In August 2002 a survey of the accessibility of 162 UK University home pages was carried out using the Bobby accessibility checking tool. This survey was carried out shortly before the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) came into effect on 1 st September 2002. The findings were published in an Ariadne WebWatch article.
The survey was carried out using the Web-based Bobby tool to analyse the accessibility of entry points of UK University Web sites. The results of the survey were recorded, including information on compliance with Bobby's A and AA guidelines and the numbers of Priority 1 (P1) and Priority 2 (P2) errors.
It should be noted that Bobby is only one of a range of accessibility testing tools. Bobby is used in this survey as it is probably the most well-known. A list of other accessibility testing tools is available on the W3C WAI Web site.
It should be noted that the survey addressed only accessibility aspects which could be detected by use of software. A more thorough accessibility audit would require use of manual testing. However this would be time-consuming to carry out.
Only four entry points appeared to provide AA compliance by having no Priority 1 or Priority 2 errors. These were the University of Bristol, the University of East London, the University of Sheffield and Writtle College. Subsequent analysis showed that one used JavaScript to create the HTML, and therefore does not comply with WAI guidelines.
Although the number of entry points which provide AA compliance is disappointing it is pleasing to note that seventy entry points appeared to provide A compliance by having no Priority 1 errors.
A summary of the findings is given below.
Institution | AA Compliant? | Comments | Try It | |
19 | Bristol | Y | AA approved | Check |
42 | University of East London | Y | AA approved | Check |
133 | Sheffield | Y | AA approved | Check |
160 | Writtle | Check |
A repeat of the survey was carried out on 1-2ndJune 2004. The findings are given in Appendix 1.
In this survey the automated findings seemed to show that 9 institutions complied with WAI AA guidelines. A summary of the findings is given below.
Institution | AA Compliant? | Comments | Try It | |
1 | Aberdeen | Y | AA approved | Check |
25 | Cardiff | Y | AA approved | Check |
26 | University of Wales Institute, Cardiff | Y | AA approved | Check |
34 | Coventry | Y | AA approved | Check |
42 | University of East London | Y | AA approved | Check |
61 | Imperial College | Y | AA approved | Check |
133 | Sheffield | Y | AA approved | Check |
145 | Swansea | Y | AA approved | Check |
161 | York | Y | AA approved | Check |
An overlap comparison of the 2002 and 2004 findings is given below.
2002 | 2004 | |
A Compliant | 70 | 93 |
AA Compliant | 3 | 9 |
Non-Compliant | 89 | 49 |
Not Known | 1 | 10 |
Total | 163 | 161 |
As can be seen there is a definite trend towards apparently more accessible home pages. However it is also noticeable that only a very small number of pages appear to comply with WAI AA guidelines. In the light of the wide knowledge of and support for accessible Web sites within the UK HE Web management community (as shown by the frequent discussion of this topic on mailing lists) there is a need for further consideration of the reasons for these low numbers. One possibility may be that some of the WAI AA guidelines are felt to be too theoretical or difficult to implement. The University of Staffordshire's home page, for example, contained only 1 P2 error - the page failed to 'nest headings properly'. On a menu page should as a University home page it is questionable as to whether this requirement really aids accessibility.
There is a broader issue, however. It may be questionable whether the checklist approach inherent in testing WAI guidelines is desirable. Although the WAI guidelines require use of manual testing in order to test whether a page is actually accessible, in practice there is a danger that such manual testing will not be carried out. In addition over-dependence on issues addressed in the WAI guidelines may lead to a failure to address other issues such as usability.
A summary of the findings is given in the following table.
Last modified: 18st October 2004