=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3857/paper14
|storemode=property
|title=An examination of three ethical perspectives on IT practitioners’ intentions to implement accessibility in IT
artifact design
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3857/paper14.pdf
|volume=Vol-3857
|authors=Juho-Pekka Mäkipää,Jyri Naarmala
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/stpis/MakipaaN24
}}
==An examination of three ethical perspectives on IT practitioners’ intentions to implement accessibility in IT
artifact design==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3857/paper14.pdf
An examination of three ethical perspectives on IT
practitioners’ intentions to implement accessibility in
IT artifact design
Juho-Pekka Mäkipää and Jyri Naarmala
University of Vaasa, School of Technology and Innovations, Wolffintie 32 65200 Vaasa, Finland
Abstract
Accessibility is a goal that information technology (IT) practitioners strive to achieve when
creating IT artifacts for universal use. Designing accessible IT artifacts involves paradigms that en-
compass typical actions IT practitioners are expected to take. However, meeting user requirements
within limited time and budget constraints is challenging and may raise ethical conflicts. In this pa-
per secondary data from seven sample studies was analyzed and reasons why practitioners consider
accessibility were collected. These collected views were then compared against three ethical theor-
ies: consequentialist ethics, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics to understand the ethical phe-
nomena surrounding the accessibility design of IT artifacts. Preliminary findings suggest the three
ethical perspectives seem connected to reasons influencing practitioners' intentions to implement
accessibility. It seems that ethical conflict may occur in the relationship between intrinsic and ex-
trinsic reasons. This paper encourages deeper discussion on the question of how to improve ethical-
ity, guidance, and facilitation towards the right decisions in ethical dilemmas in IT artifact develop-
ment.
Keywords
Digital accessibility, ethics, IT artifact design1
1. Introduction
Information technology (IT) practitioners involved in the development of information sys-
tems (IS) — including e.g. web developers, user experience (UX) practitioners, web designers,
webmasters, and their superiors — make numerous decisions and assumptions, both implicit
and explicit, when creating IT artifacts [1]. They acquire the knowledge needed to design the
system (epistemological assumptions), and those that relate to their view of the social and
technical world (ontological assumptions) [1]. Accessibility is one goal that IT practitioners,
hereafter practitioners, strive to achieve when creating IT artifacts for universal use. Design-
ing accessible IT artifacts involves paradigms that encompass typical actions practitioners are
expected to take. Practitioners, for instance, should collaborate with users and employ appro-
priate methods (e.g., participatory design) to understand and address users' needs [2-5].
The 10th International Conference on Socio-Technical Perspectives in IS (STPIS’24) August 16-17 2024
Jönköping, Sweden.
juho-pekka.makipaa@uwasa..fi (J.-P. Mäkipää); jyri.naarmala@uwasa.fi (J.Naarmala)
0000-0002-2757-8609 (J.-P. Mäkipää); 0000-0003-4536-3705 (J.Naarmala)
© 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
201
Practitioners should comply with laws and regulations related to accessibility and follow
guidelines that extend beyond these regulations [6,7]. Design outputs should be evaluated
against these guidelines [8,9]. Additionally, practitioners should design and assess the com-
patibility of IT artifacts with assistive technologies [10–12]. Finally, practitioners should con-
sider company policy, time constraints, budget, and their own capabilities, including their
knowledge and expertise, when implementing accessibility measures.
From the practitioners’ perspective, the design process involves pragmatic, ethical, and
moral questions [13]. Pragmatic questions relate to efficacy and effectiveness: Does the
system work and perform its intended functions? Does the system meet the owners' long-
term aspirations? Are all other requirements considered in the same way as legal
requirements? Ethical questions involve compatibility with stakeholders' values, and moral
questions address whether the system is fair and just for all affected [13]. Ultimately,
practitioners have an obligation to inscribe desirable values in IT artifacts [14]. Users,
however, vary widely in their abilities, and their needs are diverse. Meeting user
requirements within limited time and budget constraints is challenging and may raise
ethical conflicts— “Ethical conflict occurs when people perceive that their duties toward one
group are inconsistent” [15 p.215]. Nevertheless, ethical values have been described as a fun-
damental part of IS practice, indicating that “human ethical values are inherently embedded
in the design of IS artifacts” [14].
Examining ethical viewpoints in accessibility design is crucial in the field of IS, because
ethical conflicts may influence the actions that practitioners take when creating systems or
technologies. McKay et al. [16] emphasized the importance of a socio-technical perspective,
integrating both human-centered and construction-centered design knowledge for creating
artifacts that fit their context of use. They suggest that understanding the context of an IS
artifact is crucial. Similarly, Lyytinen and Newman [17] identified possible imbalances
among components like actors, technology, tasks, and structure, which can lead to user
issues such as misunderstanding, operational difficulties, or lack of acceptance.
Additionally, factors like individual characteristics, task nature, external environment, and
support systems influence these user conditions [18]. Notably, the codes of ethics of both,
the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and the Association for Information
Systems (AIS) state: “Technologies and practices should be as inclusive and as accessible as
possible, and [computing professionals / AIS members] should take action to avoid creating
systems or technologies that disenfranchise or oppress people.” [19,20]. Additionally, it is con-
firmed that there is a serious lack of research being undertaken regarding the ethical dimen-
sion of the IS field [13,21] However, in practice, web accessibility represents a promising
strategy to improve usability and UX for all user groups [5,22].
This paper was inspired by the work of Mäkipää & Vartiainen [23]. Mäkipää & Vartiainen
[23] investigated what motivates web practitioners to promote accessibility and their
challenges during accessibility development. They examined these aspects from intrinsic and
extrinsic viewpoints but ignored ethical viewpoints. For this paper, we used the same
202
seven sample studies that Mäkipää & Vartiainen [23] inspected. Then, we compared the
reasons why practitioners consider accessibility against three ethical theories:
consequentialist ethics, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics to understand the ethical
phenomena surrounding the accessibility design of IT artifacts. As a preliminary result, the
three ethical perspectives seem to be connected to reasons that influence practitioners' inten-
tions to implement accessibility. Analysis indicates that ethical conflict may occur in the rela-
tionship between intrinsic and extrinsic reasons. This paper raise questions on how to im-
prove ethicality, guidance, and facilitation on the right decisions in ethical dilemmas in web
development.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section, theoretical
foundations of ethics and accessibility are elaborated. This is followed by the method and a
review of selected sample studies. The paper concludes with a discussion and concluding re-
marks.
2. Three philosophical perspectives of ethics and web accessibility
development
There are three major general and philosophical perspectives of ethical theories which
can be considered consequentialist ethics, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics [13,14]. Con-
sequentialist ethics aims to make decisions that will benefit and provide the greatest good
for the widest number of people. The rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by
how much hedonistic consequential benefit is derived from the action. The aim is to maxim-
ize pleasure and minimize pain [13,14]. In accessibility research and practice, the widely used
standard ‘Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction’ (ISO 9241-11:2018) by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) defines accessibility as:
“The extent to which products, systems, services, environments, and facilities can be
used by people from a population with the widest range of user needs, characteristics, and
capabilities to achieve identified goals in identified contexts of use” [24].
In reference to this definition, the overarching aim of accessibility can be viewed as a
consequentialist approach to ethics.
Deontological ethics underscore the principle that all individuals should be treated
with dignity and respect. Within deontological ethics, it is believed that we have a duty to
act in a certain way. The morality of an action is determined by existing rules. These rules,
which represent duties in terms of respecting another individual’s rights, must be adhered to,
and an act is considered ethical if it aligns with these rules [13,14]. Rights are established by
society and are deemed ethically correct and valid, as they are endorsed by a large population.
For instance, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) defines ac-
cessibility in Article 9:
“… appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal
basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and
communications, including information and communications technologies and
203
systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban
and in rural areas” [25].
The convention also agrees that state parties should promote the design, development,
production, and distribution of accessible information at the early stages of information and
communication technology processes [25]. To foster the promotion of accessibility,
legislation (e.g. European Union (EU) directive) forces public services to develop their
online services including websites and mobile applications. Accessibility requirements for
web and mobile in the directive are based on EN standard “Accessibility requirements
suitable for public procurement of ICT products and services in Europe” [26]. The total
foundation of accessibility requirements composition comes from the World Wide Web
Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative as a Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).
WCAG requirements are set to three levels: A (lowest), AA, and AAA (highest) levels. EN
standard and EU directive both recommend the following level AA in their regulations.
These requirements are meant for all documents and software that are web pages or
documents and software that are embedded, rendering, or intended to be rendered with the
web pages [26].
Virtue ethics judge not the ethicality of actions, but rather the ethicality of individuals
[14]. While consequentialism and deontology are ethical theories that focus on actions
themselves, virtue ethics centers on how one can become a good person. In virtue ethics,
decisions are made considering the virtues that are favored [27]. Virtue ethics emphasizes the
idea that we should strive to be good people and do just good acts [13,14]. However, there has
always been an inherent tension among these three broad schools of ethical approaches. Des-
pite some philosophers’ attempts to unite certain aspects of these theories, the field of philo-
sophical ethics considers them to be radically different from each other [14]. Rogerson et al.
[21] discussed what it is to be an ethical IS professional. They proposed principles that de-
scribe an ethos of professionalism within IS: (1) “develop a socially responsible culture within
work which nurtures moral individual action”; (2) “consider and support the well-being of all
stakeholders”; (3) “account for global common values and local cultural differences”; (4) “re-
cognize social responsibility is beyond legal compliance and effective fiscal management”; (5)
“ensure all business processes are considered from a social responsibility perspective”; and (6)
“be proactive rather than reactive”. [16 p.89]
Previous research on accessibility has primarily emphasized its inclusion in the design or
testing phases of software development [28,29]. Most of these studies focus on user groups
with visual impairments, with limited literature available discussing other disabilities such as
hearing and cognitive disabilities [28,29]. When it comes to design practices, WCAG [30] ap-
pears to be the primary reference for accessibility guidelines and design issues [29]. WCAG is
also widely used as a reference model in the development of accessibility assessment tools
[29]. However, a practical conflict exists between WCAG and the full inclusion of accessibil-
ity. Despite WCAG being considered the standard in practice, it has been criticized in re-
search for only addressing approximately half of the needs of users with visual [31]. There-
fore, compliance with WCAG alone does not guarantee a satisfying UX [32], indicating that
making an IT artifact accessible requires more than just adherence to existing laws and
204
and standards. Nevertheless, a study by Inal et al. [33], suggests that the primary motivator
for adopting accessibility practices remains government laws and policies.
3. Methodology
As a preliminary examination, seven sample studies (See Table 1.) identified by [23]
were reviewed from the literature to examine ethical viewpoints. The sample studies
included 1925 respondents.
Table 1.
Description of the Sample Studies
Paper ref. N Description of the Participants
Bi et al. [34] 380 Web app developers, mobile app developers, and accessibility designers.
Inal et al. [27] 167 UX professionals.
Joyner et al. [35] 144 Visualization designers, data scientists, academics/teachers, students, data
journalists, and hobbyists.
Lazar et al. [36] 175 Webmasters.
Nahon et al. [37] 417 Non-professional practitioners of online content.
Vollenwyder et al. [5] 342 Web practitioners in functional testing, management, project management,
development, product owner, and visual design.
Yesilada et al. [38] 300 Consultants, practitioners, researchers, and managers specialized in Web
accessibility, Human Computer Interaction, Software engineering, Design,
Computer science, Business, and UX.
Considering a qualitative content analysis [39], in vivo coding was utilized to derive
sample studies participants’ viewpoints of what influence their actions to implement
accessibility. The reasons were then collected and analyzed against three ethical theories us-
ing abductive reasoning [40], where the aim was to find the most likely conclusion. The fol-
lowing three parameters were used for the interpretation:
(1) Reasons as consequentialist ethics, which intentionally aim for actions that yield he-
donistic consequentialist benefits, maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for the
greatest number of people [13,14].
(2) Reasons as deontological ethics, which are influenced by certain rules such as
laws, policies, etc., or other factors that instill a sense of duty in practitioners,
guiding them to act accordingly [13,14].
(3) Reasons as virtue ethics, which are not about actions per se, but rather about the
thought processes behind the actions that make individuals feel like they are being
good people [13,14,27].
205
4. Preliminary findings
After reviewing sample studies, reasons beyond practitioners’ intention to implement ac-
cessibility are identified and illustrated in Table 2. These are followed by the interpretation of
what type of ethical approach these reasons represent.
Table 2.
Reasons by sample studies that influences practitioner’s acts to implement accessibility and in-
terpreted ethical approaches
Reason Evidence Interpreted ethical
approach
Personal Producing accessible online content is a great idea. - Providing Virtue
motivation accessible online content is a good thing to do. - I like the idea
of producing accessible online content - It is worthwhile to
produce accessible online content [37]
It is human responsibility to support equality through equal Virtue
access in any domain of life [35]
Some personal association towards providing widespread Virtue
access that made them value visualization accessibility. [35]
Project team members’ personal motivation [33] Virtue
Ethical aspects [33] Virtue
Perceived Product quality (‘If benefits for all user groups are highlighted, Consequentialist
benefits for all, Web Accessibility is much more likely to be considered’) [5]
improved ‘Accessibility benefits all types of people regardless their Consequentialist
product quality abilities and situations are very strongly supported by all’ [38]
and company Organization gains good reputation by following ethical and Virtue
reputation social responsibility principles [33]
The project focused on reaching more people [33] Consequentialist
‘Accessibility now needs to be shifted targeting the general Consequentialist
end-users and is important for every project’ [34]
‘Accessibility could be integrated into current projects as a Consequentialist
competitive functionality’ [34] Deontological
Knowing that Users actively promote their needs (perceived as subjective Deontological
the target users norm) [5]
included people The target users included people with disabilities and special Deontological
with disabilities needs [33]
Knowing that users with visual impairment are using their site Virtue
would influence [36]
Many empathized with visually impaired users as they or Virtue
someone they knew needed special assistance in other
situations. [35]
Requirements by It was enforced by the law [33] Deontological
the legislation Government requirements would influence the most [36] Deontological
‘When it comes to whether legislation is the main motivator to Deontological
adopt accessibility, responses are evenly divided although no
strong positions are held’ [38]
Requirements by Company policies [33] Deontological
company or It was required by the customer [33] Deontological
client Organization required to follow web development standards Deontological
which help build accessible products [33]
206
Organization required to take into account web accessibility in Deontological
that project [33]
Outside pressure from management or clients would influence Deontological
[36]
Influence of Community context: People who are important to me believe Deontological
external that I should produce accessible online content. - People who
community are important to me encourage me to produce accessible
online content - People who are important to me don't care if I
produce accessible online content [37]
Business Business pressures motivate to achieve short-term goals Deontological
pressure rather than the longer-term or indirectly profitable work of
accessibility [34]
Part of role Web Accessibility is a part of professional role [5] Deontological /
Virtue
Providing accessibility features is a standard step in the design Deontological /
process [35] Virtue
‘Accessibility design should not be an independent activity but Virtue
intertwined with many software artefacts and activities’ [34]
Summing up the findings, the main reasons can be identified from the sample studies.
First, the reasons that practitioners encounter can be divided into intrinsically and
extrinsically influencing reasons (See Figure 1.). Intrinsic reasons are those thoughts and val-
ues that practitioners personally have, and which vary depending on the individual. Extrinsic
reasons are those which influence practitioners’ thoughts and work expectations, and vary
depending on the context (e.g. company policies).
Figure 1. Interconnection between the reasons that influence practitioners’ intentions to im-
plement accessibility, ethical approaches, and accessibility paradigms (An arrow represents an
effect).
207
Intrinsic reasons include personal motivation, perceived benefits for all, improved product
quality and company reputation, and knowing that the target users included people with
disabilities. Personal motivation contains the interest and attitude that accessibility is a good
thing, and it is something that a person wants to do [33,37]. Accessibility can be seen
ethically as a human responsibility to support equality [33,35]. Personal motivation is
interpreted as virtue ethics because it reveals individuals thinking and intentions according to
accessibility. Perceived benefits for all, improved product quality, and company reputation in-
clude consequentialist thinking to improve product quality by applying accessibility which
will have benefits for all users, and which will reach more people [5,33,34,38]. These reasons
are aiming intentionally for the actions that have a hedonistic consequentialist benefit to the
widest number of people regardless of their abilities. There were also ideas that accessibility
could be used as a competitive functionality [34] which reveals also deontological thinking
that there is a competition that gives the input that makes practitioners feel that they have a
duty, and they should apply accessibility. Practitioners also believe that following ethical and
social responsibilities by applying accessibility will improve the company's reputation [33],
which can be seen as a virtue. Knowing that the target users included people with disabilities is
the reason that can be perceived from two ethical perspectives. First, it can be perceived as
deontological ethics, which refers to the perception that practitioners feel social pressure
from others and therefore considers the inclusion of users as a duty they must do [5,33].
Second, this reason can be perceived as virtue ethics. This refers to the extent to which practi-
tioners emphasize users with disabilities [35,36].
Extrinsic reasons include requirements by the legislation, requirements by company or client,
influence of external community, and business pressure. All these reasons are interpreted as de-
ontological ethics because these are caused by certain rules that make practitioners feel that
they have a duty, and they should act accordingly. Requirements by the legislation such as
complying with WCAG guidelines is many times the reason that influences practitioners
most [33,36,38]. A similar perception is felt when company management or clients have ac-
cessibility requirements and place pressure [33,36]. The external community's influence refers
to the extent to which a developer is a member of the community on a related topic and per-
ceives expectations by the community members to promote accessibility. This is interpreted
as extrinsic input that causes the feeling of duty. This is, however, caused by an individual's
own choice and therefore cannot be generalized. Like the influence by company policy, prac-
titioners perceive business pressure that can influence practitioners to target short-term goals
rather than the long-term work of accessibility [34].
Reasons that can be interpreted as well as intrinsic and extrinsic refer to the role
practitioners feel they have. For example, the sense that accessibility is a part of
practitioners’ role can be personally perceived by practitioners themselves [5,34,35] which
refers to virtue. On the other hand, they may believe that the role and position that they
represent include an expectation and responsibility to act toward accessibility which refers to
duty and deontological ethics.
208
5. Discussion
Based on the three ethical theories approaches, this paper collates and illustrates the inter-
connection between the reasons that influence practitioners’ intentions to implement access-
ibility and accessibility paradigms. The main contribution of this paper is the illustration (Fig-
ure 1.) of the ethicality of accessibility paradigms and their interconnection to practitioners’
intentions to implement accessibility. The illustration shows the relevance and a concern in
the ethical management of accessibility in IS development. The question is how to derive the
ethics of accessibility paradigms to ensure a holistic view of the development of accessibility
of information systems in IT development context.
As a second contribution, this work collated the main reasons that influence
practitioners’ intentions to implement accessibility which can be divided into intrinsically and
extrinsically influencing reasons. Intrinsic and extrinsic reasons are important to understand
because ethical conflict may occur in the relationship between them. If deontological reasons
and causes, such as requirements of law and management, etc., are perceived as inconsistent
or inadequate towards one group that is prioritized by the intrinsic reasons of the practition-
ers, it may cause an ethical conflict.
5.1. Implications to research
All three ethical perspectives open research streams for future research in accessibility.
For example, consequentialist perspective that aims for hedonistic consequentialist benefit to
the widest number of people, raises an important question on how designing accessibility for
certain group of users affect perception of accessibility, moreover, usability for the other
groups. This refers also to other ethical questions on how to define majority and minority
among different users.
Rights and duties are important in deontological ethics and must be followed [14]. Re-
quirements by law oblige deontological reasons on practitioners, who must then apply those
in their work – but in practice they are not adequate to cover the needs of the people [31].
Therefore, collaboration with users is necessary. It is evident that people, either users or prac-
titioners in this context may perceive tasks, behavior of technology, or organizational struc-
tures differently which may lead to misunderstanding, operational difficulties, or lack of ac-
ceptance [17].
Chatterjee et al. [14] developed an artifact that enabled practitioner groups to conduct eth-
ical collaboration. Similarly, ethical collaboration with users should be investigated and
guided to enable practitioners to conduct user-sensitive design systematically covering the
rights. Virtue is a sense of good person. This paper argues that training could influence prac-
titioners' virtues. However, this should be investigated empirically to understand the real im-
pact of training and how the knowledge gained through it is eventually applied.
5.2. Implications to practice
To improve the realization of accessibility, it is necessary to take actions (accessibility
paradigms) that are and have a consequentialist and deontological effect, and the actions that
influence practitioners’ attitude toward accessibility, thus their virtue.
209
In practice, consequentialist actions can be achieved by supporting practitioners to
collaborate and involve users (including users with disabilities and non-disabled users) with
appropriate methods (e.g. participatory design) in the design and evaluation processes.
Within this collaboration, practitioners can extract and understand users’ actual needs [2–5]
which are not necessarily covered by guidelines or standards. Moreover, if collaborative users
represent various user groups (including assistive technology users) the outcome is more
likely to be efficient considering the widest range of user needs and the compatibility of as-
sistive technology [2,10–12].
To support the deontological approach, management should provide training and
manuals that cover laws and the knowledge of the practices on how to comply with
guidelines. Management should encourage and support practitioners’ skills to comply with
laws and regulations related to accessibility and guidelines beyond these regulations. [6,7].
Design outputs should be evaluated against the guidelines [8,9]. It is important that
management understand that practitioners have to consider company policy, time
constraints, budget, and their own capability to perform acts for accessibility (practitioners’
knowledge and expertise) as well. Therefore, cooperation with practitioners to find a
consensus on these issues is helpful. Engaging a diverse range of stakeholders besides
practitioners, such as line managers, copywriters, and policymakers, to make accessibility a
reality has an effect on attitude and commitment to promoting accessibility [41,42], thus it
can affect practitioners’ virtues benefiting accessibility.
6. Conclusions
Better understanding of consequentialist, deontological, and virtue ethics of accessibility
paradigms could improve ethics of accessibility of information systems. Practitioners have in-
trinsic and extrinsic reasons that influence their intention to implement accessibility. Intrinsic
reasons include personal motivation, perceived benefits for all, improved product quality and
company reputation, and knowing that the target users included people with disabilities. Ex-
trinsic reasons include requirements by the legislation, requirements by company or client,
influence of external community, and business pressure. Reasons that can be as intrinsic, as
well as extrinsic, refer to the role that practitioners feel they have. Ethical conflict may occur
in the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic reasons.
This paper proposes a model intended for managers to derive the ethics of accessibility
paradigms to ensure a holistic view of the development of accessibility of information
systems in IT development context. The model illustrates ethical approaches of paradigms of
accessibility and interconnection to practitioners’ intention to implement accessibility. This
paper argues that there is relevance and a need for consideration to encompass each ethical
approach in the management of accessibility, so that the main accessibility milestones become
implemented in the design.
210
References
[1] R. Hirschheim, and H.K. Klein, Four paradigms of information systems development,
Commun. ACM. 32 (1989) 1199–1216. doi:10.1145/67933.67937.
[2] K.M. Gerling, C. Linehan, B. Kirman, M.R. Kalyn, A.B. Evans, and K.C. Hicks, Creating
wheelchair-controlled video games: Challenges and opportunities when involving
young people with mobility impairments and game design experts, International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 94 (2016) 64–73.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.08.009.
[3] L. Little, P. Briggs, and L. Coventry, Public space systems: Designing for privacy?,
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 63 (2005) 254–268.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.018.
[4] K. Seaborn, J. Edey, G. Dolinar, M. Whitfield, P. Gardner, C. Branje, and D.I. Fels,
Accessible Play in Everyday Spaces: Mixed Reality Gaming for Adult Powered Chair
Users, ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 23 (2016) 12:1-12:28.
doi:10.1145/2893182.
[5] B. Vollenwyder, G.H. Iten, F. Brühlmann, K. Opwis, and E.D. Mekler, Salient beliefs
influencing the intention to consider Web Accessibility, Computers in Human Behavior.
92 (2019) 352–360. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.016.
[6] P. Cairns, C. Power, M. Barlet, and G. Haynes, Future design of accessibility in games: A
design vocabulary, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 131 (2019) 64– 71.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.06.010.
[7] J. Martins, R. Gonçalves, and F. Branco, A full scope web accessibility evaluation
procedure proposal based on Iberian eHealth accessibility compliance, Computers in Hu-
man Behavior. 73 (2017) 676–684. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.010.
[8] G. Brajnik, Y. Yesilada, and S. Harper, The Expertise Effect on Web Accessibility
Evaluation Methods, Human–Computer Interaction. 26 (2011) 246–283.
doi:10.1080/07370024.2011.601670.
[9] V.F. de Santana, and M.C.C. Baranauskas, WELFIT: A remote evaluation tool for
identifying Web usage patterns through client-side logging, International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies. 76 (2015) 40–49. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.12.005.
[10] L. Newman, K. Browne‐Yung, P. Raghavendra, D. Wood, and E. Grace, Applying a
critical approach to investigate barriers to digital inclusion and online social
networking among young people with disabilities, Information Systems Journal. 27
(2017) 559–588. doi:10.1111/isj.12106.
[11] J.E. Pérez, X. Valencia, M. Arrue, and J. Abascal, Evaluation of two virtual cursors for
assisting web access to people with motor impairments, International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies. 132 (2019) 81–98. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.08.001.
[12] H. Pérez-Espinosa, J. Martínez-Miranda, I. Espinosa-Curiel, J. Rodríguez-Jacobo, and H.
Avila-George, Using acoustic paralinguistic information to assess the interaction
quality in speech-based systems for elderly users, International Journal of HumanCom-
puter Studies. 98 (2017) 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.09.013.
[13] J. Mingers, and G. Walsham, Toward Ethical Information Systems: The Contribution of
Discourse Ethics, MIS Quarterly. 34 (2010) 833–854. doi:10.2307/25750707.
211
[14] S. Chatterjee, S. Sarker, and M. Fuller, A Deontological Approach to Designing Ethical
Collaboration, Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 10 (2009).
doi:10.17705/1jais.00190.
[15] M.J. Baker, Marketing: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, Taylor &
Francis, 2001.
[16] J. McKay, P. Marshall, and R. Hirschheim, The Design Construct in Information Systems
Design Science, Journal of Information Technology. 27 (2012) 125–139.
doi:10.1057/jit.2012.5.
[17] K. Lyytinen, and M. Newman, Explaining information systems change: a punctuated
socio-technical change model, European Journal of Information Systems. 17 (2008)
589–613. doi:10.1057/ejis.2008.50.
[18] R.P. Bostrom, and J.S. Heinen, MIS Problems and Failures: A Socio-Technical
Perspective, Part II: The Application of Socio-Technical Theory, MIS Quarterly. 1
(1977) 11. doi:10.2307/249019.
[19] Association for Computing Machinery, ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct,
(n.d.). https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics (accessed September 29, 2023).
[20] Association for Information Systems, AIS Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct,
(n.d.). https://aisnet.org/page/MemberCodeOfConduct (accessed October 2, 2023). [21] S.
Rogerson, K.W. Miller, J.S. Winter, and D. Larson, Information systems ethics –
challenges and opportunities, Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in
Society. 17 (2017) 87–97. doi:10.1108/JICES-07-2017-0041.
[22] A. Aizpurua, S. Harper, and M. Vigo, Exploring the relationship between web
accessibility and user experience, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 91
(2016) 13–23. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.03.008.
[23] J.-P. Mäkipää, and T. Vartiainen, Understanding Motivators and Challenges in
Accessibility Development, 14th Scandinavian Conference on Information Systems.
(2023).
[24] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 9241-11:2018, Ergonomics of human-
system interaction — Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts, (2018). https://
www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-11:ed-2:v1:en (accessed September 12, 2020).
[25] United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional
Protocol, (2006). https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-
rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html.
[26] European Telecommunications Standards institute, Accessibility requirements
suitable for public procurement of ICT products and services in Europe (EN 301 549
v.1.1.2), (2015).
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/01.01.02_60/en_30
1549v010102p.pdf (accessed August 15, 2020).
[27] M.J. Neubert, D.S. Carlson, K.M. Kacmar, J.A. Roberts, and L.B. Chonko, The Virtuous
Influence of Ethical Leadership Behavior: Evidence from the Field, J Bus Ethics. 90
(2009) 157–170. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0037-9.
[28] K. Mack, E. McDonnell, D. Jain, L. Lu Wang, J. E. Froehlich, and L. Findlater, What Do
We Mean by “Accessibility Research”? A Literature Survey of Accessibility Papers in CHI
212
and ASSETS from 1994 to 2019, in: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,
USA, 2021: pp. 1–18. http://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445412 (accessed January 8, 2022).
[29] D.M.B. Paiva, A.P. Freire, and R.P. de Mattos Fortes, Accessibility and Software
Engineering Processes: A Systematic Literature Review, Journal of Systems and
Software. 171 (2021) 110819. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2020.110819.
[30] W3C, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, (2018).
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/ (accessed June 14, 2020).
[31] H. Petrie, and O. Kheir, The relationship between accessibility and usability of
websites, in: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems - CHI ’07, ACM Press, San Jose, California, USA, 2007: pp. 397–406.
doi:10.1145/1240624.1240688.
[32] A. Aizpurua, M. Arrue, and M. Vigo, Uncovering the role of expectations on perceived
web accessibility, in: Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS
Conference on Computers and Accessibility, Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 2013: pp. 1–2. doi:10.1145/2513383.2513411.
[33] Y. Inal, F. Guribye, D. Rajanen, M. Rajanen, and M. Rost, Perspectives and Practices of
Digital Accessibility: A Survey of User Experience Professionals in Nordic Countries,
in: Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction:
Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society, Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 2020: pp. 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420119 (accessed January
13, 2022).
[34] T. Bi, X. Xia, D. Lo, J. Grundy, T. Zimmermann, and D. Ford, Accessibility in Software
Practice: A Practitioner’s Perspective, ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (2021).
doi:10.1145/3503508.
[35] S.C.S. Joyner, A. Riegelhuth, K. Garrity, Y.-S. Kim, and N.W. Kim, Visualization
Accessibility in the Wild: Challenges Faced by Visualization Designers, in: CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2022: pp. 1–19. doi:10.1145/3491102.3517630.
[36] J. Lazar, A. Dudley-Sponaugle, and K.-D. Greenidge, Improving web accessibility: a
study of webmaster perceptions, Computers in Human Behavior. 20 (2004) 269–288.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.018.
[37] K. Nahon, I. Benbasat, and C. Grange, The Missing Link: Intention to Produce Online
Content Accessible to People with Disabilities by Non-professionals, in: 2012 45th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2012: pp. 1747–1757.
doi:10.1109/HICSS.2012.578.
[38] Y. Yesilada, G. Brajnik, M. Vigo, and S. Harper, Exploring perceptions of web
accessibility: a survey approach, Behaviour & Information Technology. 34 (2015) 119–
134. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2013.848238.
[39] Y. Zhang, and B.M. Wildemuth, Qualitative Analysis of Content. In: Applications of
Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science., Westport,
CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2009.
213
[40] A.D. Andrade, Dancing between theory and data: abductive reasoning, in: Handbook
of Qualitative Research Methods for Information Systems, Eds. Robert M. Davison,
2023.
[41] M. Henninger, Government information: Literacies, behaviours and practices,
Government Information Quarterly. 34 (2017) 8–15. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2016.12.003. [42] J.
Lazar, P.T. Jaeger, A. Adams, A. Angelozzi, J. Manohar, J. Marciniak, J. Murphy, P.
Norasteh, C. Olsen, E. Poneres, T. Scott, N. Vaidya, and J. Walsh, 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 (2010) 329–336.
doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.04.005.
214