Barriers to use: usability and content accessibility on the Web's most popular sites
Abstract
Content accessibility is a key feature in highly usable Web sites, but reports in the popular press typically report that 95% or more of all Web sites are inaccessible to users with disabilities. The present study is a content accessibility compliance audit of 50 of the Web's most popular sites, undertaken to determine if content accessibility can be conceived and reported in continuous, rather than dichotomous, terms. Preliminary results suggest that a meaningful ordinal ranking of content accessibility is not only possible, but also correlates significantly with the results of independent automated usability assessment procedures.
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?
Eighty percent of Web sites fail to satisfy basic accessibility requirements.
“Research shows that 80% of Web sites do not meet basic accessibility requirements (Loiacono and McCoy, 2004;Sullivan and Matson, 2000;Klein et al., 2003).”
From Understanding Blind Users' Web Accessibility and Usability Problems (2010) · cites this paper as Sullivan and Matson, 2000
Cited by
Sorted by citations
What Frustrates Screen Reader Users on the Web: A Study of 100 Blind Users
Lazar, J., Allen, A., Kleinman, J., & Malarkey, C. (2007) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447310709336964 · Cited by 354 · see citing works
The Current Status of Accessibility in Mobile Apps
Yan, S., & Ramachandran, P. G. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · doi:10.1145/3300176 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Leuthold, S., Bargas-Avila, J. A., & Opwis, K. (2008) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.10.006 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Alsaeedi, A. (2020) · Information · doi:10.3390/info11010040 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Tension, what tension?: Website accessibility and visual design
Petrie, H., Hamilton, F., & King, N. (2004) · Proceedings of the international cross-disciplinary workshop on Web accessibility - W4A · doi:10.1145/990657.990660 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Web site accessibility: an online sector analysis
Loiacono, E., & McCoy, S. (2004) · Information Technology & People · doi:10.1108/09593840410522198 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Understanding Blind Users' Web Accessibility and Usability Problems
The University of North Carolina - Greensboro, Babu, R., Singh, R., The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, U., Ganesh, J., & Limited, I. T. (2010) · AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.17705/1thci.00015 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Schmutz, S., Sonderegger, A., & Sauer, J. (2016) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720816640962 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Snapshot—Ten Years after the Law: A Survey of the Current Status of University Web Accessibility
Krach, S. K. (2007) · Journal of Special Education Technology · doi:10.1177/016264340702200403 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
HABOS: Towards a platform of haptic-audio based online shopping for the visually impaired
Wong, E. J., Yap, K. M., Alexander, J., & Karnik, A. (2015) · 2015 IEEE Conference on Open Systems (ICOS) · doi:10.1109/icos.2015.7377279 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sullivan, T., & Matson, R.
- Affiliations
- University of North Texas (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings on the 2000 conference on Universal Usability - CUU '00
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2000
- Pages
- 139-144
- OpenAlex
- W2021079758
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 7.71
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Conference on Universal Usability (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Keywords
- web accessibility, content accessibility, disabled users, website usability, barriers to use
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
