2003 Monash Web Workshop Series

How accessible are Australian university web sites?

Summary

In this workshop, the results of a recent study of all 45 Australian university web sites will be discussed. Learn why 98% of sites fail to meet the most basic requirements for accessibility and what we need to do to ensure that our pages comply with the requirements of anti-discrimination legislation.

The presentation covers the following topics:

This presentation was given as part of the Web Workshop series at Monash University on 27 March, 2003.

Dey Alexander
Usability Specialist, Web Resources and Development
IT Services Division, Monash University
Ph: +61 3 99054740
Email: dey.alexander@its.monash.edu.au

Created: 16 March, 2003 - Last updated: 22 April, 2003

Increasing use of the web by universities

Teaching uses

Research uses

Administrative uses

Increased use necessitates improved accessibility

References

Telephone survey regarding web accessibility in Australian Universities

Background

Aims of survey

Results of survey

References

Accessibility audit of Australian university web sites

Background

Aims of audit

Scope of audit

Methodology

References

Results - 98% of sites failed the test for basic accessibility

Overview of results

Checkpoint failures recorded

References

Text equivalents for non-text elements

Checkpoint 1.1 says:

Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content). This includes: images, graphical representations of text (including symbols), image map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects, ascii art, frames, scripts, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video.

Overview of results

Discussion - images

Users who are blind or who suffer significant loss of vision are not able to utilise graphical content provided on web pages. Therefore web designers are required to include a text equivalent for all graphical elements by using the "alt" attribute of the "img" element and, where necessary, the "longdesc" attribute.

One thing is apparent: many university web authors do not understand the role of text alternatives.

For examples of each of these image-related errors, see the presentation "How should we provide text equivalents for non-text elements on the web?"

Discussion - frames

Designers are required to provide an equivalent alternative to pages where content is presented via a set of frames--either by providing equivalent content within a "noframes" element or by providing a link within that element to an equivalent accessible page. This ensures access to content and functionality for those with user agents that do not support frames.

Screenshot showing no frames error message

Discussion - PDF content

The Portable Document Format (PDF) is widely used on the web. Reasons for its popularity include:

However, despite recent improvements to the accessibility of the PDF format, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission cautions web content providers on its use:

The Commission's view is that organisations who distribute content only in PDF format, and who do not also make this content available in another format such as RTF, HTML, or plain text, are liable for complaints under the DDA.

Screenshot showing links to content provided only in PDF format

Discussion - script-generated content

Some user agents do not support the use of client-side scripting such as javascript or java applets. Some users turn javascript off, for a variety of reasons including security concerns. Designers must then ensure that an accessible equivalent is provided for content generated by scripts. One way of doing this is by using the "noscript" element to provide a text alternative of script-generated content. Another, is by providing a link to an alternative accessible rendering of the content.

Screenshot showing news generated by a script

Discussion - Flash content

Flash provides a visually rich environment for the presentation of web content and is widely used on commercial web sites as a result. Ongoing enhancements to its capabilities have seen it adopted as a web application environment as it provides a more functional user interface than can be leveraged through the use of plain or dynamic HTML.

However, despite recent improvements to the accessibility of Flash-generated content, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission cautions web content providers on its use:

While some positive progress has been made, it will be a considerable time before most users will benefit, and even then, Flash may be accessible only in certain specific circumstances. It is certainly wrong for web designers to assume that improvements in the accessibility of a technology mean that it can be used indiscriminately without regard for the principles of accessible web design.

References

Use of stylesheets

Checkpoint 6.1 says:

Organise documents so they may be read without style sheets. For example, when an HTML document is rendered without associated style sheets, it must still be possible to read the document.

Overview of results

Discussion

Users with low vision or colour blindness may override the author's stylesheets in order to increase font size or provide better colour contrasts. Alternatively--and this is becoming increasingly less likely--users may be using older browsers with partial or no stylesheet support.

Checkpoint 6.1 was written to cover problems that may occur when

Three additional problems were found in this study

Screenshot showing readability problems due to lack of text and background contrast

Screenshot showing readability problem due to image background transparency

Screenshot showing readability problem of a drop down menu

Frame titles

Checkpoint 12.1says:

Title each frame to facilitate frame identification and navigation.

Overview of results

Discussion

When using a screenreader or text browser, frames do not appear as a single page as they do to users of graphical browsers. Users of screenreaders and text browsers are reliant on frame titles for orientation around the separate zones on the page.

When frame titles are absent, user agents compensate by including the frame "name" or "src" attribute. These are not usually written to be displayed to screen and read by humans. As a result, they are often less than useful. Some frame name sets found in this study included:

Screenshot showing site that did not use frame titles

Use of scripts

Checkpoint 6.3 says:

Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible page.

Overview of results

Discussion

The rationale behind this checkpoint is to cover the following situations:

In this study, most of the problems related to javascript-generated navigation. Some problems with java applets were also noted (as shown in the screenshots below).

Screenshot showing navigation via java applets

Screenshot showing missing java-generated navigation options

Text-only alternative pages

Checkpoint 11.4 says:

If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page.

Overview of results

Discussion

Text-only alternative pages can be provided where efforts at making the original page accessible have proven too difficult.

Data tables

Checkpoints 5.1 and 5.2 say:

For data tables, identify row and column headers.

For data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers, use markup to associate data cells and header cells.

Overview of results

Discussion

Data tables present data in a matrix or grid. To be accessible to those who cannot see them, data tables must include structural information such as row and/or column header elements. In complex tables, further structural elements must be provided, and associating headers with data cells is recommended.

Few data tables were encountered in this study. Only two failures were recorded against this checkpoint (see screenshot below).

Screenshot showing a data table that had no structural markup

Use of colour

Checkpoint 2.1 says:

Ensure that all information conveyed with colour is also available without colour, for example from context or markup.

Overview of results

Discussion

The checkpoint aims to ensure that those who are colourblind, or not able to use a graphical browser, can make sense of content even when they cannot see or distinguish between colours used on the page.

In the only checkpoint 2.1 failure noted in this study, required fields on a form were indicated solely through the use of the colour red (see screenshot below).

Screenshot showing a form with required fields indicated only by the colour red

Dynamic content

Checkpoint 6.2 says:

Ensure that equivalents for dynamic content are updated when the dynamic content changes.

Overview of results

Discussion

The aim of this checkpoint is to ensure that page authors are aware of the need to dynamically update accessible equivalents for dynamically-generated content, otherwise some disabled groups will miss out on that content.

Only 1 example of the use of dynamically-generated content was noted. On the University of Queensland Orientation page, an image that acted as a link to a story about a particular student's orientation experience was randomly generated each time the orientation page loaded. Students accessing the page with a screenreader or text browser would not have been aware that different stories were linked each time the page was viewed (see screenshot below).

Screenshot showing dynamically-generated link to a student's orientation story

Conclusions

Full list of references