CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesDisability Rights and RepresentationDiscrimination and Equality Law

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

eQuality: Web Accessibility by People With Cognitive Disabilities

Blanck, Peter·2015·Inclusion
DOI 10.1352/2326-6988-3.2.75
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

eQuality: The Struggle for Web Accessibility by Persons With Cognitive Disabilities (Blanck, 2014a) examines the right under the Americans with Disabilities Act to web access for people with cognitive disabilities (intellectual and developmental disabilities, autism, traumatic brain injury, and other conditions). This article continues that line of study examining the full and equal enjoyment (accessibility and usability) of web content by people with cognitive disabilities. I consider definitions, legal challenges, and rights that are discussed more fully in eQuality, and I reflect on new disability law and policy developments in the United States (e.g., Section 508 refresh and web equality case law) and internationally (e.g., developments in CRPD Articles 9 and 12, and European standardization efforts) since eQuality was published.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1352/2326-6988-3.2.75

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Information and Communication Technology (ICT), in particular the World Wide Web, has the potential to foster social inclusion of people with disabilities.

    “Despite the drawbacks and the challenges highlighted by several scholars, Information and Communication Technology (ICT), in particular the World Wide Web, has the potential to foster social inclusion of people with disabilities.”

    From Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities in the European Union: Paving the Road to Social Inclusion (2018) · cites this paper as [2]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 64

  1. 10.1073/pnas.1302982110 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.2307/43628904 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.tele.2012.03.004 · DOI
  4. Berners-LeeT. (1999). Weaving the web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web by its inventor. New York, NY: HarperOne.
  5. Berners-LeeT. (2007, Mar. 1). Testimony before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Hearing on the “Digital Future of the United States: Part I—The Future of the World Wide Web.”
  6. 10.1080/09638280902773729 · DOI
  7. BlanckP. (2004). Justice for all? Stories about Americans with disabilities and their civil rights. Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 8, 1–32.
  8. 10.5195/lawreview.2005.26 · DOI
  9. BlanckP. (2008). “The right to live in the world”: Disability yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, 13, 367–401.
  10. 10.1017/CBO9781107280151 · DOI
  11. 10.1002/bsl.2101 · DOI
  12. BlanckP., GoldsteinB., & MyhillW. (2013). Legal rights of persons with disabilities: An analysis of federal law (2nd ed.). New York, NY: LRP Publications.
  13. BlanckP., HillE., SiegalC., & WaterstoneM. (2014). Disability, civil rights law, and policy: Cases and materials (3rd ed.). London, UK: Thomson/West.
  14. 10.1352/2326-6988-3.1.24 · DOI
  15. 10.1080/09687599.2011.543862 · DOI
  16. British Standards Institution, Standards on Web Accessibility, BS 8878. (2010). (Citing BSI, Draft BS 8878:2009 Web accessibility–Building accessible experiences for disabled people–Code of practice: BSI. 2009).
  17. 10.1007/s10209-013-0345-9 · DOI
  18. 10.1145/1124772.1124943 · DOI
  19. Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl Executive Director Colorado Department of Revenue 135 S. Ct. pp. 1134–1136 (U.S. 2015) (Kennedy J. concurring decision).
  20. DISCIT, Active citizenship for persons with disabilities—Current knowledge and analytical framework. (2013). DISCIT, 2 (1).
  21. 10.1093/ijlit/eaq015 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1177/1527476411425251 · DOI
  23. 10.1145/1414471.1414485 · DOI
  24. 10.1038/scientificamerican1207-90 · DOI
  25. FeinsbergS. & MurphyM. (2000). Applying cognitive load theory to the design of web-based instruction. Proceedings of IEEE Professional Communication Society International Communication Conference and Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM International Conference on Computer Documentation: Technology & Teamwork; Cambridge, Massachusetts, 504855. IEEE Educational Archives, 353–360.
  26. FerriD. (2014). Analytical framework for a comparative analysis of accessible technology law and policy. DISCIT, 7(1).
  27. 10.1002/bsl.2103 · DOI
  28. GiannoumisG. A.(in press). Transnational convergence of public procurement policy: A bottom-up analysis of the role of policy networks. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology.
  29. GiannoumisG. A. & KlineJ. (2015). Active citizenship through the use of new technologies–the experiences of three generations of persons with disabilities. DISCIT, 7(2).
  30. 10.1016/j.websem.2007.12.002 · DOI
  31. HalvorsenR. (2010). Digital freedom for persons with disabilities: Are policies to enhance e-accessibility and e-inclusion becoming more similar in the Nordic countries and the US?InL.Waddington& G.Quinn(Eds.), European yearbook of disability law (Vol. 2, pp. 103–128). Oxford, UK: Intersentia.
  32. HalvorsenR. & HvindenB. (2013). Active citizenship for persons with disabilities-Current knowledge and analytical framework. DISCIT, 2(1).
  33. 10.4018/978-1-60566-206-0.ch011 · DOI
  34. HeilG., ParkerT., & StephensD. C. (1999). One size fits one: Building relationships one customer and one employee at a time. New York, NY: Wiley.
  35. 10.1145/2596695.2596719 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.06.002 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.3109/09638288.2011.624250 · DOI
  38. KandoganE. (2012). Just-in-time annotation of clusters, outliers, and trends in point-based data visualizations. IEEE TVCG, 73–82.
  39. MarshallT. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class: And other essays Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  40. 10.1016/j.procs.2014.02.030 · DOI
  41. 10.1007/s10803-011-1413-8 · DOI
  42. National Council on Disability. (2011). The power of digital inclusion: Technology's impact on employment and opportunities for people with disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.
  43. NicolauH. (2012). Disabled “R” all: Bridging the gap between health and situational induced impairments and disabilities. Sigaccess Newsletter, 102, 21–24.
  44. NIDRR Research Priority, Inclusive Cloud and Web Computing. (2013). Fed. Reg., 78(10), 2919–2923.
  45. PariserE. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
  46. 10.1016/j.dhjo.2013.08.002 · DOI
  47. PuzisY., BorodinY., AhmedF., & RamakrishnanI. V. (2012). An intuitive accessible web automation user interface. Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, 41–44.
  48. 10.1017/CBO9780511843693 · DOI
  49. Slind-FlorV. (2013, Aug. 20). Bill Gates, HP, Warner Music, Deere: Intellectual property, Bloomberg News. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-08-20/bill-gates-hp-warner-music-deere-intellectual-property
  50. SteinM., WaterstoneM., & WilkinsD. (2010). Cause lawyering for people with disabilities: Book review of Samuel Bagenstos'Law and the Contradictions of the Disability Rights Movement. Harvard Law Review, 123, 1661–1662.
  51. SteinfeldE. & MaiselJ. (2012). Universal design: Creating inclusive environments. New York, NY: Wiley.
  52. StockS. E., DaviesD. K., WehmeyerM. L., & LachapelleY. (2011). Emerging new practices in technology to support independent community access for people with intellectual and cognitive disabilities. Neurorehabilitation, 28, 1–9. · DOI
  53. 10.1037/0096-3445.119.2.176 · DOI · Paper page
  54. 10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.53 · DOI
  55. United Nations. (2007). Convention on the rights of people with disabilities (CRPD). United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; 2007. International Treaty. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities.aspx
  56. van SchewickB. (2015). Network neutrality and quality service: What a nondiscrimination rule should look like. Stanford Law Review, 67, 86–87.
  57. 10.1145/355460.355469 · DOI
  58. VanderheidenG. & TreviranusJ. (2011). Creating a global public inclusive infrastructure. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-computer Interaction: Design for All and eInclusion—Volume Part I; Orlando, FL. 2022652, 517–526.
  59. VanderheidenG., TreviranusJ., GemouM., BekiarisE., & MarkusK. (2013). The evolving Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure (GPII), in universal access in human-computer interaction. Design methods, tools, and interaction techniques for eInclusion, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8009, 107–116.
  60. WaterstoneM. & SteinM. (2008). Disabling prejudice, Northwestern Law Review, 102, 1351–1378.
  61. WebAim: Design considerations. One size fits all? (2013). Retrieved from http://www.webaim.org/articles/design/.
  62. WeberM. (2007). Disability harassment. New York, NY: New York University Press.
  63. 10.1145/2461256.2461271 · DOI
  64. 10.1016/j.bica.2012.03.002 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Blanck, P.
Affiliations
Syracuse University (US)
Corresponding author
Blanck, Peter
ORCID
Blanck, Peter
Venue
Inclusion
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2015-06
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
75-91
ISSN
2326-6988 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1352/2326-6988-3.2.75
OpenAlex
W2217840342
Cited by
21
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
15.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Inclusion (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
Keywords
web accessibility, cognitive disability, intellectual and developmental disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, traumatic brain injury, Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 508, disability law, disability policy, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, website usability, disability rights litigation

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