Accessibility and LibGuides in Academic Libraries
Open accessAbstract
This article outlines an exploratory case study to determine how to best serve functionally diverse patrons in a digital landscape through usable and accessible LibGuides at the University of Mississippi Libraries. The literature was reviewed to explore what best practices are implemented when crafting accessible LibGuides. A best practices LibGuide was then created as a resource for librarians to utilize in creating accessible and usable guides. A small sample of the most viewed LibGuides from the University of Mississippi Libraries was then evaluated for accessibility with WebAIM’s WAVE Accessibility Evaluation Tool along with a manual rubric created by Stitz and Blundell (2018). This article builds upon the literature concerning LibGuide accessibility and usability. Further research is recommended to include a wider range of LibGuides and creators, a deeper look into overall accessibility issues that are trending, the voices of those who identify as functionally diverse, and to partner with community stakeholders who could add to these findings.
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?
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.”
From From Compliance to Inclusion (2026) · cites this paper as Hopper (2021)
Work on LibGuides and procurement illustrates that accessibility is a shared responsibility that spans local content creation and external vendor ecosystems.
“Work on LibGuides and procurement (Hopper, 2021;Falloon & O'Reilly, 2020) further illustrates that accessibility is a shared responsibility that spans local content creation and external vendor ecosystems.”
From From Compliance to Inclusion (2026) · cites this paper as Hopper, 2021
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ehikioya, E. E. (2026) · International Journal of Librarianship · doi:10.23974/ijol.2026.vol11.2.595
“Work on LibGuides and procurement (Hopper, 2021; Falloon & O’Reilly, 2020) further illustrates that accessibility is a shared responsibility that spans local content creation and external vendor ecosystems.”
- Authors
- Hopper, T. L.
- Affiliations
- Columbus-Lowndes Public Library System
- Venue
- The Southeastern Librarian
- Published
- 2021-02-01
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 0038-3686 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3158290054
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 2.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Southeastern Librarian (publishedVersion)
- DigitalCommons - Kennesaw State University (Kennesaw State University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web and Library Services
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
- Keywords
- accessibility, usability, academic libraries, web accessibility, accessibility evaluation, accessibility best practices
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
