Cited by 1Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesDisability Rights and RepresentationWeb and Library Services

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Failures in library website accessibility: A problem of accountability

Brunk, Angie, Ireton, Daniel·2022·AHFE International

Abstract

Not every library can have an accessibility expert on staff while redesigning their website. Every library can, however, develop their own informed personnel. At Kansas State University Libraries, a task force focused on developing and maintaining a new website formed, coinciding with the hire of a librarian who is disabled and experienced in human factors, user experience, and accessibility. This provided an opportunity not only for improved accessibility, but a more nuanced understanding of the needs and experiences of disabled patrons. In this process we learned that lack of accountability is often a significant barrier to libraries designing an accessible website. To successfully design an accessible website, accessibility must be a priority from the beginning of the design process rather than a checklist and fixes applied at the end of the process. A common hurdle to an organization adopting an accessibility focused approach to design is the lack of personnel dedicated specifically to accessibility. All too often, this responsibility becomes dispersed among a team of designers, by which accessibility becomes an afterthought. To paraphrase Bandura (1990), if everybody is in charge, nobody is in charge. At least one person must be tasked with developing knowledge of accessibility and advocating for the needs of disabled users. While everyone on the team responsible for web content development should possess some basic knowledge of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.54941/ahfe1001645

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Accountability for Web Accessibility in Academic Libraries

    Lovins, C., & Bragg, C. (2026) · International Journal of Librarianship · doi:10.23974/ijol.2026.vol11.2.590

    “Similarly, the article by Brunk and Ireton (2022), “Failures in Library Website Accessibility: A Problem of Accountability,” suggests that accessibility should be a top organizational concern and that at least one person be assigned accountability for ensuring that accessible criteria are met.”

See all 1

Metadata

Authors
Brunk, A., & Ireton, D.
Venue
AHFE International
Published
2022
ISSN
2771-0718 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4285149397
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1
FWCI
0.36
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
AHFE international (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Web and Library Services
Keywords
library websites, disability theory, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, accessibility testing, assistive technology, disabled users, user experience, human factors, snowball sampling, inclusive library services

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