Observatory On ICT Accessibility: Discap
Observatory On ICT Accessibility: Discap
Observatory On ICT Accessibility: Discap
Introduction
The emergence and spread of social networking services on Internet 1 is one of the most relevant phenomena to emerge in the field of new technologies in recent years. Appearing at the beginning of the 21st Century, in many cases starting out as communication tools for reduced groups of people in specific contexts, such as university students, some platforms have since expanded rapidly, and exponentially, to enjoying coverage and popularity throughout the world. To take but one example, Facebook, set up in 2004, has gone from being a platform used exclusively by North American university students, to being used by 450 million users in over 70 languages, at the last count 2. Spain is one of the countries in which social networking services have taken hold most (and most rapidly). It has been ranked second only to Brazil in use (Nielsen, 2009). The survey conducted by IAB Spain Research (2009) among users of social networks, detected that almost half the respondents use social networking services on Internet as the mains means to obtain information, over and above other Internet services such as digital newspapers, blogs or forums, and also over conventional media, such as television, radio or the written press. Internet-based social networking services are used by 61% of the respondents on a daily basis, with 84% using such platforms more than once a week. Social networking services have led to a change in the panorama of interpersonal relationships, as well as in the means of communication between people and groups, as the use of technology increases.
A social network can be considered a social structure made up of people or organisations that are linked to each other, and
includes the interaction generated or established by them. Over Internet, such interaction can take place in many different ways: for instance, through comments posted on blogs, the exchange of email messages or participation on forums. With the advent of Web 2.0, which allows for a greater level of interaction on the Web, specific systems have been developed to promote the development of such relationships. Although these systems are commonly known as social networks, this report refers to them as social networking services in order to distinguish them from the broader concept of social network.
2
Methodology
The Observatory uses an innovative methodology developed by Technosite, based on W3C/WAI recommendations 3, and combines the technical analyses carried out by accessibility experts with the usability and accessibility assessment by users themselves. As a novelty and enhancement to earlier studies carried out by the Observatory, in order to make the findings of both groups comparable, similar evaluation criteria were designed for both the technical analysis and that of the users. Thus, twelve aspects or criteria were defined to synthesise most of the W3C/WAI (WCAG 1.0) Guidelines for Content Accessibility corresponding to Levels A and Double-A, as well as the Web 2.0 (WCAG 2.0) Guidelines for Content Accessibility. The criteria analysed were the following: Multibrowser access; Navigation and orientation; Forms; Images; Structure; Separation between presentation and content; Colour; Layout tables; Data tables; Script; Multimedia content; and PDF documents. Each of these criteria had a certain number of sub-criteria, totalling 30. In the case of users experiences, the different criteria were set out in a series of questions on a questionnaire to be answered by a sample of users after they had carried out a number of tasks on each of the eight platforms included in the study. The tasks, or processes, were the same as those carried out in the technical analysis: Registration, uploading and viewing content, and adding contacts. The sample of users was made up of eight people with different profiles: a user with no disabilities; two blind users; a partially sighted user; a user with intellectual impairment 4; a user with hearing impairment; and two users with limited movement in their upper limbs. Each user only evaluated the criteria and sub-criteria corresponding to the accessibility requirements for his/her profile (for instance, only the blind users analysed the criterion for Images). However, the sample also included a user with no disabilities who was able to evaluate more criteria than the average user. Analysis of the sub-criteria was carried out, where relevant, taking into account two key variables of website accessibility: severity of the barrier, and frequency of its occurrence.
3 4
W3C/WAI: The World Wide Web Consortiums Web Accessibility Initiative. For further details, visit: http://www.w3.org/WAI An easy-to-read version of the questionnaire was drawn up for users with intellectual impairment.
Findings
Table 1 shows the scores obtained for each social networking service included in the sample of Discapnets Observatory on ICT Accessibility, based on the technical analyses and users experiences, and in relation with the accessibility of these portals. 6
Web site LinkedIn Flickr Xing Twitter Facebook Windows Live Spaces Tuenti
MySpace 1 star General 1 star 2 stars *Minimum rating: 0 stars. Maximum rating: 5 stars.
The social networking services selected for the sample scored an average of one accessibility star (corresponding to a very deficient level of accessibility) based on the technical analysis and two stars (corresponding to a deficient level of accessibility) from the experiences of users with different profiles of disability. The conclusion, therefore, is that the level of accessibility of the most popular and commonly used social networking services in Spain is quite low. LinkedIn is the platform rated as having the highest level of accessibility from the technical viewpoint, with three stars out of five (moderate accessibility). It was followed, some distance behind, by Flickr and Xing, with two stars (deficient accessibility), while the rest of the platforms analysed rated one or no star. These results are shown in Figure 1, below.
Figure 1. Accessibility stars from the technical analysis of social networking services
These findings lead to the conclusion that, in general, users evaluations of accessibility are usually somewhat more positive than the corresponding technical analyses, because they are accustomed to having to overcome barriers in order to navigate. This does not mean that there are no barriers. In any case, in designing the methodology an attempt was made to reduce the bias between technicians and users when assessing the accessibility of the platforms, by making the users aware of the typical problems and barriers that make access to Web pages difficult. The findings show that this was achieved, at least in part, since in some cases the score given in the technical analysis is higher than that given to the same platform by the users (for instance, LinkedIn was granted three stars in the technical analysis and only two by the users) and in other cases, both scores were similar (one star level of accessibility in both types of assessment for Windows Live Spaces, or two for Xing). Figure 3 shows the combined findings of the technical analysis and the users experiences for each portal:
User's Experience
Flickr 3
LinkedIn
0 0 1 2 3 4 5
Technical Analysis
Figure 3. Combined levels of accessibility from the technical analysis and users experience of social networking services
As the above graph shows, the results of the different services in the technical analysis were quite low, with only LinkedIn scoring higher than average in terms of accessibility stars and achieving a moderate level. Flickr and Xing had a deficient level of accessibility; Twitter, Facebook and Windows Live Spaces had a very deficient level; whereas Tuenti and MySpace were, technically, completely inaccessible. On the other hand, the results from the users experiences were less strict and more varied: Flickr obtained a moderate level of accessibility; Xing, Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, deficient; and Tuenti, MySpace and Windows Live Spaces, very deficient. None of the platforms were totally inaccessible according to the users. Regarding the results for the accessibility criteria for the sample of portals analysed by the Observatory, shown in the table below, the different criteria analysed rated a major degree of penalization, on average, from the technical analysis, and a moderate degree from the users viewpoints. For the technical analysis, several criteria had a major degree of non-conformance (Separation between presentation and content, Use of Script and PDF Documents), and two criteria presented a minor degree of non-conformance (Multi-browser access and Colour). On the other hand, for the users experiences, the criteria with major non-conformance were those of Images and use of
Average penalization Technical analysis Criteria Multi-browser access Colour Forms Data tables Layout tables Multimedia Structure Navigation and orientation Images Separation between presentation and content Scripts PDF documents AVERAGE 0,00 0,07 0,17 0,09 0,23 0,33 0,25 0,26 0,22 0,45 0,66 0,78 0,43
Degree of penalization Technical analysis Minor Minor Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Major Major Major Major
Average penalization User experience 0,01 0,06 0,06 0,19 0,07 0,06 0,16 0,18 0,39 0,26 0,36 -0,33
Degree of penalization User experience Minor Minor Minor Moderate Minor Minor Moderate Moderate Major Moderate Major -Moderate
Figure 4 shows the scores for the different criteria obtained from the technical analysis, for the eight platforms included in the study. Each criterion analysed can thus be compared across all the results of the platforms. The criterion of Multi-browser access obtains a high score (minor barrier) on all the portals, whereas for the other criteria the scores vary significantly from one portal to another. The criterion of Script is the one that presents most barriers on all the platforms, with the exception of LinkedIn, where the barrier was minor.
10
Figure 4. Accessibility scores from the technical analysis by verification criterion, for the eight platforms included in the study
average of one accessibility star from the technical analysis (very deficient level of accessibility) and two stars from the users experiences with different profiles of disabilities (deficient level of accessibility). 2. Of the sample of platforms analysed, LinkedIn showed the highest technical level of
accessibility, with three stars (moderate level of accessibility), and a further two from the users
11
experts in charge of the assessment, was LinkedIn (3 stars). Those presenting the greatest barriers to accessibility, from a technical viewpoint, were Tuenti and MySpace (0 stars). 4. The most accessible and usable platform, according to users, was Flickr (3 stars). The
lowest levels, in the opinions of users with different profiles, whether disabled or not, were Tuenti, Windows Live Spaces and MySpace (1 star). 5. In general, and for the sample of platforms analysed by the Observatory as a whole, the
different criteria analysed rated a major degree of penalization from the technical analysis, and a moderate degree, from the users. 6. The criteria with the highest levels of conformance were those of Multi-browser access
and Colour. On the other hand, the criterion showing the greater number of bad practices was that of non-accessible Scripts. 7. The scores obtained for both the global rating of the platform and the specific criteria
included in the assessment were slightly higher when given by the users than those from the technical analysis. This is a common finding, and is due to the fact that users are accustomed to overcoming barriers in order to be able to navigate. However, this does not mean there are no barriers to access. With a view to encouraging certain actions that can help to improve accessibility to the social networking services, Discapnets Observatory on ICT Accessibility team has drawn up the following recommendations: Adjust HTML and CSS codes to W3C guidelines. Correct code can be suitably interpreted by users navigation devices and, in particular, by the special devices used by people with functional limitations. Carry out an accessible development of Forms, as these are the tools for interaction between the user and website management. The inability to use forms limits the capacity to 12
14