1. Australian university website accessibility revisited Dey Alexander Scott Rippon WANAU Forums 2007 - Canberra

2. Introduction University website accessibility benchmarked in 2003 “How accessible are Australian university websites?” 1.Do Australian university websites meet the basic standards for web accessibility? »Looked only at WCAG 1.0 priority 1 checkpoints 2.Are there any areas in which the basic standards are poorly understood/implemented? Looked at 4 key pages from 45 university websites

3. Key findings in 2003 98 per cent of sites failed to meet Level-A conformance –Only 1 site had its 4 pages pass –That site would have failed if more pages were included Only 27 of the 180 pages were Level-A conformant –153 pages checked failed on at least 1 priority 1 checkpoint Most problems (138 pages, 44 sites) were in meeting checkpoint 1.1 – provide text alternatives for non-text elements

4. What has changed since 2003? Many contextual (cultural, standards) changes: –Standards-based design now popularisedStandards-based design –Disability standards for education (August 2005)Disability standards for education –AVCC guidelines on information access for students with disabilities (Nov 2004)AVCC guidelines on information access for students with disabilities –AVCC guidelines on students with disabilities (May 2006)AVCC guidelines on students with disabilities –New standards for web content accessibility (WCAG 2.0) forthcomingNew standards for web content accessibility (WCAG 2.0) Has accessibility of Australian university websites improved?

5. Current study All sites evaluated between early January and mid March 2007 –Some sites may have been resigned –Some pages may have been updated Now doing data analysis –Evaluations done by two people, so need to be checked for consistency –Later WANAU presentations will provide more detailed findings and statistics

6. Methodology: scope Audit based on priority 1 checkpoints in WCAG 1.0priority 1 checkpoints in WCAG 1.0 –Did not evaluate checkpoint 14.1 (clearest and simplest language) 41 universities 4 pages from each university site –Home page –Main prospective students page –Orientation page (or alternative) –Accommodation page (or alternative)

7. Methodology: study style and tools Similar to last study –Manual and automated testing –No user testing Key tools –HERAHERA –Web accessibility toolbar from Vision AustraliaWeb accessibility toolbar from Vision Australia –The WAVE 3.5The WAVE 3.5

8. Methodology: process used Visual inspection in Internet Explorer version 6 –Captured screen Ran HERA to generate a report –Worked through checkpoints individually, using other tools and updating report. Checks included: Text alternatives for non-text elements If page worked without scripts Rendering with CSS turned off –Captured screens for text only view, CSS-off view, WAVE report

9. Preliminary findings Few, if any, sites are Level-A conformant Most problems are still with checkpoint 1.1 (text alternatives for non-text elements) 1.Images – similar type and amount of problems 2.PDF documents – increased usage since 2003 3.Flash – increased usage since 2003

10. HREOC’s advice on PDF “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.” See: HREOC’s DDA Advisory Notes (Section 2.3)HREOC’s DDA Advisory Notes

11. HREOC’s comments on Flash “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.” See: HREOC’s DDA Advisory Notes (Section 2.4)HREOC’s DDA Advisory Notes

12. Problems with images (1) Content images –Not equivalent (example 1, example 2)example 1example 2 – Unnecessary data included (example)example –Blank ALT attribute (example 1, example 2)example 1example 2 –No ALT attribute (example 1, example 2)example 1example 2 –Background image (via CSS) with no text alternative (example 1, example 2)example 1example 2 –Background image (via CSS) with non-equivalent text alternative (example)example

13. Problems with images (2) Decorative images – Unnecessary data included (example 1, example 2)example 1example 2 –No ALT attribute (example 1, example 2)example 1example 2

14. Any questions?