REDEFINING ASSUMPTIONS Accessibility and Its Stakeholders at ICCHP 2010

1. REDEFINING ASSUMPTIONS
Accessibility and Its Stakeholders
Rui Lopes, Karel Van Isacker, Luís Carriço
rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt

2. MOTIVATION
Solving the problems of accessing information without barriers
requires efforts in different fronts.
Stakeholders on accessibility face different problems,
motivations, solutions.
Accessibility field is ineffective if stakeholders target just
individually – the whole is bigger than the sum of the parts.

3. MOTIVATION
Surveys show that
• Web masters play a critical role on accessibility (Lazar et al., 2004)
• Law enforcement tends to work on govt. Websites (Yao et al., 2009)
• ... but knowledge and abidance rates are very low (Freire et al., 2008)

4. PROBLEM
Notice that
• the few surveys that have been done are focused on one
technology domain – the Web.
• Stakeholders are studied (almost) independently.

5. OUR SURVEY
developers
accessibility service
assessors providers
public bodies/ people w/ disabilities
government (inc. elderly)

6. METHODOLOGY
• Questionnaires for each stakeholder
• Online & paper / self-answered & face-to-face interviews
•7 languages: cz, en, fr, de, gr, it, pt.
• Demographic – comprehension, working, expectation on
accessibility – employment – user behaviour with Internet.

7. RESULTS – GENERAL
• Survey took place in several countries, from April to July 2009.
• People with disabilities and elderly mostly through face-to-face
interviews.
• 408 individuals surveyed (76.2% male).

8. RESULTS – DEVELOPERS
254 participants (25% directors/managers, 65% developers, 10% students/assistants)
Acquaintance with individuals who have disabilities
6%
unacquainted
professionally
70% personally
24%

9. RESULTS – DEVELOPERS
They expressed need for more knowledge about assistive
devices & more education through project groups (67%),
workshops (53%), and online training (34%).

10. RESULTS – DEVELOPERS
Circa 40% are somewhat aware of standards & guidelines.
Familiarity with standards & guidelines (in %)
90
68
Students
45 Directors & developers
23
0
WAI-ARIA WCAG 1.0 WCAG 2.0 Section 508 ATAG

11. RESULTS – DEVELOPERS
Knowledge is (not necessarily) power.
“[...] do have a shelf of books on WCAG [...], but hardly any of us
uses it as we lack the time. What we all seek for is an embedded
validator in our day to day developing tools such as Microsoft Visual
Studio [...]”
Accessibility simulation + tailored authoring preferred (70%),
but traditional assessment tools also (48%). Online & download
(49%).

12. RESULTS – SERVICE PROVIDERS
41 participants (24% men; between 24-60 years old)
• Primarily
employed on accessible Web design & consulting,
mostly working on SME (90%).
• 34% have some kind of impairment.

13. RESULTS – SERVICE PROVIDERS
Good awareness of accessibility standards such as
WCAG 1.0 (83%) and WCAG 2.0 (61%).
Methods & practices (in %)
70
53
35
18
0
Assessment tools User testing AT simulation

14. RESULTS – SERVICE PROVIDERS
• Good awareness of accessibility standards, e.g., WCAG 1.0
(83%) and WCAG 2.0 (61%).
• Still, the
most eager stakeholder for further advancements, such
as accessibility on mobile Web (66%) and better simulation
tools (85%).
• Want to be updated via online resources (83%), as well tools
availability online.

15. RESULTS – PUBLIC BODIES
18 participants (servants & officials; 28-60 years old; 11 men)
• Theywork for public bodies, governmental agencies and public
corporations.
• Small
sample, difficultly obtaining permission through official
channels...
• ... but all subject to laws and regulations on accessibility.

16. RESULTS – PUBLIC BODIES
• All
familiar with (HCI-centric) accessibility, but 75% also
associate term with physical properties.
• Internal
training takes place (56%), but lack of internal
expertise identified as a problem (72%).
• Big interest on events & database of experts to help them.

17. RESULTS – PUBLIC BODIES
• Evaluation tools are main entry point to ensure some
accessibility (67%).
• Little to no use of end-users and AT-centric testing.
• Highexpectation on certification “stamps”(e.g., WCAG AAA)
from their superiors/decision makers (78%).

18. RESULTS – A11Y ASSESSORS
37 participants (heterogeneous group; 23-54 years old; 24 men)
• Accessibility
champions in the society: experts, counsellors,
consulters, professors.
• Most of them have > 10 years of experience.
•9 have an impairment.
• 11 are members of organisations for people with disabilities
(inc. all the 9 above).

19. RESULTS – A11Y ASSESSORS
• High awareness of standards and guidelines (81%).
• WCAG 1.0 was particularly mentioned due to being the basis
for laws in several countries.
• Theyhave an active role on Web accessibility (81%) and
desktop (41%).

20. RESULTS – A11Y ASSESSORS
• Evaluation & simulation tools mostly used, with strong feelings
for disability (77%) and AT simulation (80%).
• Invitations to events on accessibility issues desired (63%).
(icchp 2011 shouldn’t have a problem hitting the break-even!!!)

21. RESULTS – END USERS
67 participants (75% claim to have a disability; 19-75 years old; 38 men)
disability awareness
100
75
50
25
0
[..., 29] [30-39] [40-49] [50-59] [60-...]

22. RESULTS – END USERS
• Awareness of Web and other domains (e.g. mobile) are posing
severe access barriers (60%).
• Despite of that, 75% use technology on an almost daily basis.
• No key winner on AT usage. Diversity is king.
• Training(60%) falls short of expectations, with reliance on
friends to help (70%).
• Expressed
need (73%) of improvements on AT compatibility
with Web pages.

23. SUMMARY
• Need for higher spread of WCAG 2.0.
• Willingness for AT and disability simulation.
• Advanced IDE integration.
• WAI must be replicated on other tech domains.

24. THANK YOU!
Rui Lopes
rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt
check EU FP7 ACCESSIBLE project for some answers
http://www.accessible-project.eu/