Assessing students’ awareness and education of web accessibility in web development and interface design programs Elin Henriksson1, Anna Uddstrom1and Lotte van Bree1 1 Department of Computer Science and Informatics, School of Engineering, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden Abstract In an era of growing digitization, technology is essential for communication and daily life. However, inaccessible websites, including in Sweden, create barriers for individuals with disabilities, often due to insufficient education and awareness among web developers. Our quantitative study aimed to assess the status of web accessibility education within Swedish web development and interface design programs. We analyzed curricula and surveyed 63 final-year students across 23 programs. Findings show that while most programs (18 out of 23) include web accessibility, integration levels vary. Only 2% of courses offered standalone accessibility objectives, and 7% incorporated it within other courses, leaving 91% without any. Student knowledge varied; 69.8% were aware of accessibility guidelines and laws, but 30.2% were not. Additionally, only 26.2% of students reported acquiring knowledge about accessibility guidelines and laws from their current education. This underscores the need for better web accessibility education. Keywords Accessibility, web development, web accessibility, accessibility guidelines, WCAG, education, interface design. 1. Introduction As our lives become more digital, technology shapes our daily routines. From scheduling appointments to handling banking matters, we rely on digital tools and a functional web to navigate our tasks smoothly. While this digital shift simplifies communication and access to information for some, it also creates barriers and excludes others from performing the same tasks. Studies highlight the global issue of inaccessible websites, depriving people with disabilities of equal web access [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. The World Health Organization (2023) reports that approximately 16% of the global population has various disabilities, including auditory, cognitive, neurological, physical, speech, and visual impairments, with a growing elderly population facing age-related disabilities [8]. However, according to Buder & Perry (2021), the social model of disability states that it is the barriers in society that create problems, rather than the impairment of the individuals. Therefore the rapid advancement of technology needs to be developed with accessibility in mind to provide an accessible digital environment without barriers as stated by Katerattanakul et al. (2018), to The 10th International Conference on Socio-Technical Perspectives in IS (STPIS’24) August 16-17 2024 Jönköping, Sweden. $ elinhenriksson01@gmail.com (E. Henriksson); anna.uddstrom@gmail.com (A. Uddstrom); lotte.van.bree@ju.se (L. v. Bree) © 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). CEUR http://ceur-ws.org Workshop Proceedings CEUR ceur-ws.org Workshop ISSN 1613-0073 Proceedings 269 ensure inclusiveness for the increasing number of individuals dealing with disabilities. The issue of inaccessible websites poses significant challenges for people with disabilities [9]. Examples include intrusive advertisements, content overload, and the lack of audio descriptions, all of which can create barriers. Components like automatic video and music playback further hinder accessibility by interfering with screen readers [9], emphasizing the need for well- structured websites compatible with assistive technologies. Access to information and communication technologies, including the web, is a fundamen- tal right for individuals with disabilities, affirmed by the United Nations [10]. The Swedish Discriminatory Act works to combat discrimination against individuals, including those with disabilities. Additionally, the European Union has implemented accessibility laws, including the Web Accessibility Directive [11] and the European Accessibility Act [12]. These laws aim to reduce barriers by enforcing accessibility requirements on products and services, including websites [13]. The Web Accessibility Directive, enacted in 2018 across member states, focuses on the public sector [14]. In contrast, the European Accessibility Act (EAA) covers a broader range of accessibility requirements, encompassing the private sector, with compliance required by 2025 [13]. This impending legislation underscores the growing relevance of web accessibility. To enhance web accessibility, adherence to guidelines such as the Web Content Accessi- bility Guidelines (WCAG) is crucial [15]. These guidelines serve as tools to structure and implement code and web content, promoting accessibility [16]. However, not all guidelines may be applicable to every website due to varying user needs [17]. Therefore, understanding the rationale behind accessibility implementations and their impact on end users is essential [18]. This underscores the significant responsibility on web developers and designers to create universally accessible websites, considering their pivotal role in developing interactive and design components [2]. 1.1. Problem statement Although web accessibility is crucial for equal web usage, it is often deprioritized within the web development industry [19, 20, 21, 18]. This is evident from the many inaccessible websites globally, where accessibility measures are lacking [2, 1, 4, 3, 5, 7]. Sweden is no exception. For instance, a study by Jonsson et al. (2023) found that Swedish healthcare providers’ websites did not fully meet the EU web accessibility directive, failing to provide accessible health information and eHealth services to all citizens. The main reasons for the prevailing lack of web accessibility today are not fully confirmed. However, studies have highlighted potential reasons, such as a perceived lack of knowledge on how to implement accessibility correctly [22, 23] and misconceptions stemming from a fundamental lack of awareness [5]. Despite many professionals expressing the necessity for education and training in web accessibility [23, 24], there remains a significant gap in research on current educational practices. While some studies have explored methods for integrating web accessibility into educational programs [25, 26, 27], there is a lack of clarity on the actual implementation of these learning objectives. Consequently, this study addresses this gap by shedding light on the current state and approaches to how web accessibility is incorporated into education. 270 1.2. Purpose and research questions A potential reason for the prevalence of inaccessible websites globally and in Sweden is the lack of awareness and knowledge among professionals. One contributing factor could be inadequate education on web accessibility. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the current state- and approaches of implementing education on web accessibility in Sweden. For this study the following research questions were created: [RQ1] How are web accessibility learning objectives currently incorporated into the curricula of Swedish web development- and interface design programs? [RQ2] How much do final-year students within web development- and interface design programs know about the current web accessibility guidelines and laws in Sweden? [RQ3] How have current web development- and interface design educational programs contributed to the knowledge of students within those programs regarding web accessibility guidelines and laws? 2. Related works 2.1. Terminology 2.1.1. Web accessibility definition Accessibility relates to concepts like inclusive design, digital inclusion, and universal usability, aiming to make technology accessible to the widest possible range of users. While some argue that accessibility should focus solely on people with disabilities [28], others contend that it applies universally. Research indicates that a majority of those involved in accessibility perceive it as relevant to everyone, not just individuals with disabilities [29]. The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) defines web accessibility as designing websites, tools, and technologies so that people with disabilities can use them, ensuring equal access to web content and functionality [30]. In this study, ’web accessibility’ refers to creating a barrier-free web environment that ensures technology and content are accessible for individuals with disabilities. 2.1.2. Disability definition Disability refers to any condition an individual’s body or mind may encounter that limits the person’s ability to do certain activities and interact with the community. For this study, we do however follow the social model, saying that it is the barriers in society that create problems, not the individuals. We refer to the term ’disabilities’ as auditory, cognitive, neurological, physical, speech, and visual impairments, including both temporary and permanent disabilities. 2.1.3. Web development & interface design definition In our study we refer to web development and interface design as the fields of Frontend development, User Experience (UX), User Interface (UI), or other related fields that are directly involved in creating the interactive components of websites, since that is where the majority of web accessibility implementations are done. 271 2.2. Overview of current laws and directives regarding accessibility Several laws and directives are currently enacted worldwide to address web accessibility con- cerns, which vary by geographical location. This study focuses on specific laws and directives relevant in Sweden, collectively referred to as "Laws": 1. European Accessibility Act: Introduced in 2019, extending accessibility requirements to a broader array of products and services, including both the private and public sector, promoting equal opportunities and fair competition [31]. 2. Swedish Discriminatory Act: Promotes equal rights and combats discrimination, including against individuals with disabilities, recognizing inaccessibility as a form of disadvantage [31]. 3. United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Article 9): Mandates measures to ensure individuals with disabilities have equal access to information and communication technologies [10]. 2.3. How websites currently meet the accessibility requirements Multiple studies underscore the global issue of inaccessible websites, creating barriers for individuals with disabilities. In India, a study of 44 higher educational websites revealed pervasive accessibility issues [2]. Similarly, in the United States, research found that only 23% of federal government homepages met accessibility standards under "Section 508", and 28% adhered to Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) guidelines [4]. An Austrian study showed that merely 12% of Business-To-Consumer web pages passed accessibility evaluations [5]. Furthermore, a study in Brazil indicated that only 19.9% of web development professionals considered accessibility in their projects [32]. These findings highlight persistent global challenges despite universal efforts to ensure web accessibility. In Sweden, similar issues persist. A study by Jonsson et al. (2023) examined 37 Swedish healthcare providers’ websites for compliance with EU web accessibility directives. None of the sites fully met legal requirements, failing to provide accessible health information and eHealth services as mandated since 2020. Additionally, many websites lacked required accessibility statements. 2.4. Accessibility awareness in the professional web development- and interface design field In the professional web development and interface design field, awareness of web accessibility is increasing alongside the implementation of regulations, updated guidelines, and evaluation software [2, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Despite these efforts, practical implementations often fall short, as evidenced by the prevalence of inaccessible websites today. The integration of accessibility considerations into projects varies widely, influenced by factors such as management require- ments, client demands, financial support, and social influences [23, 24]. Studies highlight that individuals responsible for web accessibility can significantly impact the measures taken; for instance, designers prioritize accessibility more than developers in certain projects [23]. A key challenge contributing to the deprioritization of web accessibility is the perceived lack of 272 knowledge in implementing accessibility correctly [22, 23]. Professionals often view accessibil- ity as specialized expertise rather than common knowledge, which affects their confidence in integrating accessibility measures [1]. Additionally, misconceptions and insufficient education further hinder effective implementation [5, 32, 23]. 2.5. Accessibility awareness in web development- and interface design education Previous research has examined different levels of accessibility awareness among web develop- ment students [32, 21, 20]. Cao & Loiacono (2019) investigated the awareness of web accessibility guidelines among website and app developer students using surveys and interviews. They found that out of 76 students, only 43% were familiar with any of the guidelines. Additionally, Cao & Loiacono (2019) explored the inclusion of accessibility topics in design, web development, and app development courses. Their findings indicated that 73% of participants had taken one or more relevant courses, with 45% of these courses covering accessibility. In another study by Ferati & Vogel (2020), researchers examined 19 students enrolled in a web development course, revealing that only 42.11% were familiar with accessibility guidelines. Moreover, the study highlighted that 18 out of 19 students were unaware of disability policies in Sweden and the EU, with one student expressing uncertainty. Ferati & Vogel (2020) also investigated web development courses at a Swedish university, finding that only 14.3% of the 14 courses included accessibility topics in their syllabi. Additionally, Baker et al. (2020) conducted a literature analysis on accessibility in computing education, revealing that it is rarely a standalone course but often integrated as an add-on to existing topics. They noted that when accessibility is treated as an add-on, it tends to be deprioritized or omitted altogether. In a related study, Pima (2011) argued for integrating accessibility into university curricula for web programmers and developers to align with industry standards and regulations. From these studies, it is prevalent that the majority of students lack familiarity with accessibility guidelines. It is also shown that the topic of accessibility is rarely or only partially integrated into educational programs, and when included, it tends to be an add-on that is often neglected. 2.6. Methods to enhance web accessibility Inaccessible websites pose significant challenges for individuals with disabilities, hindering their ability to navigate and access information online. Baumgartner et al. (2023) conducted qualitative interviews with individuals with disabilities, revealing common barriers such as complex layouts, intrusive advertisements, content overload, and lack of audio descriptions. Issues like automatic video and music playback further impede accessibility by interrupting screen readers. This underscores the need for well-structured websites that are compatible with assistive technologies, highlighting the responsibility of web developers and designers in ensuring universal accessibility [2]. Adhering to web accessibility guidelines is crucial to improving website accessibility from the outset [15]. However, guidelines must be applied contextually as each website serves diverse user needs [17]. Understanding the rationale behind accessibility implementations and their impact on end-users is essential [18]. Conducting user testing involving people with disabilities is also recommended to assess accessibility 273 comprehensively [17]. While guidelines offer a foundational framework for enhancing web accessibility, they should inform design decisions throughout the development process [18]. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international public-interest, non-profit organization that works to develop and uphold web standards and guidelines that promote the evolution of the web to guarantee its sustained long-term progression [33]. An important part of the W3C is The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), they develop web accessibility guidelines, educational resources, and technical specifications to provide an inclusive web accessible for people with disabilities. The web standards and guidelines that WAI develops are called W3C recommendations [34] These standards include the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG), which offer guidance on the development of authoring tools [35]. The User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) provide guidelines for user agents such as web browsers and browser extensions [36]. The Accessible Rich Internet Applications suite of web standards (WAI-ARIA) provides guidelines for dynamic content and advanced user interface controls [37]. Another W3C recommendation is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). WCAG is a standard for how to make web content more accessible and might be one of the most commonly known standards [38]. WCAG 2.2 provides 13 guidelines under different categories that are designed to meet the diverse needs of individuals, organizations, and governments worldwide. All guidelines are centered on four key principles necessary for an accessible web [39]: perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust (POUR), ensuring that content is accessible and usable by everyone as technology evolves. 3. Method 3.1. Data collection The data collection involved selecting institutions and programs that met our sample criteria. We then conducted two quantitative data collection methods, a survey and curricula analysis, to address our research questions; “RQ1”, “RQ2” and “RQ3”. We chose quantitative methods to draw generalizable conclusions and identify patterns, as recommended by Williams (2021). This approach provided insights into the student’s awareness of accessibility guidelines and laws, the extent of web accessibility learning objectives covered in their education, and how much of this knowledge was acquired through their current education. We adopted an 85% confidence level and a 10% margin of error. Although higher confidence levels are generally preferred, they require larger sample sizes, which were not feasible with our small sample frame (<50), as noted by Budiu (2021). To enhance generalizability, we aimed to gather a large number of survey responses and employed a triangulation approach to address our third research question (RQ3), combining survey and curricula analysis to strengthen the results, following Säfsten & Gustavsson (2019). 3.2. Selection of Institutions and Programs When selecting institutions and programs for the curricula analysis and online survey, certain criteria had to be met: programs had to focus on UX, UI, Frontend development, or related fields directly involved in creating interactive components of websites to ensure relevance. 274 Additionally, the programs had to have a duration of at least one year of full-time studies, to exclude shorter, highly specialized ones, aiming to focus on broader programs that might cover multiple aspects of web accessibility. Only programs offered by Swedish universities and university colleges were considered, excluding those from other educational institutions. By using the websites that manage admissions to Swedish university programs, we identified 40 relevant programs (see appendix A) for our sample frame [40, 41]. We selected 23 programs for the curricula analysis and online survey, based on the determined confidence level and margin of error. Stratified random sampling based on geographical regions (Norrland, Svealand, and Götaland), was used, to ensure representation across Sweden [42]. Programs were proportionally selected from each stratum using random sampling, specifically the lottery method. This method ensured equal opportunity for all programs within each stratum, mitigating potential sampling bias and adhering to the principles of stratified random sampling [43]. The final sample included three programs from Norrland, seven from Svealand, and 13 from Götaland (see appendix B). 3.3. Sampling Process for Student Selection Based on the program selection, the next step was distributing the online survey to all final- year students in each chosen program. We collaborated with program managers to facilitate the survey distribution. By focusing exclusively on final-year students, we ensured they had completed multiple courses, and had the opportunity to learn about web accessibility, which might not have been guaranteed for students in earlier years. Our objective for the survey findings was to achieve an 85% confidence level with a 10% margin of error, based on the parameters set during program selection (see Section 3.2). Initially, we identified 1221 students in our sample frame, adjusting for one program with unavailable statistics by using mean values from other programs. We calculated that a minimum of 50 responses was required. However, we aimed to gather more responses to enhance the generalizability of our results. 3.4. Curricula analysis We analyzed the web development and interface design programs in our sample by examining their curricula and course syllabi to identify the presence of web accessibility learning objectives. Our analysis focused on identifying commonly used terms, phrases, and topics related to web accessibility, all of which are documented in appendix C. During our syllabi analysis, we specifically looked for web accessibility terms, focusing on topics that are directly related to web accessibility. Topics that potentially included web accessibility but lacked explicit confirmation were excluded, such as those related to User Experience (UX), Ethics, social sustainability, and usability, unless they explicitly addressed web accessibility. This approach aimed to maintain clarity and minimize ambiguity in our findings. Through this curriculum analysis, we gathered data regarding the implementation of web accessibility learning objectives across different educational programs, addressing our research question “RQ1.” Additionally, for our third research question “RQ3,” we documented whether each program’s curriculum explicitly included learning objectives related to accessibility guidelines and laws, categorizing programs as either "Yes" or "No" based on the presence or absence of such objectives. 275 3.5. Online survey We conducted a quantitative online survey targeting final-year students in the sampled programs. The survey consisted of 15 questions (see appendix D) aimed at assessing students’ knowledge of accessibility guidelines and laws and determining if they acquired this knowledge from their current education. The specific guidelines and laws examined were: The European Accessibility Act (EAA), The Discriminatory Act, Article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Additionally, the geographic diversity of the participants made an online format the most efficient method [44]. The survey included close-ended questions, such as multiple-choice and rating-scale items, to facilitate statistical analysis and achieve higher response rates, as noted by Rosala (2024). It was divided into five parts; demographics, educational details, assessment of students’ knowledge of accessibility laws and guidelines and where they have acquired this knowledge, and evaluation of the extent to which their education provided knowledge about web accessibility. Names were not collected as they were unnecessary for this study, and their absence does not affect the study’s replicability. 3.5.1. Survey questions We incorporated demographic questions to gain deeper insights into our target population, enabling segmentation and comparison across various factors [45]. Additionally, educational questions allowed analysis by program rather than by individual participants, facilitating program-specific conclusions and the exclusion of participants who did not meet our criteria. The assessment questions regarding student’s knowledge of accessibility laws and guidelines were collected using a Likert-type scale, for the benefit of providing more nuanced answers [46]. After each assessment question, participants were asked to specify where they acquired their knowledge via a multiple-choice question, helping determine if it came from current education or other sources. finally, participants were asked to evaluate, using a Likert-type scale ranging from one to five, the degree to which they have gained knowledge regarding web accessibility from their current education in general. This question provided additional insights into their educational experiences beyond specific WCAG guidelines and laws, contributing to our third research question, "RQ3." After drafting the survey design and questions, two pilot tests were conducted to identify any fundamental problems. The feedback led to revised questions followed by four additional tests to ensure any issues were resolved. 3.6. Data analysis 3.6.1. Data analysis: Curricula analysis The data analysis of the curricula began by categorizing findings related to web accessibility. We classified courses based on how web accessibility topics were integrated: as an entire course, as part of a course, or not at all. Courses with a primary focus on web accessibility were labeled "course," while those with some web accessibility content were labeled "part of the course." Courses without web accessibility content were marked as "None," and new courses with unavailable syllabi were marked as "Not available." Irrelevant courses, such as thesis 276 projects, were marked as "Not relevant." All classifications are documented and can be seen in appendix C. To address our first research question, "RQ1," we excluded "Not relevant" and "Not available" courses from the analysis. We then calculated the percentage of programs that included web accessibility topics in some form and those that did not. Using frequency analysis, we assessed the classifications within each program. For each program, we calculated the percentage of courses classified as "course," "part of the course," and "none." We determined the overall integration of web accessibility into the curricula across the 23 programs, providing a comprehensive overview of its incorporation in Swedish web development and interface design programs. For our third research question, "RQ3," we specifically analyzed the inclusion of learning objectives related to accessibility guidelines and laws in each program, identifying how many programs included or excluded these objectives. 3.6.2. Data Analysis: Online Survey Moving to the data analysis of the online survey for our second research question, "RQ2," we em- ployed SPSS software to conduct both frequency analysis and cross-tabulations. Responses that were incomplete or did not meet sampling criteria were deemed invalid and excluded. We began with a frequency analysis to examine responses to the assessment questions. This calculated the percentage of each response option for each law and guideline, revealing students’ self-assessed knowledge and highlighting familiarity with specific laws and guidelines. To provide an overall view, we conducted another frequency analysis across all assessment questions, determining the overall percentage of responses regarding familiarity with the different laws and guidelines. 3.6.3. Comparison between findings from online survey and curricula analysis To address our third research question, we compared survey responses with findings from the curricula analysis through several steps. Firstly, we conducted cross-tabulation between survey responses to assessment questions and sources of knowledge acquisition stated by participants. This helped us understand the distribution of students indicating knowledge and its sources, particularly whether the knowledge came from current education or elsewhere. We also calculated overall knowledge acquisition perceptions across all laws and guidelines. Secondly, we reviewed curricula analysis data to determine how many programs included learning objectives related to accessibility guidelines and laws. Next, we focused on individual programs by analyzing survey responses from corresponding students. We conducted cross- tabulation between assessment questions and knowledge sources to understand knowledge acquisition within each program. We also examined whether programs included accessibility learning objectives. By integrating survey responses and curricula analysis, we assessed how and to what extent students learned about accessibility guidelines and laws from their current education. We compared programs that included accessibility objectives with those that did not, exploring differences in perceived knowledge acquisition among students. Additionally, we analyzed participants’ responses to the overall knowledge acquisition question, providing further insights into their educational experiences on accessibility topics. 277 3.7. Validity and reliability Our study’s foundation was laid through reviewing previous studies that helped identify our research gap and frame our questions. Pilot tests on the survey and filtering questions were implemented to enhance data relevance and validity. Techniques used in the study drew from established methodologies [42, 43, 47, 20, 48, 49, 50]. Additionally, sampling methods were chosen to increase generalizability [42]. One concern regarding validity was the variation in the number of courses across sampled programs, potentially affecting the prominence of web accessibility topics. To mitigate this, we categorized courses based on explicit criteria and definitions, focusing strictly on web accessibility-related content. We utilized the latest syllabi to ensure accuracy and transparency in our curricula analysis. Reliability was also a focus, particularly in subjective assessments of curriculum content and integration of web accessibility topics. Clear criteria were established to minimize ambiguity, and efforts were made to collect survey responses from all sampled programs to enable comparisons for "RQ3." Transparency in response rates and reliability of results will be emphasized in our reporting. 3.8. Considerations We have addressed ethical considerations in this study. Primarily, transparency has been prioritized to ensure clarity regarding the study’s objectives, avoiding any deception about its purpose. Our intention has never been to shame individuals for their lack of knowledge or for the lack of inclusion of web accessibility topics in the programs. Our sole aim is to enhance the understanding of the implementation of web accessibility in education. 4. Results 4.1. Presentation of data 4.1.1. Curricula analysis The curricula analysis examined all 23 sampled programs (see appendix E). Each program varied in course count. We found that 18 programs included web accessibility learning objectives in at least one course. Among these, nine programs specifically covered accessibility guidelines and laws. appendix F summarizes the data from our analysis, detailing the number of courses per program, those with web accessibility objectives, specific topics and phrases, and the inclusion of objectives on accessibility guidelines and laws. For detailed documentation on each program’s courses, the presence of specific web accessibility topics, and the execution dates of the curricula, see appendix C. 4.1.2. Online Survey After excluding 15 invalid responses from the online survey, we had 63 valid responses. The data was imported into SPSS. appendix G presents the categorical data and their corresponding numerical values. 278 Figure 1: Result of online survey: Overview of the total answer distribution across all assessment questions. 4.2. Data analysis 4.2.1. Curricula analysis From the curricula analysis, we found that 18 of the 23 programs (78%) integrated web accessi- bility learning objectives. The 23 programs contained 332 relevant courses. Of these, seven courses (2%) had web accessibility as the main learning objective ("course"), 24 courses (7%) included web accessibility topics within the course ("part of the course"), and 301 courses (91%) had no evident web accessibility topics ("none"). Overall, 18 programs (78%) included web accessibility topics in some form. The distribution of each classification across all program courses and the implementation of web accessibility topics across all the programs can be seen in appendix H. 4.2.2. Online survey A frequency analysis was conducted on the responses to each assessment question regarding guidelines and laws (see appendix I). The results showed that 11.1% of respondents had no knowledge of the discriminatory act, 44.4% had no knowledge of the CRPD, 25.4% had no knowledge of the WCAG, and 39.7% had no knowledge of the EAA. Detailed findings for every response option, including those mentioned, can be found in appendix J. Additionally, a frequency analysis was conducted on all assessment questions and their responses combined (see appendix K). The analysis revealed that a total of 30.2% of respondents lacked knowledge of the guidelines or law across all questions, while 13.9% knew entirely what it entailed. See Figure 1 for a comprehensive overview of all response options across the assessment questions. 4.2.3. Comparison between findings from online survey and curricula analysis From the curricula analysis and online survey data, we analyzed and compared results to identify which programs included learning objectives on accessibility guidelines and laws, and examined students’ knowledge of these guidelines and their sources. Using SPSS, we performed a cross-tabulation between each assessment question and the sources of knowledge among all students (see appendices L to O). The findings revealed that WCAG was the most commonly cited guideline that students learned about through their current education, while the CRPD was the least commonly mentioned in this context. All the sources from which students 279 Table 1 Findings of all assessment questions combined and source of knowledge for each individual program. reported acquiring their knowledge for all assessment questions can be found in appendix P. Furthermore, we calculated the overall perception of knowledge acquisition across all four laws and guidelines. The findings revealed that 26.2% identified "current education" as their primary source of knowledge acquisition, while 73.8% cited other sources. Figure 1 shows an overview of the percentage distribution of the various sources across all four assessment questions. From the curricula analysis, we examined whether accessibility topics related to guidelines and laws were included in various programs. Our findings showed that 39.1% of the programs included learning objectives on accessibility guidelines and laws, while the majority, 60.9%, did not. Out of the 23 programs, only 12 had responses from their respective students. Consequently, we were limited to only comparing the results from the survey to the respective programs that we obtained answers from. We found that out of the 12 programs available for analysis, seven of them did not incorporate any learning objectives concerning accessibility guidelines and laws in their curricula. Table 1 summarizes these findings, covering all assessment questions, sources of knowledge, and the inclusion of learning objectives related to accessibility guidelines and laws within each program. Furthermore, we conducted a frequency analysis on the final question in the survey which can be seen in appendix Q, where participants were asked to rate their overall perception of how much their current education has contributed to their knowledge of web accessibility. The analysis revealed that out of the 63 respondents, three (4.8%) answered "not at all," 15 (23.8%) answered "very little," 21 (33.3%) answered "some," 15 (23.8%) answered "much," and nine (14.3%) answered "significantly." 5. Discussions 5.1. Result discussion This study aimed to examine the current state of web accessibility education in web development and interface design programs at Swedish institutions. This helps determine if insufficient 280 emphasis on web accessibility education contributes to the global issue of inaccessible websites, as highlighted in prior research [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4, 6, 7]. The research questions addressed were: “RQ1,” “RQ2,” and “RQ3.” 5.1.1. Integration of accessibility learning objectives in web development- and interface design programs To address our first research question, we analyzed the curricula of 23 educational programs to see how web accessibility topics were integrated. We found two main approaches: full courses with web accessibility as the primary focus or as components within broader courses. Our analysis revealed that 18 of the 23 programs (78%) included web accessibility learning objectives. However, only 9% of the 332 courses across these programs addressed web accessibility, with just 2% having it as the main focus and 7% covering it as part of the course. Our findings align with Ferati & Vogel (2020), who found that 14.3% of web development courses at one Swedish university included accessibility topics, highlighting that the topic is not often implemented to a greater extent. In contrast, Cao & Loiacono (2019) reported that 45% of web and app development courses discussed accessibility, a significantly higher proportion than our study. However, our analysis focused on explicit mentions of web accessibility in course syllabi, which might have led to overlooking implicit integration. Research by Bi et al. (2021) and Almeida & Gama (2021) emphasizes that a lack of knowledge contributes to poor accessibility implementation. Our findings suggest a lack of web accessibility education, which might be impacting professional practices because of a lack of knowledge regarding implementation. Most programs incorporated web accessibility as part of courses rather than full courses, consistent with Baker et al. (2020), who noted the rarity of full courses on accessibility. None of the 23 programs had web accessibility as the primary focus of their entire curriculum. Despite the recognized need for such education [23, 24, 7], only 2% of courses implemented it as the main learning objective, contrary to recommendations for it to be a full course. Other studies cite reasons for the lack of accessibility implementation. Brown & Hollier (2015) argue that it is seen as specialized expertise, while Leitner et al. (2016) point to misconceptions and a lack of argumentation, which align with our findings of insufficient education on the topic. In summary, our first research question is answered as follows: Web accessibility is variably integrated into Swedish web development and interface design curricula, primarily as part of courses. Although 78% of programs included web accessibility to some extent, some programs lacked it entirely. Only 9% of all courses incorporated web accessibility learning objectives. 5.1.2. Students knowledge of accessibility guidelines and laws Addressing our second research question “RQ2”, the results showed that 30.2% of respondents indicated no knowledge of accessibility laws or guidelines, while only 13.9% indicated a compre- hensive understanding. This suggests that many individuals are uncertain about the specifics of these laws and guidelines. However, when considering all responses for options 2-5 (indicat- ing some level of familiarity), 69.8% of participants fell into these categories. These findings indicate that while a significant portion of respondents have some awareness of the laws and guidelines, many still claim little to no familiarity with them. Compared to previous studies 281 by Cao & Loiacono (2019) and Ferati & Vogel (2020), our findings suggest a higher perceived knowledge among participants, although variations in survey design and participant sampling may influence these results. The Discriminatory Act was the most commonly known law in our study (only 11.1% unaware), while the CRPD was the least known (44.4% unaware). Regarding the WCAG, 74.7% had at least heard of WCAG, indicating a potential increase in awareness among students in web development and interface design programs compared to previous studies [21, 20]. As stated by Gilbert (2019), following web accessibility guidelines ensures that websites are developed correctly, promoting an accessible web. Consequently, it is advantageous that 74.7% of the participants stated being at least somewhat knowledgeable about WCAG. In conclusion, our findings reveal that while 69.8% of final-year web development and interface design students have some awareness of accessibility guidelines and laws, 30.2% state having no knowledge. This highlights a perceived lack of understanding of accessibility guidelines and laws in Sweden among these students. 5.1.3. Students knowledge acquisition from current education and implementation of learning objectives in curricula Answering our third research question, “RQ3”, our analysis revealed that 26.2% of the respon- dents stated "current education" as the primary source of knowledge acquisition, making it the most frequently cited individual response option, excluding the option indicating no knowledge. However, 43.6% of participants acquired their knowledge from sources other than their current education, making these sources collectively more common. Regarding the WCAG question, 49.2% of respondents cited "current education" as their primary source of knowledge, the highest among all guidelines or laws surveyed. This suggests that WCAG was the most frequently taught guideline or law among those we asked about. In contrast, only 12.7% learned about the CRPD from their current education. Our study found that only 39.1% of the programs included learning objectives on accessibility guidelines or laws in their curricula, leaving 60.9% without such learning objectives. Furthermore, we compared each program’s curriculum with the students’ reported knowledge sources, noting that results might vary based on the number and diversity of participants in each program. In programs that covered accessibility guidelines and laws, most students from three out of five programs identified their current education as their main knowledge source. Students from the remaining programs cited different sources. Interestingly, even in programs without explicit accessibility topics, some students still cited their current education as a primary source, though less consistently. However, none of these programs had a majority of students indicating current education as their primary knowledge source; instead, most students pointed to other sources. This highlights that students are more likely to credit their education for learning about accessibility when integrated into the program curriculum. The final survey question revealed that 33.3% of students felt their education contributed "very little" to their knowledge, while 14.3% felt it contributed "significantly." This indicates that students gained some knowledge—not exclusively and not necessarily limited to guidelines and laws—about accessibility from their education, even if not explicitly stated in the curricula. In summary, 26.2% of students learned about accessibility from their current education, and the integration of accessibility topics into program curricula influences student’s perceptions to some extent. 282 5.2. Method discussion We opted for a quantitative study design to obtain generalizable results and conclusions about the state of web accessibility education. Our aim was to provide insights into how web accessibility is taught and its potential impact on the prevalence of inaccessible websites globally. Choosing a quantitative approach allowed us to gather comprehensive data from a large number of respondents and programs across Sweden. We examined the stated learning outcomes in each syllabus to avoid potential social desirability bias from course cordinators and maintain objectivity. We established specific criteria for the curricula analysis to ensure consistency and used pilot testing in our survey design to reduce potential misunderstandings. Additionally, we filtered out invalid survey responses to ensure accurate measurement. A limitation was the incomplete response rate from all sampled programs, affecting the reliability of findings, particularly for our third research question. In some programs, only one or two students responded, reducing generalizability. However, we analyzed survey responses and program curricula independently to mitigate this issue and maintain transparency regarding response numbers. A strength of our study is our dual approach, examining both the integration of web accessibility learning objectives in curricula and students’ knowledge of accessibility guidelines and laws. This provided a comprehensive overview and allowed us to answer all three research questions without assuming a direct correlation between curricula and student knowledge. In conclusion, despite certain weaknesses, we obtained results that offer valuable insights into the current state of web accessibility education in web development and interface design programs in Sweden. 6. Conclusions 6.1. Conclusions This study aimed to assess education on web accessibility in Swedish web development and interface design programs and its potential impact on global website accessibility issues. Our study found varying levels of integration of web accessibility learning objectives in Swedish web development and interface design program curricula. While most programs include these objectives to some extent, there are gaps where some programs do not include them at all. Our analysis shows that rarely do more than 16% of courses in any program cover web accessibility, and only 9% of all courses across all programs integrate these learning objectives. Regarding students’ awareness, 69.8% are somewhat familiar with accessibility guidelines and laws, while 30.2% indicated no knowledge, highlighting a significant knowledge gap. The Discriminatory Act was the most recognized, whereas the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) was the least known among the students. While the integration of ac- cessibility in program curricula appears to positively influence students’ knowledge acquisition, not all students view their current education as the primary source of this knowledge. Only about a fourth (26.2%) of students stated they gained knowledge on accessibility guidelines and laws from their current education. These findings underscore the insufficient education on web accessibility, potentially contributing to the widespread inaccessibility of websites globally. 283 6.1.1. Practical implications Our findings show that integrating web accessibility learning objectives into curricula seems to enhance students’ knowledge. However, many programs still offer limited coverage, leaving many students unaware of key accessibility guidelines and laws. We recommend a more comprehensive integration, ideally as a full course. Programs with robust web accessibility training could better equip students to create inclusive digital experiences. Although many students know about WCAG, practical application is often lacking, indicating a need for hands-on learning. Prioritizing accessibility in education will raise awareness and understanding among future professionals, making it a fundamental part of web development and design. Integrating web accessibility into curricula also benefits society by making the digital landscape more inclusive and promoting equality. Our study highlights the need to expand web accessibility education to build a more inclusive digital future. 6.1.2. Scientific implication Our study contributes valuable insights into the state of web accessibility education within web development and interface design programs in Sweden, an underexplored area. This research fills a significant knowledge gap. Our findings show that web accessibility learning objectives are rarely included in curricula, despite their importance for meeting legal and ethical standards. Previous studies have noted the lack of knowledge and training but did not provide a comprehensive view. Our study highlights ongoing deficiencies in web accessibility education. By examining current educational programs’ strengths and weaknesses regarding web accessibility, our study lays a foundation for future research. Educational institutions can use our findings to improve curricula and enhance knowledge regarding web accessibility among students. Our study could inspire similar research in other regions, expanding global understanding of web accessibility education. The implications of our study extend beyond Sweden, calling for a global reassessment of educational practices related to web accessibility to create a more inclusive digital environment. 6.2. Limitations The main limitation of our study was time constraints, which required us to limit our scope regarding the sample, methods, and extent of the study. We aimed to investigate current educational practices of web accessibility in Swedish institutions by conducting a quantitative analysis of program curricula and an online survey targeting students from those programs. This provided insights into whether education contributes to the lack of web accessibility awareness. We focused on specific accessibility guidelines and laws and how these were included within web development and interface design programs in Sweden. 6.3. Further research Based on our findings, which reveal a lack of knowledge about accessibility guidelines and the absence of web accessibility learning objectives in some curricula, further investigation into the 284 reasons behind this is needed. This could explain why web accessibility is not prioritized in web development and interface design programs. Our study focused on programs lasting at least one year at Swedish universities and colleges. Future research could explore this topic more broadly, examining variations based on program duration, type of institution, or a global scale. References [1] J. Brown, S. Hollier, The challenges of web accessibility: The technical and social aspects of a truly universal web (2015). [2] A. Ismail, K. Kuppusamy, Web accessibility investigation and identification of major issues of higher education websites with statistical measures: A case study of college websites, Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences 34 (2022) 901–911. [3] P. Katerattanakul, S. Hong, H.-M. Lee, H.-J. Kam, The effects of web accessibility certifica- tion on the perception of companies’ corporate social responsibility, Universal Access in the Information Society 17 (2018) 161–173. [4] E. T. Loiacono, S. McCoy, Website accessibility: a cross-sector comparison, Universal access in the information society 4 (2006) 393–399. [5] M.-L. Leitner, C. Strauss, C. Stummer, Web accessibility implementation in private sector organizations: motivations and business impact, Universal Access in the Information Society 15 (2016) 249–260. [6] M. Jonsson, C. Gustavsson, J. Gulliksen, S. Johansson, How have public healthcare providers in sweden conformed to the european union’s web accessibility directive regarding acces- sibility statements on their websites?, Universal Access in the Information Society (2023) 1–14. [7] J. M. Pima, Awareness and compliance on web accessibility guidelines 2.0 amongst web practitioners in tanzania and the uk, The Accountancy and Business Review Journal 8 (2011) 46–56. [8] W. H. Organization, Ageing and health, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/ detail/ageing-and-health, 2022. [9] A. Baumgartner, T. Rohrbach, P. Schönhagen, ‘if the phone were broken, i’d be screwed’: media use of people with disabilities in the digital era, Disability & Society 38 (2023) 73–97. [10] Article 9 - accessibility | division for inclusive social development (disd), 2024. URL: https: //social.desa.un.org/issues/disability/crpd/article-9-accessibility. [11] E. Union, Web accessibility, 2023. URL: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/ web-accessibility. [12] Socialdepartementet, Genomförande av tillgänglighetsdirektivet, https://www.regeringen. se/rattsliga-dokument/proposition/2022/12/prop.-2022342, 2022. [13] W. A. Initiative, Web accessibility directive: Frequently asked questions, https:// web-directive.eu/legislation/index.html, n.d. [14] E. Union, Accessibility of public sector websites and mobile apps, 2021. URL: https://eur-lex. europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEGISSUM%3A4314916. 285 [15] R. M. Gilbert, Inclusive design for a digital world: Designing with accessibility in mind, Apress, 2019. [16] W. A. Initiative, Wcag 2 overview, 2023. URL: https://www.w3.org/WAI/ standards-guidelines/wcag/. [17] J. L. Cheoh, B. Beigpourian, S. Wei, D. Ferguson, M. Ohland, Examining the perceptions of people with disabilities on the use of accessibility standards in web interface design, in: 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–4. [18] B. Vollenwyder, G. H. Iten, F. Brühlmann, K. Opwis, E. D. Mekler, Salient beliefs influencing the intention to consider web accessibility, Computers in Human Behavior 92 (2019) 352– 360. [19] H. Y. Abuaddous, M. Z. Jali, N. Basir, Web accessibility challenges, International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA) (2016). [20] M. Ferati, B. Vogel, Accessibility in web development courses: A case study, in: Informatics, volume 7, MDPI, 2020, p. 8. [21] S. Cao, E. Loiacono, The state of the awareness of web accessibility guidelines of student website and app developers, in: Social Computing and Social Media. Design, Human Behavior and Analytics: 11th International Conference, SCSM 2019, Held as Part of the 21st HCI International Conference, HCII 2019, Orlando, FL, USA, July 26-31, 2019, Proceedings, Part I 21, Springer, 2019, pp. 32–42. [22] T. Bi, X. Xia, D. Lo, A. Aleti, A first look at accessibility issues in popular github projects, in: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), IEEE, 2021, pp. 390–401. [23] V. Almeida, K. Gama, Mobile accessibility guidelines adoption under the perspective of developers and designers, in: 2021 IEEE/ACM 13th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE), Madrid, Spain, 2021, pp. 127– 128. URL: https://ieeexplore-ieee-org.proxy.library.ju.se/document/9463302. doi:10.1109/ CHASE52884.2021.00028. [24] S. G. Hong, S. Trimi, D. W. Kim, J. H. Hyun, A delphi study of factors hindering web accessibility for persons with disabilities, Journal of Computer Information Systems 55 (2015) 28–34. [25] N. E. Youngblood, Integrating usability and accessibility into the interactive media and communication curriculum, Global Media Journal 12 (2013) 1. [26] G. Gay, Open curriculum for teaching digital accessibility, Frontiers in Computer Science 5 (2023) 1113936. [27] C. Katsanos, N. Tselios, A. Tsakoumis, N. Avouris, Learning about web accessibility: A project based tool-mediated approach, Educ Inf Technol 17 (2012) 79–94. URL: https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10639-010-9145-5. doi:10.1007/s10639-010-9145-5. [28] S. L. Henry, S. Abou-Zahra, J. Brewer, The role of accessibility in a universal web, in: Proceedings of the 11th Web for All Conference, 2014, pp. 1–4. URL: https://dl.acm.org/ doi/abs/10.1145/2596695.2596719. [29] Y. Yesilada, G. Brajnik, M. Vigo, S. Harper, Exploring perceptions of web accessibility: a survey approach, Behaviour & Information Technology 34 (2015) 119–134. [30] S. L. E. E. Henry, O. W. G. (EOWG), Introduction to web accessibility, 2023. URL: https: //www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-intro/#what. 286 [31] S. Riksdag, Diskrimineringslag (2008:567), https://www.riksdagen. se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/ diskrimineringslag-2008567_sfs-2008-567/, 2023. [32] A. P. Freire, C. M. Russo, R. P. Fortes, A survey on the accessibility awareness of people involved in web development projects in brazil, in: Proceedings of the 2008 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A), 2008, pp. 87–96. [33] W. W. W. Consortium, About us, n.d. URL: https://www.w3.org/about/. [34] W. A. Initiative, How wai develops accessibility standards through the w3c process: Mile- stones and opportunities to contribute, https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/ w3c-process/#standards, 2020. [35] W. A. Initiative, Authoring tool accessibility guidelines (atag) overview, https://www.w3. org/WAI/standards-guidelines/atag/, 2022. [36] W. A. Initiative, User agent accessibility guidelines (uaag) overview, https://www.w3.org/ WAI/standards-guidelines/uaag/, 2016. [37] W. A. Initiative, Wai-aria overview, https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/aria/, 2022. [38] S. L. E. Henry, Wcag 2 overview, Web Accessibility Initiative, https://www.w3.org/WAI/ standards-guidelines/wcag/, 2024. [39] W. W. W. Consortium, Web content accessibility guidelines (wcag) 2.2, 2023. URL: https: //www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/. [40] Antagning.se, Antagning.se, 2023. URL: https://www.antagning.se/se/start. [41] Studentum.se, Studentum.se, 2023. URL: https://www.studentum.se/. [42] A. S. Acharya, A. Prakash, P. Saxena, A. Nigam, Sampling: Why and how of it, Indian journal of medical specialties 4 (2013) 330–333. [43] A. S. Singh, M. B. Masuku, Sampling techniques & determination of sample size in applied statistics research: An overview, International Journal of economics, commerce and management 2 (2014) 1–22. [44] P. M. Nardi, Doing survey research: A guide to quantitative methods, Routledge, 2018. [45] A. N. Ghazi, K. Petersen, S. S. V. R. Reddy, H. Nekkanti, Survey research in software engineering: Problems and mitigation strategies, IEEE Access 7 (2018) 24703–24718. [46] M. Kasunic, Designing an effective survey, 2005. [47] M. Allen, S. Titsworth, S. K. Hunt, Quantitative research in communication, Sage Publica- tions, 2008. [48] T. Williams, Why is quantitative research important?, https://www.gcu.edu/blog/ doctoral-journey/why-quantitative-research-important, 2021. [49] E. A. Panacek, Survey-based research: general principles, Air Medical Journal 27 (2008) 14–16. URL: https://www.airmedicaljournal.com/article/S1067-991X(07)00278-7/fulltext. [50] M. Rosala, Open-ended vs. closed questions in user research, https://www.nngroup.com/ articles/open-ended-questions/, 2024. 287 A. Appendix A: Sample Frame of Programs 288 B. Appendix B: Final Sample of Programs 289 C. Appendix C: Curricula Analysis - Accessibility Topics and Phrases Found in Courses 290 291 292 293 294 295 D. Appendix D: Online Survey Questions 296 297 298 299 300 301 E. Appendix E: Final Sample Frame and Assigned Numerical Value 302 F. Appendix F: Results of Curricula Analysis - Amount of Topics and Phrases Found in Each Program 303 G. Appendix G: Categorical Data of Survey Responses and Assigned Numerical Values 304 H. Appendix H: Integration of Accessibility Topics Across All Programs and All Courses 305 I. Appendix I: Frequency Analysis of Answers on Each Assessment Question, SPSS 306 307 J. Appendix J: Participants Knowledge of Each Law and Guidelines 308 K. Appendix K: Frequency Analysis of All Assessment Questions Combined, SPSS 309 L. Appendix L: Cross-tabulation on WCAG Assessment Question and WCAG Evaluation Question, SPSS 310 M. Appendix M: Cross-tabulation EAA, Knowledge Assessment Question and Source, SPSS 311 N. Appendix N: Cross-tabulation Discriminatory Act, Knowledge Assessment Question and Source, SPSS 312 O. Appendix O: Cross-tabulation CRPD, Knowledge Assessment Question and Source, SPSS 313 P. Appendix P: Source of Knowledge Acquisition of Each Law and Guideline 314 Q. Appendix Q: Frequency Analysis Overall Knowledge from Current Education 315