, Rattray R (2003) An assessment of web accessibility of UK accountancy firms. Managerial Auditing Journal 18(9): 710-716
Yi YJ (2015) Compliance of section 508 in public library systems with the largest percentage of underserved populations. Government Information Quarterly 32(1): 75-81
Yu H (2002) Web accessibility and the law: Recommendations for implementation. Library Hi Tech 20(4): 406-419
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Skjerve, R., Giannoumis, G.A., Naseem, S. (2016). An Intersectional Perspective on Web Accessibility. In: Langdon, P., Lazar, J., Heylighen, A., Dong, H. (eds) Designing Around People. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29498-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29498-8_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29496-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29498-8
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)