Web Accessibility Quality Index Varies with the Selection of Evaluation Tools

© 2021 by IJCTT Journal
Volume-69 Issue-11
Year of Publication : 2021
Authors : Mr. Abhay R. Palaskar, Raju R. Gondkar, Surekha R. Gondkar.
DOI :  10.14445/22312803/IJCTT-V69I11P101

How to Cite?

Mr. Abhay R. Palaskar, Raju R. Gondkar, Surekha R. Gondkar, "Web Accessibility Quality Index Varies with the Selection of Evaluation Tools," International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology, vol. 69, no. 11, pp. 1-5, 2021. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/22312803/IJCTT-V69I12P101

This article on web accessibility illustrates a study on the accessibility quality index of government services websites related to 10 countries after its implementation of web-accessible guidelines. This assessment is performed to analyze the website`s compliance with the latest WCAG 2.0 guidelines and ARIA rules published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The intent of this research is to determine whether the implemented guidelines are reflecting and usable as per norms or not. Research also includes quality index differences that are stats how different tools are analyzing the same website and differ on quality issues. The WCAG 2.0 guidelines support web accessibility implementation, and we are referring to the Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM) to refer to how easily disabled people can access websites. It is observed that the majority of the websites do not achieve an acceptable level of compliance. From this research, we conclude that most of the evaluation tools are different in providing exact accessibility issues present on a specific website, and this caters to final quality index differentiation. This research was specifically performed on government services-related websites because the majority of disabled people are using government services for day-to-day operations such as banking, education, policies, registrations, taxes. With multiple manual testing iterations, it was found that several non-compliance errors are present on these websites. Changing the defect count of every tool on the same website on two different occasions results in more work planning for developers; with this observation, there is a significant amount of work that needs to be done in this area where tools need to be more robust w.r.t accessibility issues.

Disability, Evaluation, Quality, WCAG 2.0, ARIA, Accessibility, Web accessibility.


[1] International Telecommunications Union(ITU), Measuring the Information Society 2014: Report 2014, Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/mis2014.aspx,(2014).
[2] R.J. Freeman and P. Loo, Web 2.0 and E-Government at the Municipal Level, Proceedings of the 2009 World Congress on Privacy, Security, Trust and the Management of e-Business, (2009) 70-78.
[3] S. Lujan Mora, Web Accessibility Among the Countries of the European Union: A Comparative Study, Actual Problems of ComputerScience,1(3) (2013) 18-27.
[4] C.Boldyreff, Determination and evaluation of Web accessibility, Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, Eleventh IEEE International Workshops, (2002) 35-40.
[5] D.Ortner, L.U.A.Inst.Integriert Studieren and K.Miesenberger, Improving Web accessibility by providing higher education facilities for Web designers and Web developers following the design for all approach, 16thInternational Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, (2005) 866-870.
[6] W3C,WCAG2.0Guidelines,12112008.[Online].Available:https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.[Lastaccess:02022016].
[7] http://www.projectperfect.com.au/info_quality_index.php
[8] W. Yaokumah, S. Brown and R. Amponsah, Accessibility, Quality and Performance of Government Portals and Ministry Websites: A View Using Diagnostic Tools, 2015 Annual Global Online Conference on Information and Computer Technology (GOCICT), Louisville, KY, (2015) 46-50.
[9] Y.Akgül,Quality evaluation of E-government websites of Turkey, 2016 11th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Gran Canaria., (2016) 1-7.
[10] M.Scholl, How Usable and Clear are the Websites of European Capitals from the Point of View of German Students Adopting an E-Government Perspective? , 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS),Koloa,HI, (2016) 2893-2902.
[11] Techniques for WCAG 2.0, http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20- TECHS/ (retrieved July 12, 2016)
[12] Classifications of Accessibility Evaluation Tools, http://webaim.org/articles/tools/ (retrieved June 22, 2016).
[13] Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM) 1.0, https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG-EM- 20140710/ (retrieved July 2, 2016)
[14] P. Giulianelli, C. Pons and C. Gonzalez, Mobile government web sites analysis, 7th Colombian, Computing Congress (CCC), Colombia, 202 (2012)11-12.
[15] S. Luján-Mora, R. Navarrete, and M. Peñafiel, eGovernment and Web Accessibility in South America, First International Conference, Quito, (2014) 77-82.