Accessibility evaluation of top university websites: a comparative study of Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkey

İsmailova, Rita; İnal, Yavuz

doi:10.1007/s10209-017-0541-0

Cited by 45 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, all of the websites contained malicious links, and four of them did not complete the Google Mobile-Friendly Test [23]. Ismailova and Inal [24] analysed the accessibility of 60 top Kyrgyz, Kazakh, Azerbaijani, and Turkish university websites. The survey revealed that most of the university websites did not pass the accessibility criteria of WCAG 2.0.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving accessibility of CMS-based websites using automated methods

Csontos

Heckl

2020

Univ Access Inf Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New methods of identifying and fixing accessibility issues on websites are presented in this article. The websites taken into consideration by the research are created with content management systems (like WordPress or Joomla!). Our main goal was to develop different methods to improve accessibility that may be used by various user groups (website creators, operators, content editors). Some of our methods are easy to use, some need more proficiency. The three methods we have developed (CSS/SCSS class override, MVC-based extension override, HTML output override) are described in detail. The use of an already existing method (Data entry checking) is also introduced, as well as some development options of this method. Each method is introduced in general, furthermore an example of their usage is also presented. Using the proposed methods, websites can fulfil the recommendations of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) in order to make the content of the websites more accessible.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving accessibility of CMS-based websites using automated methods

Csontos

Heckl

2020

Univ Access Inf Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ismailova and Inal [19] concluded, having evaluated the websites of major universities in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkey, that these institutions should devote more effort to making their websites accessible to their users because they failed to comply with WCAG 2.0 standards. The AChecker tool allowed the analysis of compliance with accessibility guidelines to evaluate the websites in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkey.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Heuristic Method to Evaluate Web Accessibility for Users With Low Vision

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Checking the accessibility of a website is a significant challenge for accessibility experts. Users who suffer from age-related changes, such as low vision, poor hearing, and diminishing motor skills, among others, have problems accessing the services offered by the web. Currently, there are qualitative and quantitative methods to check if a website is accessible. Most methods apply automatic tools because they are low cost, but they do not present an ideal solution. Instead, heuristic methods require manual support that will help the expert to assess accessibility by establishing severity ranges. This research used a modification of the Barrier Walkthrough method proposed by Giorgio Brajnik considering the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1. The modification consisted of including persistence to determine the severity of an accessibility barrier. This method enabled the measurement of the accessibility of websites to test a new heuristic process and to obtain sample data for analysis. The method was applied to 40 websites, including those of 30 universities in Latin America, according to the Webometrics ranking, and 10 websites among the most visited, according to Alexa ranking. With this heuristic method, the evaluators concluded that although a website is in a high-ranking position, this does not imply that it is accessible and inclusive. However, the manual method takes too long, and it is therefore too costly to solve accessibility problems. This research can serve as a starting point for future studies related to web accessibility heuristics.INDEX TERMS Accessibility, assessment, barrier walkthrough, evaluation, heuristic method, low vision, website, web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.1.

show abstract

“…Only 10% of the Libyan Federal government websites fulfill the assessment approval standards were observed. The examination was carried out via the AChecker automated tool and determined that just 5% of Finland country college web sites satisfy the WCAG 2.0 standards [24]. It has carried out examination via AChecker and WAVE tool has observed that just 15% of Malaysian country sites fulfilled the W3C approval standards [25].…”

Section: Answer To the Forth Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Methodical Search of Web Content Accessibility for Visual Disabled People

2019

ijeat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Internet has revolutionized and became a major option to obtain information. The complete faith of any individual or organization depends on the official website they are using. Therefore, it is the duty of organizations to provide a website design environment in such a way that even a visually disabled person can access the content without any issues. In view of a website content accessibility importance, the present article has reviewed some of the literature to study how the web content accessibility has been done, what architecture they have used, what suggestions they made and the limitations of those studies. The article also studied only the literature that considered W3C WCAG 2.0 guidelines for website evaluation. The main objective of the present article is to summarize the observations of the existing literature and identify the influencing factors on the quality of a website. The present work also studied the various approaches that are implemented by the researchers to evaluate the website quality. Finally, a comparative analysis was made and determined the outcomes as results and made a few discussions to identify some other technical and non-technical barriers if any

show abstract

Accessibility evaluation of top university websites: a comparative study of Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkey

Cited by 45 publications

References 21 publications

Improving accessibility of CMS-based websites using automated methods

Improving accessibility of CMS-based websites using automated methods

A Heuristic Method to Evaluate Web Accessibility for Users With Low Vision

A Methodical Search of Web Content Accessibility for Visual Disabled People

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About