=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3852/paper13
|storemode=property
|title=Accessibility Evaluation Of Five Moroccan E-government Portals
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3852/paper13.pdf
|volume=Vol-3852
|authors=Mohammed Rida Ouaziz, Laila Cheikhi,Ali Idri,Alain Abran
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/iwsm/OuazizCIA24
}}
==Accessibility Evaluation Of Five Moroccan E-government Portals==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3852/paper13.pdf
Accessibility Evaluation Of Five Moroccan E-government
Portals
Mohammed Rida Ouaziz1,*,† , Laila Cheikhi1,† , Ali Idri11,† and Alain Abran2,†
1
Software Project Management Team, ENSIAS, Mohammed V University in Rabat, Morocco
2
Department of Software Engineering Information Technology, École de Technologie Supérieure, Montréal, Canada
Abstract
In the present era, e-government portals are viewed as an effective means of providing online services to citizens.
It is imperative for everyone to guarantee equitable access to these services, irrespective of their abilities or
limitations. Hence, accessibility is vital for those with disabilities and advantageous for everyone. Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) provide a comprehensive set of guidelines, in terms of success criteria, that are
widely utilized in various tools to assess the accessibility of websites or portals. By following these guidelines,
developers can ensure that their websites are accessible to everyone. This paper reports on a study of the
accessibility evaluation of five Moroccan e-government portals using the AChecker tool with respect to WCAG.
The aim was to prepare recommendations to improve the overall user experience across Moroccan e-government
portals. The evaluation results analysis showed that the portals have some common as well as different failed
success criteria with different numbers of errors per WCAG principle and conformance level. In particular, all the
portals exhibited varying degrees of adherence to the four principles, and most of the portals struggled to meet
levels A and AA, and none of them achieve perfect conformance across all levels. To address this issue, a set
of recommendations is provided for each portal to enhance accessibility. The lessons learned from this study
can contribute to more inclusive e-government portals and provide insights for governments and designers to
prioritize accessibility enhancements.
Keywords
Accessibility, e-government portals, evaluation tools, WCAG, disabilities, impairments
1. Introduction
Accessibility encompasses the design of products, services, environments, and digital content to ac-
commodate the diverse needs and abilities of people [1]. In the context of the web, high accessibility
ensures that digital content and features can be perceived, understood, navigated, and interacted with
by everyone; therefore, no one is excluded from using the web effectively [2]. E-government portals
are becoming increasingly crucial in today’s digital era, transforming government engagement with
citizens by providing efficient, transparent, and accountable platforms. They offer a wide range of
services such as applying for permits, paying taxes, and accessing government documents. The 24/7
availability of these portals eliminates the need for physical visits, saving time and resources for both
governments and citizens.
Accessibility in the e-government portals takes on significant importance as it should ensure equal
access to government services and information for all individuals, regardless of their abilities or
disabilities Therefore developers should design and build inclusive e-government websites in order to
ensure that individuals with various abilities, backgrounds, and requirements can actively participate in
and derive full benefits from the information, services, and features offered by their digital platforms [3].
E-government portals with high accessibility have the capacity to narrow the digital divide and foster
inclusivity within society by removing obstacles that could impede individuals with disabilities from
accessing and utilizing online services. Indeed, accessibility in e-government portals should enable
persons with permanent disabilities (or impairments) such as auditory, cognitive, learning, neurological,
IWSM-MENSURA’24, September 30 - October 4, 2024, Montreal, Canada
*
Corresponding author.
†
These authors contributed equally.
$ mohammedrida_ouaziz@um5.ac.ma (M. R. Ouaziz); laila.cheikhi@um5.ac.ma (L. Cheikhi); ali.idri1@um5.ac.ma (A. Idri1);
alain.abran@etsmtl.ca (A. Abran)
© 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
speech, visual, and physical disabilities, to fully access online services [4], as well as persons with
temporary impairments, situational limitations, and an aging population [5].
By incorporating accessible design principles and adhering to established guidelines provided by
the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) standard [6], governments can guarantee online
access to all people for online information and services and can benefit from the advantages of digital
governance.
In this context, the accessibility evaluation of e-government portals is mainly performed using WCAG-
based tools, which provide a quick and easy way to test a large number of websites for accessibility
conformance [7]. This evaluation is essential to detect and address accessibility barriers, ensure that
the portals are user-friendly for people with disabilities, and highlight potential improvements. Many
accessibility evaluation tools have been developed (e.g., AChecker1 , WAVE2 , CynthiaSays3 ) and used
for accessibility evaluations in the literature:
• Study [8] evaluated six home pages of Saudi Arabian universities using SiteImprove and WAVE.
The evaluation showed that the homepage of Taibah University was more accessible than the
other universities’ home pages. Results also showed that SiteImprove outperformed WAVE in
detecting web accessibility issues.
• Study [9] evaluated Croatia’s most visited desktop and mobile websites using AChecker tool. The
study found that only two of the 14 analyzed Croatian news portals have fully accessible designs.
It also highlighted the impact of different web browsers which may affect accessibility.
• Study [10] evaluated Pakistan’s central government websites, including all ministries and divisions,
using Total Validator and Functional Accessibility Evaluator tools. The findings revealed that most
websites were not developed according to the WCAG standards, making it difficult or impossible
for visually disabled persons to access government information.
• Study [11] evaluated the accessibility of three Moroccan e-government websites using the Ac-
cessiWeb tool. The results indicated the presence of several accessibility issues across all three
websites, affecting the three WCAG levels (A, AA, and AAA) criteria. The findings showed
that none of the websites met the minimum level of accessibility, necessitating corrections to
next levels issues to improve web content’s perceivability, operability, understandability, and
robustness for users with disabilities.
• Study [12] evaluated the impact of mobile learning on the inclusion of students with disabilities at
Mohamed V University in Rabat. The findings showed that mobile learning significantly enhanced
educational inclusion, motivation, and potential realization for students with disabilities. The
study highlighted the crucial value of mobile devices in promoting accessible and inclusive
education, suggesting the need for a thorough analysis of their contributions to students with
reduced mobility.
• Study [13] investigated the potential of using smartphones and tablets as alternative learning tools
for assistive technology (AT) devices in under-developed and developing countries like Morocco.
They compared seven free Google Play medical apps with seven traditional AT devices in terms of
functionality and affordability. The findings suggested that mobile learning through these devices
can provide accessible and cost-effective solutions for students with disabilities, addressing issues
such as hearing and visual impairments, autism, and speech articulation disorders.
Furthermore, a 2021 review study on digital accessibility [14] reported that few studies were performed
by Moroccan researchers in this context, in particular about e-government [11] and education [12],
[13]. This motivated us to focus in this study on e-government Moroccan portals, a context in which
accessibility evaluation is scarce.
This study reports on an evaluation study of five Moroccan portals using the AChecker accessibility
tool and analyzes the results according to a set of criteria related to WCAG principles, conformance
1
https://achecks.org/AChecker/
2
https://wave.webaim.org/
3
https://www.tpgi.com/cynthiasays-com-accessibility-website-scan-announcement/
Figure 1: Summary of WCAG 2.0
levels, accessibility problems, as well as hypertext markup language (HTML), and cascading style sheet
(CSS) validation. The aim was to prepare recommendations to improve the overall user experience
across Moroccan e-government platforms. The contribution of this study is insights into the accessibility
status of the evaluated e-government portals, facilitating the identification of areas for enhancement
and ensuring a more inclusive online environment for all users.
The subsequent sections of this paper are organized as follows: Section 2 offers an overview of
the WCAG, and Section 3 introduces the AChecker accessibility tool. The methodology and results
of this study are outlined in Sections 4 and 5, respectively. Section 6 encompasses the discussion,
recommendations, and limitations, followed by the conclusions in section 7.
2. WCAG: An Overview
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) established by the World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) are a set of technical standards designed to ensure the
accessibility of web content to people with disabilities [6].
WCAG content has evolved over the years; the first version (WCAG 1.0) was launched in 1999,
followed by WCAG 2.0 in 2008, WCAG 2.1, and WCAG 2.2 in 2018 and 2022, respectively. Each
version has undergone enhancements, striving to address a wide range of accessibility challenges for
disabled individuals. These guidelines recognize the changing nature of accessibility needs, aiming not
only to cater to specific disabilities, but also to enhance overall accessibility for users across different
devices. The WCAG 2.0 version, approved as an International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
40500 standard [15], was used to evaluate the accessibility of some Moroccan e-government portals.
This guideline comprises four principles, 12 guidelines, and 61 success criteria classified into three
conformance levels [6], as described in the following paragraphs (see Figures 1 and 2 for a summarized
and detailed view of this guideline).
The WCAG 2.0 guidelines aim to enhance the accessibility of content to users with diverse disabilities
[6]. Each guideline includes a set of success criteria (SC) for specific objectives that the portal should
satisfy. These criteria are formulated as statements that can be evaluated as true or false when testing
specific web content [16].
Furthermore, an SC can be assessed into three conformance levels depending on the extent to which
accessibility guidelines are met (see Figure 2). These levels are useful to developers when designing and
building portals [10].
• Level A refers to the guidelines that the website must adhere to ensure that all information is
accessible to users, including those with disabilities.
• Level AA refers to the guidelines that the website should follow to address significant accessibility
barriers and enhance the accessibility of information on a website.
Figure 2: Detailed view of WCAG 2.0
• Level AAA offers guidelines that could improve the usability of websites for individuals with
disabilities, making their browsing experience more comfortable.
In addition, WCAG 2.0 proposes a set of four principles, referred to as “POUR,” that the website should
satisfy (Figure 1). Each principle includes a set of guidelines and their corresponding SC [? ]:
• Perceivable (P): “Users should be able to perceive information and user interface components,
ensuring that the presented information is not hidden from any of their senses.”
• Operable (O): “Users should be able to operate user interface components and navigate through the
interface, ensuring that the interface does not demand interactions beyond the user’s capability”.
• Understandable (U): “Users should be able to comprehend both the information and the functioning
of the user interface, ensuring that the content and operation are within their understanding
capabilities.”
• Robust (R): “Content should be reliable and adaptable to various user agents, including assistive
technologies, ensuring continued accessibility as technologies evolve.”
Moreover, to conform to WCAG 2.0, a webpage must adhere to the following set of requirements [6]:
• “One of the following levels of conformance is met in full”.
• “Conformance (and conformance level) is for full webpage (s) only, and cannot be achieved if part
of a webpage is excluded”.
• “When a Webpage is one of a series of webpages presenting a process (i.e., a sequence of steps
that need to be completed to accomplish an activity), all webpages in the process conform to
the specified level or better. (Conformance is not possible at a particular level if any page in the
process does not conform to that level or better.)”.
• “Only accessibility-supported ways of using technologies are relied upon to satisfy the success
criteria. Any information or functionality that is provided in a way that is not accessible and
supported is also available in a way that is accessibility supported”.
• “If technologies are used in a way that is not accessibility supported, or if they are used in a
non-conforming way, then they do not block the ability of users to access the rest of the page”.
Therefore, the WCAG 2.0 level compliance for a website is defined as follows [6]:
• Level A: “the minimum level of conformance when the webpage satisfies all the Level A success
criteria” [? ]. This corresponded to a total of 25 SC met.
• Level AA: when “the webpage satisfies all the Level A and Level AA success criteria” [? ]. This
corresponds to 38 SC to be met (13 (AA) + 25 (A)).
• Level AAA: when “the webpage satisfies all the Level A, level AA, and Level AAA success criteria”
[? ]. This corresponds to a total of 61 SC to be met (23 (AAA) + 13(AA) + 25(A)).
3. AChecker Accessibility Tool
Many tools have been developed for accessibility evaluation; they differ in terms of features, but all
of them implement WCAG in different versions. The specificity of a tool refers to how many kinds
of issues it can find and explain; that is, a tool that can detect and describe a wide range of issues is
considered more powerful because it can offer specific advice and suggestions to web developers and
make it more valuable to use [17].
The AChecker tool was chosen in this study based on a systematic review in [18] on automatic tools
used to evaluate university websites, which reported that it had been the most used for evaluation
purposes from 2011 to 2020. It has a wide range of customization options, covers most accessibility
guidelines [19], is frequently used in accessibility testing [20], and can check WCAG conformance and
principles.
In addition, AChecker goes beyond accessibility evaluation by offering HTML and CSS validation
checks [21]. Its validation process entails checking webpage scripts against syntax rules and standard
specifications. Within this context, validating the HTML is important for evaluating web accessibility
[22]. Assistive technologies rely on these established standards when interacting with both the HTML
and CSS [23]. This AChecker web accessibility tool uses Jigsaw, a W3C tool used for checking a website’s
code to determine its adherence to formatting standards such as n HTML and CSS guidelines [24].
AChecker is a free web-based tool designed to evaluate websites for conformance with WCAG 2.0.
Notably, it stands out for its informative approach to error reporting; for each identified error, the tool
provides a comprehensive explanation of the issue and its impact on users and offers multiple potential
solutions to address it. This tool identifies three types of accessibility problems, as provided in [25].
• “Known problems: These are problems that have been identified with certainty as accessibility
barriers. Webpages must be modified to address these problems”.
• “Likely problems: These are problems that have been identified as probable barriers but require a
human to make a decision. The webpage likely needs to be modified to address these problems”.
• “Potential problems: These are problems that AChecker cannot identify, which requires a human
decision.”
4. Evaluation Methodology And Execution
The motivation behind this study is to evaluate the accessibility of the five Moroccan e-government
portals. The evaluation methodology used included three steps: 1) selection of the sample of Moroccan
e-government portals, 2) performing the accessibility evaluation, and 3) analyzing the evaluation results.
4.1. Step 1 - Selection of the sample of e-portals
To select the five Moroccan e-government portals, several factors were considered to ensure relevance
and representativeness, with the focus on evaluating accessibility as in [6], such as diversity of services,
user traffic and popularity.
Moroccan portals were selected based on their importance in providing essential services to citizens
and residents. Indeed, those portals are from different governmental entities (recorded with “. gov.ma”),
including from different sectors, thus offering diverse e-government services in Morocco to develop
recommendations for enhancing user interaction with similar e-government services. Details regarding
the websites’ functionalities and services may not be disclosed for confidentiality reasons.
Furthermore, the selected portals are among the most visited in Morocco. High user traffic indicates
that these portals are essential to a large number of citizens. By focusing on portals with substantial
daily interactions, our study addresses accessibility issues that impact many users. Notably, these
websites number of visitors range from 10.000 to 7.2 million visits per year according to SimilarWeb 4 .
This highlights their importance and frequent use. Evaluating these sites ensures that our findings and
recommendations will be relevant and benefit a significant portion of the population.
Besides, the selected portals are popular and provide services efficiently, making them preferred
choices for users. Indeed, these websites are among the most visited websites in Morocco according to
SimilarWeb. By selecting them, we aim to assess and enhance the accessibility of platforms that are
already widely trusted and utilized. Improvements made to these sites can therefore lead to a more
inclusive and user-friendly experience for a broader audience.
It should be noted that Moroccan websites are multilingual including (Arabic, French, English, and
Amazigh). All website versions had the same design and content, and the Arabic version was chosen for
the evaluation. For confidentiality purposes, these portals are referred to as Portals A, B, C, D, and E.
4.2. Step 2 - The Evaluation Erocess and Tools
The AChecker tool was selected to evaluate the adherence of the chosen portals to the WCAG 2.0
standards mentioned in Section 2, and for its robust feature set, as outlined in Section 3.
The evaluation itself took place with the e-government portal versions available on December 3,
2023, at 20:37 hours, utilizing Firefox 124.0.2 (64-bit) on Windows 11, with each portal’s homepage
being analyzed.
The evaluation process checks the website’s HTML and CSS codes against the established accessibility
and coding standards. For instance:
• HTML content elements, such as images, links, headings, and form controls were evaluated to
ensure compliance with the WCAG criteria.
• The syntax and structure of the HTML markup were evaluated to ensure the proper nesting of
elements and appropriate attribute usage.
• CSS styles were evaluated for compliance with CSS specifications, including rules for layout,
typography, and color.
The evaluation results were documented in five main parts, including known problems, likely
problems, and, when selected, HTML and CSS validation issues. In the evaluation report, failed SC were
listed alongside their corresponding guidelines, SC name, level of conformance, principle, check name,
and instructions on how to rectify the issue to achieve compliance with the specific SC.
4.3. Step 3 - The Analysis of Evaluation Results
The evaluation results were analyzed based on to four criteria:
1. WCAG principles to identify the extent to which portals meet the “POUR” principles.
2. Conformance levels to see if the portals adhere to WCAG 2.0 standards.
3. Accessibility problems that the portals encounter and need resolution.
4. HTML and CSS validation issues to be addressed to conform to the guidelines.
The analysis was performed using qualitative and quantitative methods to develop insights into the
portals’ conformance with WCAG 2.0, standards, and recurrent accessibility issues.
4
https://www.similarweb.com/
5. Evaluation Results Analysis
This section presents the overall results of the evaluation followed by the WCAG principles, conformance
levels, accessibility problems, and validation issues reported by the AChecker tool.
5.1. Overall results
The AChecker accessibility evaluation results of WCAG failed success criteria (SC) (designated by tool
as “Known problems) are reported for portal A to E in terms of the number of errors. It also reports
the total number of errors per portal, per failed SC, per WCAG principle, and conformance level, and
at the bottom, the number of failed SC. From Table 1, it can be observed that portals have different
occurrences of each failed SC (i.e., number of errors) per principle and level. A more detailed analysis is
presented next based on WCAG principles, conformance levels, accessibility problems, HTML, and CSS
validation.
Table 1
WCAG 2.0 failed SC per principle and Number of Errors
Number of errors
WCAG 2.0 failed SC per principle
Portal A Portal B Portal C Portal D Portal E
1.1.1 non-text content (A) 30 17 13 23 15
1.3.1 Info and Relationships (A) 9 0 0 0 2
1.4.4 Resize text (AA) 4 10 19 8 91
1.4.6 Contrast (Enhanced) (AAA) 4 0 13 2 0
Total SC failed - Perceptible 47 27 45 33 108
2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) (A) 27 12 3 42 10
2.4.6 Headings and Labels (AA) 1 2 2 2 3
Total SC failed - Operable 28 14 5 44 13
3.1.1 Language of Page (A) 0 0 2 0 0
3.3.2 Labels or Instructions (A) 5 0 0 1 1
Total SC failed - Understandable 5 None 2 1 1
4.1.1 Parsing (A) 1 0 0 0 1
Total SC failed - Robust 1 None None None 1
Total of errors 81 41 52 78 123
Level A errors 72 29 18 66 29
Level AA errors 5 12 21 10 94
Level AAA errors 4 0 13 2 0
Number of failed SC 8 4 6 6 7
5.2. WCAG principles
This subsection presents an analysis of the WCAG principles (Perceptible, Operable, Understandable,
and Robust) (see Figure 3).
• Perceptibility:
– Portal E is the least perceptible with the highest number of errors, followed by Portals A, C,
and D, which face perceptibility challenges primarily related to “non-text content”, “resize
text”, and the “contrast”.
– Portal B is the most perceptible with the lowest number of errors, and encounters difficulties
in only two SC.
• Operability:
– Portal C demonstrates strong operability with a low number of errors, making user interface
components and navigation accessible.
Figure 3: Distribution of errors per WCAG principles
– Portals B and E which face some operability issues, particularly in “link purposes”, then
Portals A and D with the highest number of errors, which exhibits notable operability
emphasizing the need for substantial improvements.
• Understandability:
– Portals A, D, and C exhibit lower levels of understandability due to several errors related to
“labels or instructions”, highlighting the necessity of a comprehensible digital environment.
– Portal B stands out as the most understandable: it shows no errors in this principle and
presents information effectively for the user.
• Robust:
– All portals show good adherence to the robust principle, with only one error identified
in portals A and E. This suggests that the portals have implemented coding practices and
content presentation approaches that align well with the different browsers and assistive
technologies.
The accessibility of each portal across the four principles is presented in Figure 4 in terms of the
percentage of SCs satisfied per principle (regardless of the number of errors per failed SC):
• Portal B is the most perceptible (in red) with 91% (two failed SC among 22 of this principle),
followed by Portal C, D, and E with 87% (three failed SC) each, and Portal A with 82% (four failed
SC).
• All Portals are operable (in blue), with 90% (two failed SC among 20 of this principle, each).
• Portals A, C, D, and E are the most understandable (in green) with 95% (one failed SC among 17 of
this principle), while Portal B is the best with 100% conformance to this principle (no failed SC).
• Portals A and E are less robust (in black) with 50% (one failed SC among the two of this principle),
while the other three portals reached 100% because no failed SC was reported.
To summarize, each of the portals showed good adherence to WCAG 2.0, with a range between 4 and 8
of failed SC among the 61 proposed by the guidelines (see Table 1). However, none of the portals fully
adhered to these four principles. Therefore, addressing a specific SC within each principle is important
for overall accessibility improvement across all portals.
Figure 4: Percentage of satisfied SC per principle
5.3. Conformance Levels
This subsection presents an analysis of the WCAG conformance levels (A, AA, and AAA) (see Figure 5)
with the total number of errors for the failed SC of the five portals. As observed:
• The number of errors in Level A (in blue) varies across most Portals A particularly in Portals A
(72), D (66), and E (29). These errors represent critical accessibility barriers that directly hinder
the usability of these portals for disabled users.
• Portal E presented the highest number of errors at level AA (94) (in purple). These errors, often
categorized as "known problems" by AChecker, can significantly impact the user experience.
The other portals also exhibit errors (ranging from 5 to 21), but with significantly lower occur-
rences. Understanding these errors and their impact across all portals is crucial for prioritizing
improvement efforts.
• Portals A (4), C (13), and D (2) present moderate numbers of errors at the AAA level (in yellow)
associated with advanced accessibility features. While not as frequent as in the A and AA
levels, their presence warrants attention, particularly when they pose barriers to specific user
groups. Interestingly, Portals B and E show no failed SC, suggesting that they excel at handling
accessibility at this highest level. However, it is important to note that the absence of failed SC at
the AAA level does not imply that a website is entirely accessible. To achieve this, the website
needs to meet all SCs of the three levels.
Figure 6 provides more insights on portal conformance in terms of the percentage of satisfied SC per
level, as well as the number of errors reported.
• Among the 25 SC of Level A (e.g., the minimum level of conformance)
– Portal B satisfied 23 SC (92% conformance rate), demonstrating notable progress in enhancing
accessibility.
– Portals C and D achieved 88% conformance with each other (22 satisfied SC per portal).
– Portals A and E achieved 80% conformance (with 20 satisfied SC per portal), highlighting
the need for improvements to meet the foundational accessibility standards.
• Among the 13 SC of level AA (e.g., the mid-range level of conformance),
– All five portals shared the same percentage of conformance at this level, with 85% each (e.g.,
11 satisfied SC per portal).
– All portals failed on two SC related to “resizing text and “headings and labels”.
• Among the 23 SC of level AAA (e.g., the highest level of conformance),
Figure 5: Distribution of errors per conformance level
Figure 6: Percentage of satisfied SC per level
– Portal B and E stand out with 100% conformance each.
– Portals D, A, and C achieved 96% conformance at this level, with one failed SC per portal.
– However, we cannot conclude that these portals meet the AAA level; all of them have errors
in levels A and AA.
To summarize, each portal shows a different level of conformance to each level, and no portal has
reached the three levels of conformance. For example:
• Portal A showed 81 errors, with conformance rates of 80% (level A), 85% (level AA), and 96%
(level AAA).
• Portal B had 41 errors, achieving 92% (level A), 85% (level AA), and 100% (level AAA) conformity.
• Portal C exhibited 52 errors, with conformance rates of 88% (level A), 85% (level AA), and 96%
(level AAA).
• Portal D demonstrated 78 errors, achieving 88% (level A), 85% (level AA), and 96% (level AAA)
conformity.
• Portal E displayed 123 errors, with conformance rates of 80% (level A), 85% (level AA), and 100%
(level AAA).
The identified errors indicate the need for continuous enhancements to meet all SC of accessibility
conformance levels recommended by WCAG 2.0.
5.4. Accessibility Problems and Validation Issues
Table 2 presents the number of accessibility problems as well as the HTML and CSS validations reported
by AChecker across the five portals. Table 3 provides examples of the development of additional insights.
Table 2
Problems and Validations Issues per Portal
Portal A Portal B Portal C Portal D Portal E
Accessibility problems (Likely) 239 93 23 132 257
Accessibility problems (Potential) 726 516 98 325 783
HTML Validation 0 0 0 0 0
CSS Validation 9 60 38 51 32
TOTAL 974 669 159 508 1072
As stated previously, the AChecker tool reports three types of accessibility problems (see Section
3); “known problems” related to failed success criteria have already been discussed in Section 5, while
those readily identifiable by automated tools “Likely problems” and those beyond the tool’s capacity for
detection “Potential problems” [25] are analyzed in this section. As it can be remarked:
• Portal E emerges with the highest count of “likely problems, " suggesting a higher likelihood of
existing accessibility issues that may impact the user experience. In contrast, Portal C had the
lowest count, indicating potentially better adherence to accessibility guidelines. This variation
across portals highlights the diverse landscapes of the accessibility challenges faced by each
portal. The most detected problem in all five portals is related to “change on request” SC in level
AAA, which highlights a specific concern related to links and anchors that open a new window,
potentially missing a warning.
• Portal E once again leads with the highest count of “potential problems”, which signifies a larger
set of issues that may impact accessibility in the future, requiring proactive action. Conversely,
Portal C maintained its position with the lowest count, setting a positive precedent for future
accessibility considerations. One of the most recurrent detected problems is related to the “use of
color” SC in level A: this highlights a specific concern related to images that may contain text
with poor contrast.
The CSS validation highlights potential styling issues that can impact the visual presentation of
portals. Portals A, B, C, D, and E all exhibited varying counts of CSS validation issues, suggesting
potential challenges in maintaining a consistent and effective visual design. This signifies the need for
vigilance in ensuring that styling choices do not compromise the accessibility and usability of portals.
Some CSS errors detected by the tool are related to incorrect values of padding, unknown parameters,
or incorrect use of CSS styling attributes.
The absence of HTML validation errors across all portals indicates strong adherence to proper
HTML syntax and rules, which confirms the effective coding practices implemented in the design and
implementation of these portals, suggesting that the structural foundation of the webpages is consistent
with established standards.
These insights allow for the identification of targeted improvements in accessibility problems, partic-
ularly in addressing specific SC and CSS validation issues across portals. Adherence to HTML standards
is commendable and provides a strong foundation for accessibility.
6. Discussion, Recommendations and Limitations
This study has evaluated and reported on the accessibility of five Moroccan e-government portals (A, B,
C, D, and E) in conformance with WCAG 2.0 using the AChecker tool.
Accessibility evaluation analysis was performed using the number of errors followed by the SC per
portal. As previously mentioned, the number of errors does not necessarily reflect their severity, as
Table 3
Examples of problems and validation issues provided by AChecker
Accessibility Examples Checks and Validation Errors
Problems
SC 1.1.1 Non-text Content (A) “Check 7: Image used as anchor is missing valid
Accessibility
Alt text.”
problems (Known)
SC 1.3.1 Info and Relationships (A) “Check 168: Form missing fieldset and legend to
group multiple radio buttons.”
SC 1.4.4 Resize text (AA) “Check 116: b (bold) element used.”
SC 3.2.5 Change on request (AAA) “Check 18: Anchor that opens new window may
Accessibility
be missing warning.”
problems (Likely)
SC 1.4.6 Contrast (Enhanced) (AAA) “Check 306: The contrast between the color of
text and its background is not sufficient to meet
WCAG2.0 level AAA.”
SC 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions (A) “Check 188: Label text is empty.”
Accessibility SC 1.3.1 Info and Relationships (A) “Check 271: Dir attribute may be required to
problems identify changes in text direction.”
(Potential) SC 1.4.1 Use of Color (A) “Check 251: Image may contain text with poor
contrast.”
SC 2.1.1 Keyboard (A) “Check 89: Script user interface may not be
accessible.”
Errors in padding “px is not a value”
CSS Validation Error in sidebar property “Wrong property”
Error in anchor “Unknown value”
HTML Validation None None
different errors affect accessibility to varying degrees. However, it provides a general overview of the
accessibility of each portal. Notably, the evaluation outcomes underscore that, while Portal E has the
most severe accessibility challenges with a high number of errors, other portals may also encounter
significant barriers to accessibility, albeit with different error distributions.
The next analysis in terms of the SC, regardless of the number of errors, allowed for additional
insights into each portal’s conformance with the WCAG. The main findings are summarized as follows,
with corresponding recommendations to enhance the accessibility of portals:
• Concerning the WCAG principles, all five portals exhibited varying degrees of adherence across
the four principles. While some portals demonstrate strengths in certain areas, such as perceptibil-
ity or operability, others show notable challenges, particularly in areas related to understandable
and robust principles. In particular, Portal E presents significant perceptibility issues, whereas
Portal B has stronger operability features. However, none of the portals fully adhered to all the
WCAG principles, highlighting the need for targeted improvements to achieve comprehensive
accessibility.
• For conformance levels, the findings revealed a mixed level of conformance across portals. Most
portals struggle to meet the level A conformance SC, with notable challenges identified in Portals
A, D, and E. Level AA conformance also presents challenges for all portals, with Portal E exhibiting
a notably high number of failed SC. Portals B and E demonstrate strong conformance to the AAA
level. It is important to note that none of the portals achieved perfect conformance across all
levels, which underlines the importance of continuous improvement efforts to meet the diverse
needs of users with disabilities.
• Concerning accessibility problems, the findings revealed significant variations across portals.
Portal E exhibited the highest number of problems, suggesting a higher likelihood and a larger
set of existing and future accessibility issues. In contrast, Portal C consistently had the lowest
count, indicating better adherence to accessibility standards. The most recurrently detected issues
were related to specific SC, such as “change on request” and “use of color” highlighting concerns
related to links, anchor behavior, and contrast in images.
• Regarding HTML validation, all portals demonstrated full adherence to proper HTML syntax
and rules with no reported validation error. This reflects effective coding practices and ensures
that the structural foundation of webpages is aligned with the established standards. In terms
of CSS validation, varying counts of validation issues were detected across all portals, signaling
potential challenges in maintaining consistent and effective visual designs. While the counts
were moderate, they underlined the importance of vigilance in ensuring that styling choices do
not compromise accessibility and usability. Examples of CSS validation issues include errors in
padding, sidebars, sections, headers, anchors, and menu-icon styling.
In conclusion, these findings highlight the importance of enhancing accessibility across all evaluated
portals to ensure a more inclusive and user-friendly online experience for all citizens. These results
confirm the finding of the study [11] in the Moroccan context. This study has identified that none of
the evaluated websites met the minimum WCAG 2.0 level A with significant barriers across all four
principles: perceivability, operability, understandability, and robustness. For level AA, five criteria were
not respected in each website, affecting the principles of perceivability, operability, and understandability.
For level AAA, 11 to 13 criteria were not met across the websites, indicating substantial non-compliance
with advanced accessibility standards. This emphasizes the need for enforceable accessibility standards
and more comprehensive research to ensure inclusive access to digital services in Morocco.
Table 4 provides a set of recommendations for each portal. By following these recommendations, the
accessibility of these five portals can be improved, and their content made more accessible to a wider
range of users, which will improve the overall user experience for everyone.
Portals Examples of recommendations
Portal A Prioritize improvements in “non-text content”, “info and relationships”, “con-
trast”, “text resizing”, “Headings and Labels” and “link purposes”, to establish
a foundational structure for accessibility at level A. Examples of actions to
undertake are presented as the following:
• Ensure each image used as an anchor has descriptive alt text identifying
its purpose or function.
• Provide a concise and descriptive label for each input element.
• Evaluate and adjust text and background colors to ensure a contrast
ratio of 7:1 for standard text and 4.5:1 for larger text.
• Replace elements with or elements to provide
semantic meaning along with styling.
• Ensure each