Towards a more accessible e-government in Jordan: an evaluation study of visually impaired users and Web developers
Abstract
Accessibility of e-government services is a key issue for people with disabilities. E-government services can significantly save lot of their effort and provide them with lot of easy to reach services. Yet, accessibility of e-government websites is still under-explored topic in Jordan. In order to understand the accessibility of e-government websites and its problems, this study evaluates a set of e-government websites using 20 blind and visually impaired volunteers and at the same time conducts a survey on e-government websites developers. The results from e-government websites accessibility evaluation are compared with expert's review. For both the evaluation and the survey we used a set of accessibility guidelines developed by W3C [i.e. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0)], Section 508 of the US Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, and other literature review. In order to evaluate a reasonable number of e-government Web sites, a set of common e-government websites visited by the blind community were identified and a set of specific common tasks to test were defined. The analysis of the research results revealed a serious weakness in understanding, adopting and implementing Web accessibility guidelines throughout nearly all Jordanian e-government websites. Improving awareness, training developers and users, and developing formal guidelines of Web accessibility are needed to enable visually impaired and blind users in accessing e-government Web sites and their…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Even when awareness exists, accessibility evaluation is frequently relegated to the very end of the development lifecycle.
“Second, even when awareness exists, accessibility evaluation is frequently relegated to the very end of the development lifecycle [2, 37].”
From A Multi-Agent Framework for Accessible Web Code Generation (2026) · cites this paper as [2]
Cites
How much does expertise matter?: a barrier walkthrough study with experts and non-experts
Yesilada, Y., Brajnik, G., & Harper, S. (2009) · Proceedings of the 11th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility · doi:10.1145/1639642.1639678 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Website accessibility: a survey of local e-government websites and legislation in Northern Ireland
Paris, M. (2006) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-003-0081-7 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Andreas Kleynhans, S., & Fourie, I. (2014) · Library Hi Tech · doi:10.1108/lht-11-2013-0148 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
AlMeraj, Z., Alhuwail, D., Qadri, R., Shama, S., & Crabb, M. (2024) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-023-00980-5 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Ma11y: A Mutation Framework for Web Accessibility Testing
Tafreshipour, M., Deshpande, A., Mehralian, F., Ahmed, I., & Malek, S. (2024) · Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis · doi:10.1145/3650212.3652113 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
A Multi-Agent Framework for Accessible Web Code Generation
Aljedaani, W., Shaik, M. A., & Aljohani, A. (2026) · Proceedings of the 23rd International Web for All Conference · doi:10.1145/3800424.3800453 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Second, even when awareness exists, accessibility evaluation is frequently relegated to the very end of the development lifecycle [2, 37].”
- Authors
- Abu-Doush, I., Bany-Mohammed, A., Ali, E., & Al-Betar, M. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Jordan (JO)
- Venue
- Behaviour & Information Technology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-03
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 273-293
- ISSN
- 0144-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1362-3001
- OpenAlex
- W1964366470
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 6.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Behaviour and Information Technology (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- e-government accessibility, web accessibility, visually impaired users, blind users, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, Section 508, web developers
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
