CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesDisability Rights and RepresentationWeb and Library Services

From Compliance to Inclusion

Open access
Ehikioya, Emmanuel Ehimen·2026·International Journal of Librarianship
DOI 10.23974/ijol.2026.vol11.2.595
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Web accessibility in academic libraries is frequently approached as a compliance exercise: meet a standard, pass an audit, reduce legal exposure. While legal and technical standards remain essential, a narrow compliance orientation can result in “checkbox accessibility,” which fails to enhance the everyday experiences of disabled students, staff, faculty, and community users who rely on library websites, discovery tools, guides, repositories, and vendor platforms. This paper reframes web accessibility in academic libraries as an inclusion practice anchored in user experience, disability justice, and continuous service improvement. Drawing on international human rights principles, evolving regulatory requirements, and library-focused research documenting persistent accessibility failures in academic library web environments, the paper distinguishes between conformance and inclusion and explains why the difference matters. It synthesises key findings from recent studies of academic library websites, accessibility webpages, and LibGuides, as well as procurement scholarship that highlights the accessibility risks embedded in licensed digital resources. Building on this literature, the paper proposes an inclusion-oriented framework for accessibility work that emphasises co-design with disabled users, institutional accountability, transparent communication, and a shift from retrofits to accessibility-by-design. The recommendations section offers actionable strategies for academic libraries, governance structures, accessible content and design systems, testing programs that combine automated and manual methods, procurement and vendor management practices, and metrics that align accessibility with educational equity and student success. The conclusion argues that treating accessibility as an ongoing public service obligation rather than a periodic compliance task strengthens academic libraries’ missions of equitable access to information and knowledge.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This conceptual paper argues that academic libraries should reframe web accessibility from a compliance exercise ("checkbox accessibility") to an inclusion practice grounded in user experience, disability justice, and continuous service improvement. It synthesises existing library accessibility research and proposes an inclusion-oriented framework plus practical recommendations for governance, design systems, testing, procurement, communication, training, and metrics.

Key findings

  • Compliance is necessary but insufficient: libraries can pass automated scans or publish accessibility statements yet still deliver unusable experiences for screen reader, alternative-input, caption, or custom-display users. The paper distinguishes conformance from inclusion and argues standards should be treated as a baseline extended across whole user journeys.
  • Synthesised evidence documents persistent failures: Liu, Bielefield, and Beckwith (2024) found prevalent errors (including low colour contrast and missing labels) on top-ranked U.S. academic library websites; Asok and Rekha (2025) found widespread WCAG 2.1 failures on best-ranked Asian university library websites, noting institutional ranking does not correspond to accessible user experience.
  • User-perspective studies show the conformance–experience gap: Brunskill (2020) interviewed 12 university students with disabilities about accessibility webpages (valuing clear navigation, predictable labelling, reduced need for disclosure); Mulliken (2019) studied 18 blind academic library users, highlighting time-consuming navigation and cognitive load. Ezell, Pionke, and Gunnoe (2021) content-analysed 85 academic library accessibility webpages, finding variation in size, detail, and maintenance.
  • Procurement is framed as an accessibility intervention: Falloon and O'Reilly (2020) show VPATs can be hard to interpret and unreliable without verification and functional testing, so licensed platforms require active management (documentation, testing, remediation, alternative access).

Methods

  • Conceptual/reframing paper, not an empirical study: it draws on international human rights principles (UN CRPD), regulatory developments (2024 ADA Title II rule adopting WCAG 2.1 Level AA, with compliance dates of April 2026 for larger entities and April 2027 for smaller ones; Section 508; EN 301 549), and library-focused research.
  • Literature synthesis covering academic library website evaluations, accessibility webpages, LibGuides (Hopper, 2021), and e-resources procurement scholarship, plus disability justice scholarship (Kumbier & Starkey, 2016; Oliver, 1990).
  • Outputs are two comparative tables (compliance- vs inclusion-oriented approaches; a four-level maturity model) and a recommendations section organised around governance, design systems, layered testing, procurement, transparency, staff capacity, and outcome metrics.

Limitations

  • The paper states no formal limitations section; it is explicitly a conceptual synthesis rather than new empirical research, so its claims rest on secondary sources and no primary data are collected.
  • Evident from the text: several cited studies relied primarily on automated evaluation tools (e.g., Liu et al., 2024), which the paper itself notes cannot capture contextual barriers such as meaningful alt text, heading hierarchy, or screen reader operability; the proposed framework and maturity model are not empirically validated in the paper.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.23974/ijol.2026.vol11.2.595

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

10 of 43 cited sources checked · 7 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Academic libraries commonly rely on automated evaluation tools to identify accessibility errors at scale.

    “Academic libraries commonly rely on automated evaluation tools to identify accessibility errors at scale.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Liu et al., 2024 source

      The Research Design and Methodologies section (page unavailable) says the authors ran academic library homepages through WAVE and AChecker and recorded accessibility errors; it also mentions other studies using these tools. This supports automated evaluation across multiple sites, but does not establish that academic libraries themselves commonly rely on the tools. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Asok & Rekha, 2025 source
  • Premisecitation

    Liu, Bielefield, and Beckwith (2024) reported prevalent accessibility errors, including low colour contrast and missing labels, on top U.S. university library websites.

    “For example, Liu, Bielefield, and Beckwith (2024) assessed academic library websites at top U.S. universities using automated tools and reported that accessibility errors were prevalent, including low colour contrast and missing labels.”
    • Also stated in: § LITERATURE REVIEW Accessibility Of Academic Library Websites · plain
      “Liu, Bielefield, and Beckwith (2024) evaluated public university academic library websites selected from top-ranked U.S. institutions and reported that accessibility errors were common, with low colour contrast identified as a growing issue.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Liu, Bielefield, and Beckwith (2024) source
  • Premisecitation

    Brunskill (2020) found that students with disabilities value clear navigation, predictable labeling, and practical information presented in ways that reduce the need for disclosure.

    “Brunskill (2020) addressed this gap by interviewing 12 university students with disabilities about their needs and preferences for academic library accessibility webpages.The study highlights that students value clear navigation, predictable labeling, and practical information presented in ways that reduce the need for disclosure.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brunskill (2020) source
  • Premisecitation

    Falloon and O'Reilly (2020) document that two public university libraries incorporated VPATs into acquisitions and remediation workflows.

    “Falloon and O'Reilly (2020) document how two public university libraries incorporated Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates (VPATs) into acquisitions and remediation workflows, noting that VPATs can be difficult to interpret and are not always reliable without verification and functional testing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Falloon and O'Reilly (2020) source
  • Interpretationcitation

    Brunskill's (2020) and Mulliken's (2019) findings show that user perspectives reveal needs and barriers that are not visible in technical scans.

    “Brunskill's (2020) and Mulliken's (2019) findings show that user perspectives reveal needs and barriers that are not visible in technical scans.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Brunskill's (2020) source

      The Discussion (page unavailable) says each student brought up distinct issues, and reports needs that challenged library employees’ assumptions. The Introduction (page unavailable) notes that earlier examinations of accessibility webpages did not consult users with disabilities. Brunskill does not compare interview findings with technical scans or establish that those scans could not reveal the same barriers. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Mulliken's (2019) source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 49
  • May combine two claims. 33

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Brunskill's (2020) study suggests that users want practical, navigable information about accessibility resources.

    “Brunskill's (2020) study suggests that users want practical, navigable information about accessibility resources, while Mulliken's (2019) work emphasises efficiency and predictability in web navigation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brunskill's (2020) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    VPATs can be difficult to interpret and are not always reliable without verification and functional testing.

    “Falloon and O'Reilly (2020) document how two public university libraries incorporated Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates (VPATs) into acquisitions and remediation workflows, noting that VPATs can be difficult to interpret and are not always reliable without verification and functional testing.”
    • Also stated in: § Treat Procurement As An Accessibility Intervention · plain
      “Falloon and O'Reilly (2020) caution that VPATs are not always reliable and should be verified through functional testing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Falloon and O'Reilly (2020) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The American Library Association's interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights regarding services to people with disabilities states that libraries should be fully inclusive and work to remove barriers to access.

    “The American Library Association's interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights regarding services to people with disabilities states that libraries should be fully inclusive and work to remove barriers to access (American Library Association, 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites American Library Association, 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Standards have limitations: they are typically applied to discrete artefacts, whereas library user journeys span multiple systems.

    “However, standards also have limitations.They are typically applied to discrete artefacts (pages, documents, components), whereas library user journeys span multiple systems: library websites, discovery layers, vendor databases, authentication flows, learning management systems, and embedded media.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    WCAG 2.2 became a W3C Recommendation in 2023 and extends earlier versions by adding success criteria focused on authentication, focus appearance, dragging movements, and consistent help.

    “WCAG 2.2 became a W3C Recommendation in 2023 and extends earlier versions by adding success criteria focused on areas such as authentication, focus appearance, dragging movements, and consistent help, among others (W3C, 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites W3C, 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Although Liu et al. relied on automated tools, its findings align with broader trends: contrast, text alternatives, and form labels remain persistent problems even on high-profile sites.

    “Although the study relied on automated tools, its findings align with broader trends in web accessibility research: contrast, text alternatives, and form labels remain persistent problems even on high-profile sites.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The social model of disability locates disability in the interaction between impairments and environmental barriers rather than in the individual alone.

    “This aligns with the social model of disability, which locates disability in the interaction between impairments and environmental barriers rather than in the individual alone (Oliver, 1990).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Oliver, 1990

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Compliance is necessary but not sufficient for accessible user experience.

    “Compliance is necessary but not sufficient.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The WCAG-EM evaluation methodology assumes a mix of automated and manual checks and emphasises sampling and structured evaluation rather than relying on a single scan result.

    “The WCAG-EM evaluation methodology, developed by W3C, assumes a mix of automated and manual checks and emphasises sampling and structured evaluation rather than relying on a single scan result (W3C, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites W3C, 2014

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    These statements position accessibility as an expression of librarianship's equity commitments rather than solely as a matter of risk management.

    “These statements position accessibility as an expression of librarianship's equity commitments rather than solely as a matter of risk management.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    IFLA's guidelines for making libraries accessible emphasise a human-rights approach, leadership responsibility, staff education, and collaboration with disability groups.

    “Similarly, IFLA's guidelines for making libraries accessible emphasise a human-rights approach, leadership responsibility, staff education, and collaboration with disability groups (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, 2024).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The CRPD frames disability as an evolving concept shaped by barriers and recognises accessibility to information and communications as foundational for participation.

    “The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) frames disability as an evolving concept shaped by barriers and recognises accessibility to information and communications as foundational for participation (United Nations, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites United Nations, 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Automated tools are valuable, but they do not replace human judgment.

    “Automated tools are valuable, but they do not replace human judgment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Usability overlaps with accessibility but is not identical.

    “Usability overlaps with accessibility but is not identical.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Standards matter because they provide shared language, testable criteria, and an accountability foundation.

    “Standards matter because they provide shared language, testable criteria, and an accountability foundation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The ADA Title II rule's requirement that services be 'readily accessible to and usable by' individuals with disabilities underscores that accessibility compliance must support practical use, not only formal technical conformance.

    “The rule's requirement that services be “readily accessible to and usable by” individuals with disabilities also underscores that accessibility compliance must support practical use, not only formal technical conformance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    A design system that includes accessible components helps authors avoid repeating mistakes and makes remediation more efficient.

    “A design system that includes accessible components (navigation, search widgets, forms, alerts, modals) helps authors avoid repeating mistakes and makes remediation more efficient.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    An inclusion orientation is strengthened when libraries treat accessibility work as an ordinary public service and as part of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility commitments.

    “An inclusion orientation is strengthened when libraries treat accessibility work as an ordinary public service and as part of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility commitments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    An accessibility statement can signal commitment, clarify standards applied, and offer a feedback route.

    “An accessibility statement can signal commitment, clarify standards applied, and offer a feedback route.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Kumbier and Starkey (2016) critique approaches that treat access mainly as a matter of solving isolated problems after disabled people encounter barriers; they argue for an ethic of accessibility grounded in justice, collective responsibility, and collaboration with disabled people.

    “Kumbier and Starkey (2016) critique approaches that treat access mainly as a matter of solving isolated problems after disabled people encounter barriers.Instead, they argue for an ethic of accessibility grounded in justice, collective responsibility, and collaboration with disabled people.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kumbier and Starkey (2016)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    IFLA's guidelines highlight leadership responsibility and staff education as key enablers.

    “IFLA's guidelines highlight leadership responsibility and staff education as key enablers (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The literature supports interventions that treat accessibility as a shared responsibility supported by design systems, editorial processes, and ongoing professional development.

    “The literature, therefore, supports interventions that treat accessibility as a shared responsibility supported by design systems, editorial processes, and ongoing professional development.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Without shared templates, content standards, and training, well-intentioned librarians can inadvertently produce inaccessible guides through missing headings, poor link text, inaccessible PDFs, or uncaptioned media.

    “Without shared templates, content standards, and training, well-intentioned librarians can inadvertently produce inaccessible guides through missing headings, poor link text, inaccessible PDFs, or uncaptioned media.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    An inclusion-oriented framework embeds accessibility into routine decision-making, communications, web governance, instructional design, acquisitions, and service delivery.

    “An inclusion-oriented framework, therefore, embeds accessibility into routine decision-making, communications, web governance, instructional design, acquisitions, and service delivery.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    Organisational responsibility requires governance.

    “Third, organisational responsibility requires governance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Institutional ranking and website performance indicators do not necessarily correspond to accessible user experiences.

    “The authors also note that institutional ranking and website performance indicators do not necessarily correspond to accessible user experiences.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Asok and Rekha (2025) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Library Accessibility Alliance argues that accessible should be more than adherence to standards and emphasises embedding accessibility and usability into procurement processes.

    “The Library Accessibility Alliance similarly argues that “accessible” should be more than adherence to standards and emphasises embedding accessibility and usability into procurement processes (Library Accessibility Alliance, n.d.).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Library Accessibility Alliance, n.d.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    When libraries treat accessibility statements as living documents, they can support accountability and create clear pathways for reporting barriers.

    “When libraries treat accessibility statements as living documents, they can support accountability and create clear pathways for reporting barriers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    'Accessibility information' is itself part of accessibility: users need to know what accommodations exist and how to obtain support without encountering additional barriers.

    “Importantly, the work illustrates that “accessibility information” is itself part of accessibility: users need to know what accommodations exist and how to obtain support without encountering additional barriers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    W3C's accessibility statement guidance recommends including basic organisational information, standards followed, conformance status, and contact options, and notes that dating a statement helps users judge whether it is being maintained.

    “W3C's accessibility statement guidance recommends including basic organisational information, standards followed, conformance status, and contact options, and notes that dating a statement helps users judge whether it is being maintained (W3C, n.d.).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites W3C, n.d.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    An accessibility risk register supports transparent decision-making and helps the library respond quickly to user reports.

    “Such a register supports transparent decision-making and helps the library respond quickly to user reports.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Mulliken's qualitative study of 18 blind academic library users found participants described barriers when using library websites and search tools and highlighted how time-consuming navigation can become when interfaces are not designed with screen reader workflows in mind.

    “Mulliken's qualitative study of 18 blind academic library users further underscores the experiential dimension of accessibility.Participants described barriers encountered when using library websites and search tools and highlighted how time-consuming navigation can become when interfaces are not designed with screen reader workflows in mind (Mulliken, 2019).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mulliken, 2019 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The WCAG-EM methodology provides a structured approach to sampling and reporting and can be adapted for library contexts.

    “The WCAG-EM methodology provides a structured approach to sampling and reporting and can be adapted for library contexts (W3C, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites W3C, 2014

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Accessibility is affected by content authorship, design systems, procurement decisions, and vendor relationships.

    “Accessibility is affected by content authorship, design systems, procurement decisions, and vendor relationships.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Within a compliance framework, libraries may treat vendor accessibility as outside their remit.

    “Within a compliance framework, libraries may treat vendor accessibility as outside their remit.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Academic library web ecosystems rely heavily on licensed vendor platforms.
    • Rests on an assumption: Libraries may have limited control over the design of licensed vendor platforms.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Manual testing is required for keyboard navigation, focus order, screen reader announcements, form error handling, meaningful link and media text, and the accessibility of PDFs and other linked documents.

    “However, manual testing is required for keyboard navigation, focus order, screen reader announcements, form error handling, meaningful link and media text, and the accessibility of PDFs and other linked documents.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    The literature suggests three reframing moves: shifting the unit of analysis from pages to user journeys; shifting evaluation from errors to outcomes; and shifting responsibility from specialists to the organisation as a whole.

    “The literature suggests three reframing moves that can guide practice: (1) shifting the unit of analysis from pages to user journeys; (2) shifting evaluation from errors to outcomes; and (3) shifting responsibility from specialists to the organisation as a whole.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Accessibility is not limited to 'the website' as a single entity; academic libraries often operate a constellation of platforms with different owners and technical constraints.

    “The literature also emphasises that accessibility is not limited to “the website” as a single entity.Academic libraries often operate a constellation of platforms with different owners and technical constraints.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    An inclusion-oriented accessibility program asks whether the library's digital environment enables disabled users to participate in research, learning, and community life without disproportionate effort.

    “It asks not only whether a page meets WCAG criteria, but also whether the library's digital environment enables disabled users to participate in research, learning, and community life without disproportionate effort.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Conformance is necessary but incomplete for inclusion.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Inclusion-oriented evaluation prioritises a small set of high-value tasks and tests them using assistive technologies and diverse user groups.

    “Inclusion-oriented evaluation prioritises a small set of high-value tasks (for example, requesting research help, locating accessible study spaces, finding articles, renewing items, and accessing course materials) and tests them using assistive technologies and diverse user groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Asok and Rekha (2025) reported widespread failures to meet WCAG 2.1 requirements on best-ranked Asian university library websites, identifying contrast issues and missing text alternatives and form labels.

    “Beyond the U.S. context, Asok and Rekha (2025) examined best-ranked Asian university library websites and reported widespread failures to meet WCAG 2.1 requirements, identifying contrast issues and missing text alternatives and form labels.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Asok and Rekha (2025) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Academic libraries are major producers of instructional web content through research guides, tutorials, and embedded learning objects.

    “Academic libraries are major producers of instructional web content through research guides, tutorials, and embedded learning objects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    For web accessibility work, this shifts attention from fixing individual failures to redesigning systems so disabled users can complete tasks with dignity, independence, and reasonable effort.

    “For web accessibility work, this shifts attention from fixing individual failures to redesigning systems so disabled users can complete tasks with dignity, independence, and reasonable effort.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Hopper (2021) concluded that accessible LibGuides require intentional adherence to best practices and guidance for creators.

    “Hopper (2021) examined the accessibility of LibGuides in an exploratory case study at the University of Mississippi Libraries and combined automated evaluation with a manual rubric, concluding that accessible LibGuides require intentional adherence to best practices and guidance for creators.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hopper (2021) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Ezell et al. (2021) recommend increasing transparency and evidence of currency on library accessibility pages.

    “Ezell et al. (2021) similarly recommend increasing transparency and evidence of currency on library accessibility pages.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ezell et al. (2021)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    If any step in a user journey fails for assistive technology users, the journey breaks.

    “If any step fails for assistive technology users, the journey breaks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Mulliken's (2019) work emphasises efficiency and predictability in web navigation.

    “Brunskill's (2020) study suggests that users want practical, navigable information about accessibility resources, while Mulliken's (2019) work emphasises efficiency and predictability in web navigation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mulliken's (2019) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Transparency is a core mechanism for moving beyond compliance.

    “These findings matter because transparency is a core mechanism for moving beyond compliance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    IFLA's guidelines emphasise staff education and the role of leadership in enabling accessible services.

    “IFLA's guidelines emphasise staff education and the role of leadership in enabling accessible services (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Ezell, Pionke, and Gunnoe (2021) found that academic library accessibility webpages most commonly prioritised information about assistive technologies, services, and facilities, but varied substantially in size, detail, and maintenance indicators.

    “Ezell, Pionke, and Gunnoe (2021) conducted a large-scale content analysis of 85 academic library accessibility webpages across major U.S. research library consortia.They found that pages most commonly prioritised information about assistive technologies, services, and facilities, but varied substantially in size, detail, and maintenance indicators.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ezell, Pionke, and Gunnoe (2021)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    When libraries host content across content management systems, discovery layers, institutional repositories, and third-party guides, accessibility gaps in any one part of the ecosystem can disrupt a user's ability to complete research tasks.

    “When libraries host content across content management systems, discovery layers, institutional repositories, and third-party guides, accessibility gaps in any one part of the ecosystem can disrupt a user's ability to complete research tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    W3C's guidance recommends including standards followed, conformance status, contact options, and a publication date to demonstrate currency.

    “W3C's guidance recommends including standards followed, conformance status, contact options, and a publication date to demonstrate currency (W3C, n.d.).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites W3C, n.d.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Accessibility requires skills across roles, content creation, web development, instruction, acquisitions, and public services.

    “Accessibility requires skills across roles, content creation, web development, instruction, acquisitions, and public services.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    Outcome-based evaluation emphasises whether people can accomplish tasks.

    “Second, outcome-based evaluation emphasises whether people can accomplish tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Error counts can help prioritise remediation, but they do not directly measure user outcomes.

    “Error counts can help prioritise remediation, but they do not directly measure user outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The literature reviewed shows both the persistence of accessibility errors in academic library web environments and the value of user-centred perspectives.

    “The literature reviewed in this paper shows both the persistence of accessibility errors in academic library web environments and the value of user-centred perspectives.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Academic libraries' digital environments are now core sites for accessing knowledge.

    “Academic libraries' digital environments are now core sites for accessing knowledge.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    Standards such as WCAG and legal requirements such as the 2024 ADA Title II rule provide important and enforceable baselines.

    “Standards such as WCAG and legal requirements such as the 2024 ADA Title II rule provide important and enforceable baselines, but a narrow focus on conformance can result in accessibility work that is reactive, fragmented, and insufficiently attentive to user experience.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites WCAG

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites 2024 ADA Title II rule

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Accessibility-by-design strengthens academic libraries' missions by making digital services more usable for everyone and by aligning library practice with the principle that disability does not prevent access to information.

    “Ultimately, accessibilityby-design strengthens academic libraries' missions by making digital services more usable for everyone and by aligning library practice with the principle that disability does not prevent access to information.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationnone given

    Reframing accessibility from compliance to inclusion shifts the goal from passing checks to enabling participation.

    “Reframing accessibility from compliance to inclusion shifts the goal from passing checks to enabling participation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    This reframing is consistent with disability justice scholarship that calls for collaboration with disabled people and attention to structural barriers.

    “This reframing is consistent with disability justice scholarship that calls for collaboration with disabled people and attention to structural barriers (Kumbier & Starkey, 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kumbier & Starkey, 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    A narrow focus on conformance can allow problems to re-emerge as websites, content, and vendor platforms change over time.

    “It can also allow problems to re-emerge as websites, content, and vendor platforms change over time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    A narrow focus on conformance can result in accessibility work that is reactive, fragmented, and insufficiently attentive to user experience.

    “Standards such as WCAG and legal requirements such as the 2024 ADA Title II rule provide important and enforceable baselines, but a narrow focus on conformance can result in accessibility work that is reactive, fragmented, and insufficiently attentive to user experience.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
63 of 63

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Academic libraries are now primarily digital service organisations.

    “Academic libraries are now primarily digital service organisations.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Core library interactions are mediated by websites and web-based systems.

    “Even where physical collections and spaces remain central, core library interactions, catalogue discovery, database selection, research help, instructional materials, course reserves, institutional repository deposits, and event participation are mediated by websites and web-based systems.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Academic library web ecosystems rely heavily on licensed vendor platforms.

    “A defining feature of academic library web ecosystems is the heavy reliance on licensed vendor platforms: databases, e-book collections, streaming media, discovery services, and research analytics tools.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Libraries may have limited control over the design of licensed vendor platforms.

    “These platforms are integral to library services, yet libraries may have limited control over their design.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Conformance is necessary but incomplete for inclusion.

    “An inclusion-oriented accessibility program starts by accepting conformance as necessary but incomplete.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A single web person cannot sustain accessibility across multiple platforms and distributed authorship.

    “A single “web person” cannot sustain accessibility across multiple platforms and distributed authorship.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Transparent communication builds trust and supports iterative improvement.

    “Transparent communication builds trust and supports iterative improvement.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Reporting inclusion-oriented measures internally supports accountability and reinforces accessibility as continuous service quality.

    “Reporting these measures internally supports accountability and reinforces accessibility as continuous service quality.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    When leaders communicate that accessibility is a shared value and resource it accordingly, staff are more likely to integrate accessibility into everyday decisions.

    “When leaders communicate that accessibility is a shared value and resource it accordingly, staff are more likely to integrate accessibility into everyday decisions.”
9 of 9

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 12 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Authors
Ehikioya, E. E.
Affiliations
University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Ehikioya, Emmanuel Ehimen
Venue
International Journal of Librarianship
Publisher
International Journal of Librarianship
Published
2026-06-30
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
47-60
ISSN
2474-3542 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.23974/ijol.2026.vol11.2.595
OpenAlex
W7166679321
Cited by
0
References
12
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Librarianship (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • International Journal of Librarianship (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web and Library Services
Keywords
web accessibility, academic libraries, disability justice, inclusion, accessibility compliance, library websites, accessibility testing, accessibility metrics, educational equity, user experience

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-19.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-19.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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