A German organization established the study “Web 2.0 Accessible” in 2008 which asked Internet users with disabilities about the barriers they experience when using websites and web applications. This paper gives some interesting facts of the study which are useful for the design and implementation of accessible web applications. Therefore it raises classifications of barriers in various dimensions we have registered in the German study regarding the use of web applications by persons with disabilities and correlate these barriers with the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines and Principles to support the facts of the study. Furthermore the results will be supported by key results of other studies regarding web accessibility. The objective of this paper is to identify in practise experienced barriers for people with disabilities using websites and applications.
In our today’s more and more digital world, it is necessary that web pages and web
applications are accessible for all users and especially for users with disabilities. More
than 8.6 million people with disabilities live in Germany. Their number represents
about 10.5% of the German population [
This paper gives an insight into the German study “Web2.0 Accessible” [
The following statements result from a qualitative analysis of the data from the online
survey in connection with the transcription of the statements given in the interviews.
The most important applications for Internet users with disabilities have been
identified due to the highest usage frequencies in the different user groups. These
applications have been compared to the recorded problem rates and to the
interviewees’ statements. These results have been the basis of developing the most
important accessibility issues and critical aspects for the different user groups with
disabilities and of connecting them with the corresponding WCAG Checkpoints.
The facts about the barriers which are experienced in practice by people with
disabilities are supported by the results of two other studies concerning web accessibility
with user involvement. One important study was established by the Disability Rights
Commission (DRC) in the UK [
2
The German organization “Aktion Mensch” established the study "Opportunities and
Risks of the Internet of the Future from the Perspective of People with Disabilities"
[
The study involved three steps of the inclusion of data in order to collect both
quantitative and qualitative data. On the one hand, experts from science and self-help
organizations have been consulted to capture the current state of knowledge on
Internet use by people with disabilities. Additionally, experienced Internet users with
disabilities were questioned in group interviews about their experiences and habits
with web2.0 applications as well as about the barriers they experienced. The data
from these steps about possible barriers in web applications were used for the
concrete realization of the online survey which measured the scope of these barriers.
Disabled Internet users were questioned about use habits and barriers with the help of
an accessible online survey including audio files and sign language videos. The online
survey was organized in multiple areas to acquire several data [
If the participant does not know the website he will not get more questions about.) • Questions about the prominence, the share of use (from a list) and experienced barriers for the familiar websites; for every barrier noticed: free text answer for more explanation and a question about the kind of barrier (not operable, not perceivable, not understandable, no orientation) • Graduated compliance for special advantages by using websites for disabled
Internet users in a list of statements.
The survey was supported with the help of special German websites for people with
disabilities and self-help organizations in January and February 2008. A total of 671
people with disabilities have completed the questionnaire. This allows us to make
precise statements on the test results from the perspective of the different kinds of
disabilities, but not on all Internet users in general or all users with disabilities
because of the non-representative basis [
People with different kinds of disabilities were interviewed during the study. In total,
10 people were interviewed as experts, 57 people were questioned in
groupinterviews and 671 people have completed the online-survey. The following table
gives the total number of questioned people with the different types of disabilities and
the assistive technologies used most often in these groups [
124 96 260 41
Impairments
35 and 13
The number of respondents in the groups Dyslexia and Learning and Cognitive Impairments was too small to make reliable statements about the barriers and strategies, but only tendencies could be deduced from the answers. We can make some statistical and qualitative statements about the experienced barriers and useful strategies concerning the other groups. The information is complemented by free text answers given in the online survey and statements from the interviews. This has given us some interesting and concrete facts about the strategies of and barriers for Internet users with disabilities.
These different kinds of disabilities are summarized for the following considerations into groups because the Internet is used with the help of similar assistive technologies (AT) or use strategies due to the respective disability-related restrictions. A definition and differentiation of the types of disabilities cannot be given at this point. All in all, it is remarkable that the magnification software was considered as of significant usage share by all surveyed user groups which is probably due to multiple restrictions or simplification of the perception of contents. 1 Because of 82 participants with multiple impairments, the total number of questioned people is less then the sum over all user groups. These persons provide data for each affected user group with disabilities.
The people questioned distinguished themselves by a high technical standard of the
Internet access so that it can be assumed that identified barriers are not caused by
lacking technical equipment. The results of the study proved furthermore that the
interviewees are very experienced in dealing with Internet applications, they show
high usage frequency and have above-average experiences with web2.0 applications
so that also factors like insecurity or low affinity to the Internet can be excluded [
Web accessibility is a very important fact for all questioned Internet users,
particularly for blind users. 88% of them chose “accessibility is very important for
me”. Furthermore, 82% of the questioned people with blindness said that barriers
disturb their access to the content. But web accessibility is also very important for
70% of the users with deafness and 70% of the users with cognitive impairments. The
users with visual impairments have the smallest coincidence with 59% [
The study inquired, among other things, prominence, use and problems in dealing with various web2.0 applications and their functions. The most significant shares of utilization (more than 60% of use) and the highest problem rates (more than 20%) should indicate the value of certain application classes for the different user groups in the following comparison. Thus, it can be derived which applications are used very often and in which of them problems are frequently noticed.
Applications with high usage and problem rates should increase the efforts with
respect to accessibility. The shares of use given in the table were determined during the
quantitative part of the study by the online survey. It indicates the proportion of those
who have used or tried to use the application. The problem rate is calculated from the
quotient of the problems and the use / attempt to use and provides a projection of the
anticipated problems in the use of the application by the user groups [
Across all user groups, which have been questioned, the highest shares of use are to
be registered concerning the reading of wikis. This kind of website causes less
problems (problem rate between 6% and 13%) for the most user groups. Deaf Internet
users show the highest problem rate here (26%) because of problems in understanding
the content3. The questioned participants mainly have problems with
comprehensibility of the (user-generated) content (48% of all who have problems) and orientation on
the website (39% of all who have problems) because of numerous links.
High shares of use are also mentioned for user registration in all groups. This is
because a lot of web applications and services require a registration for full access.
Problems here are based on inaccessible forms from the technical point of view and
incomprehensibility of the explanations for the required data from the editorial point
of view. Thus, 73% of those who have problems with a user registration chose “not
perceivable” and 66% chose for “not operable” [
3
Various areas of accountability and contributors in the development and operation process of a web application have to be determined for the prevention of barriers. 3 The linguistic barrier concerning reading and writing, for instance of wikis and comments, applies to deaf users because the German sign language differs substantially from the spoken and written language. Thus, deaf people experience a more difficult access to the written language.
They should be responsible for ensuring accessibility in their respective field of
action. For the following comparison of the study results with the WCAG 2.0
Checkpoints (CP), the facts have been organized in relation to the area of accountability.
Different areas of accountability have been defined for this purpose which correlates
to the different positions in the development process of web applications like
developers, authors, designers and customers. According to the description of the
“Essential Components of Web Accessibility” from the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative4
(WAI) Group [
Furthermore, three tables concerning technical barriers, editorial barriers and design barriers have been developed. In the planning and development of a web application, the different person in charge can consult the specific table to look up the most critical aspects and use cases compiled during the study und which WCAG Checkpoint correlates to them. In connection with the guidelines and technical documents of the W3C WAI Group, the responsible person can choose the relevant checkpoints and select the corresponding success criterion and best practise.
For the comparison, the items of the classifications of barriers published in [11 and 13] were each collated with the WCAG 2.0 Checkpoints. For the better readability the results have been spread into one table for each area of accountability. Quantitative results cannot be given for the aspects in the tables because for one thing the items are grouped according to the impairment groups and for another thing the items are not exactly a part of the survey. The items in the tables are based on the qualitative analysis of the survey and the interviews which figured out the most critical aspects in web applications today.
The area of technical aspects includes all critical aspects based on technical
restrictions, conditions or implementations: e.g. used techniques (e.g AJAX, JavaScript),
programming styles and restrictions in hard- and software because of assistive
technologies (AT). Examples for these are Captchas, insufficient operability of
flashplayers or missing semantics and markups in web forms. Web programmers, service
providers and producers of utilities and AT are responsible for these aspects [
The following table shows the most important technical based accessibility issues of the different user groups in connection with the corresponding WCAG Checkpoints. All in all it is remarkable that technical barriers have a big influence on the operability of the applications with the used AT. So it is conspicuous that the user groups which 4 http://www.w3.org/WAI/guid-tech.html are reliant on AT recognized most barriers. In some cases, these barriers hinder the independent use of the application by the affected user groups. It is not surprising that visual impaired, blind and physically impaired Internet users have most problems resulting from technical problems with their AT. Most of the problems occur during the interaction with interactive elements and forms without a mouse.
Forms and corresponding buttons e.g. for user registration or buying processes are a relevant part of a web page and have to work for all interested users. But there are big problems with forms and buttons in a technical and in a cognitive way. This is underline with the rate of problems in table 2 where e.g. 69% of blind users probably will have problems with user registration forms. But there are also high problem rates for this type of user interaction for the other user groups.
Problems in forms resulting from different aspects for different user groups, but the
most important aspect for all user groups is the using language in forms. Users have
to understand what kind of input and in which format it is expected, why this data is
necessary etc. (CP 3.3). Thus, explanations and labels are the most important aspects
(see also par. 3.2). But if the explanation is too long e.g. users with deafness and
cognitive impairments don’t understand it [
Furthermore, the access to forms with assistive technologies is the second big
problem. This includes the labels, input elements, selection elements, submit buttons etc.
Elements of forms which are not logically ordered (CP 2.4) or which are not
described with all necessary mark-up (CP 3.3) can cause problems for users which are
dependent on the keyboard or on the special AT-functions for forms. They can have
problems to reach the actual form element, to identify the label of the form element
and to reach the submit button. Especially the tab order and focus behaviour (CP 2.4
and 3.2) need attention for accessible forms. This fact was also supported by the study
of Lazar et. al. [
Some participants said in the survey that there are problems with comment functions
when accessing with screen readers. The AT does not recognize the written text in the
forms and they can not check their comments before submitting [
The operability of web pages and their functions with assistive technologies is causal for many problems for users who are dependent on AT. This key area is focus in two of four principles of the WCAG 2.0: Principle 2 Operable and Principle 4 Robust. These principles regard to keyboard navigation (CP 2.1), navigation and orientation (CP 2.4) and compatibility with current and future user agents including assistive technologies (CP 4.1). The German study find out that users often have problems with the operability of: 5 There is no direct comparison possible between the statistical results of the German study and the British study because they have different scopes. But the core results of the key problems are comparable. • Forms and buttons, • Drop-down-menus, • Players and editors, • Multimedia components.
The core of all these aspects is the access without a mouse (CP 2.1). This is
particularly important for blind and physically impaired users. In the interviews and free text
answers of the study users said that they often can’t use players in multimedia sites
and editors in wikis or weblogs with only a keyboard. So they have no control of
multimedia content. These problems are formulated often in the interviews as well as in
the free text answers fields for the applications wikis, weblogs and media sharing
websites [
Captchas (CP 1.1) are a problem for 39% of the questioned blind people and for 5%
of the questioned visual impaired people. 50 persons said that this is the main barrier
for an independent user registration because a screen reader can not recognize these
figures. One way for solving this problem is the possibility to listen to an audio-file
which represents the Captcha but this is not a preferred way for most of blind and
visual impaired people [
Summarizing the technical aspects we can see that the main problems are in connection with AT. If programmers do not use all necessary mark-up, no logical structure for all elements and no alternative ways for access like audio-Captchas some users with disabilities will have big problems to interact with the application. Another important point for programmers and utility producers is the ensurance of full access and interaction with only a keyboard as input device. Furthermore, developers have to ensure the accessibility of special features like applets in Java, PDF or flash. For these objects the WCAG Checkpoints are fully applicable, e.g. keyboard access (CP 2.1), focus highlighting and order (CP 2.4), alternative text (CP 1.1), scalability (CP 1.4) etc. Central importance should be admitted also to the accessibility of web forms. These measures are beneficial to all user groups because the readability, usability and accessibility of form elements are crucial for the independent participation e.g. in social networks.
Editorial and content-related barriers contain insufficient editorial or structural
content preparation for Internet requirements, e.g. difficult language, missing textual
structures or missing semantics of media content [
The most important critical point over all questioned user groups is the language in the broadest sense. This means that a big part of the Internet users have small or big problems with understanding the provided information. The problems result primarily from the use of difficult language and foreign words. This is especially problematic in explanations and forms and in error messages, because users often don’t understand what they have to do or what is wrong.
This is amazing and a very important fact. This means, that editors and programmers
have to pay more attention to the wording and explanations. And this is an aspect
which we can not check in an automatic way but only with attention to this. One
solution for this is a very careful text editing and structuring of the web content. Here we
have to pay more attention to the editors and their awareness of accessibility issues.
This important fact is underline with an own principle in the WCAG: Principle 3
Understandable. It emphasizes the understandability of the information and the operation
of user interfaces by users [
Almost all these criterion can checked automatically whether they exist or not e.g. if
there is a label element or if there is an identifier for the language of the text. But only
humans can check if the wording is understandable and formulate as easy as possible.
Problems with the language is not only critical for interaction but also for the user
guidance in a website with the navigation and for the understandability of the
provided information in general. The British DRC-study underlines these facts with their
results. For all analysed user groups language can be an accessibility problem. For
blind users are “incorrect or non-existent labelling of links, form elements and
frames” key problems. For dyslexic users “complicated language or terminology” is a
key problem. All groups have significant values for “confusing and disorienting
navigation mechanisms” where the wording is a key factor for a predictable navigation
[
The German Study, the British DRC-Study and the study from Lazar et.al. work out
that another main problem are missing or unhelpful alt text for pictures and videos
how it is required by CP 1.1. In all studies this is a focus issue particularly for blind
users [
In the evaluation of the interviews in connection with the survey it can extracted that
the different user groups with disabilities have different problems with the language.
Visual impaired and blind users have often problems if the wording in the navigation
is not clear and easy and when headlines not describe what the content represent [
For summarizing this point the following list of aspects is helpful to pay attention for
the critical issues concerning the language and understandability of text in websites
[
In addition to technical and editorial barriers also design barriers can have a deep
impact to the accessibility of websites and applications. These aspects influence the user
guidance and perceptibility of functions and not at least the aesthetic impression to the
user. Design barriers based on inadequate accessible design of user interfaces, e.g.
insufficient contrast, background images or too small font sizes [
One of the most important and impressive fact from the study is that almost all
Internet users have problems to access and interact with a web application because of less
orientation and arrangement (CP 1.3, 1.4, 3.2). The main problems are poor contrast
and too small font sizes (CP 1.4). The British DRC-study comes to similar results: all
groups except the blind users identify “graphics and text size too small” and
“inappropriate use of colors and poor contrast between content and background” as
key problems [
Another important aspect is the perceptibility of functions especially in editors and players (CP 1.4, 2.4). For almost all applications with media content people formulate problems due to the non-perceptibility of functions. The impact is clear: if they can’t detect or separate the functions they can’t use it.
Orientation, clear arrangement (CP 1.3, 1.4, 3.2) and problems with quality, size and contrast of media content (CP 1.4) can be attributed as well to editorial as to designer aspects. On the one hand, the design should intend suitable format templates and place holders and on the other hand the editorial staff has to process contents and media for the Internet and appropriately integrate it into the format templates. Navigation and contents must be offered well and identifiably structures (paragraphs, headings) and with sufficient font size for the orientation and clear arrangement.
Organizational barriers based on organizational circumstances and a lack of
awareness for accessibility issues. Examples are missing budget for videos in sign language
and alternative preparation. Orderers and customers are responsible for the realization
of the critical factors when they have a high awareness for accessibility issues.
Actually there are a lot of policies and laws for public and government websites regarding
the accessibility of these for all users (compare e.g. http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/).
The DRC-Study [
Interestingly, the recorded results coincide very well with the four principles that characterize the WCAG 2.0. So the requests for perceptibility, operability and understandability have been articulated by the interviewed persons repeatedly. The principle of robustness is primarily reflected concerning the performance of web applications accessed with assistive technologies. The results presented here show the high practical relevance of both: the results of the study and the WCAG 2.0 because the problems identified in the study reflect barriers which still occur and the WCAG 2.0 documents can provide the answers for their accessible implementation. The study has identified wiki applications, registrations and other forms and media applications as the most important applications which are very interesting for people with disabilities although they are often faced with accessibility problems. The most important barriers for all user groups are understandability in the broadest sense, the use of forms and the operability of multimedia components, especially with assistive technologies.
Technical problems which are for the most part caused by insufficient operability of the applications with assistive technologies are especially noticed by visually impaired, blind and physically disabled persons. Hearing impaired and deaf Internet users particularly encounter problems of understanding due to insufficient or superficial treatment of content and media in formats they understand, e.g. videos in sign language or with subtitles. Therefore, primarily organizational and editorial aspects are perceived by this group. Even users with reading disabilities, such as dyslexia, as well as with learning and intellectual disabilities are affected by editorial aspects so that restrictions on account of the linguistic competence are experienced. Therefore, there seems to be a need for more awareness not only for technical aspects of accessibility but particularly for editorial aspects. All elements of a web application such as links, labels, menus and the content itself have to be formulated very carefully and as easy as possible with different user groups in mind. To check the understandability of all contents, and in particular of elements for user interactions such as forms, web applications have to be evaluated by users with a variety of abilities because these in practice experienced problems will otherwise not be detected.
I give thanks to ”Aktion Mensch“ and to ”Stiftung Digitale Chancen“ for providing the study data and the opportunity to evaluate it in that detail.