Paper

Xfe986vft9!

ContentServer1.pdf

Home >Information Systems homework help >Paper

Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation; 32(2)

ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X

www.turkjphysiotherrehabil.org 2784

MULTI-TOOL EVALUATION OF WEB ACCESSIBILITY FOR LEARNING

AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WEBSITES

CHINNA RAO KURANGI Department of Computer Science, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India.

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

In recent days, website plays a vital role in every day’s life for communication, obtaining information, etc.

Web accessibility gives a way to access web resources for different people with no dependency on age,

language, tradition, physical condition and so on. Worldwide accessibility of website remains a bigger

challenge for web developers and research people. Several studies have been done to assess the web

accessibility of diverse websites. Recently, learning and development company websites gains popularity

since the learning process begins with these types of websites. Few of these companies include Harvard

business, safety media, degreed, Lynda, etc. Since e-learning domain is highly helpful for students across

various levels, it is essential to access those websites for accessibility. The accessibility of websites has been

evaluated through W3C standard guidelines with the help of multi- tool. This paper presents a multi-tool

accessibility analysis of Best Learning company websites. A comparative analysis of five accessibility tools

is also presented with 13 dissimilar parameters. In this study, 100 learning and development company

websites are assessed using five evaluation tools namely EvalAccess2.0, Run FAE, TAW, Tenon and Hera.

These tools give us the results of selected websites accessibility position on Web Content Accessibility

Guidelines (WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0). The performance evaluation indicates that the websites should be

improved so that it can be accessible worldwide

Keywords: Web accessibility, WCAG 1.0, WCAG 2.0, EvalAccess2.0, Hera, TAW, TENON

I. INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, the rapid development in the area of communication systems provides internet accessibility to all

individual people. Based on a study performed in mid-2017 (MM Group, 2016), almost 50% of world's people

are enjoying internet in regular activities. International Telecommunication Unit (ITU) identified that around

3200 million people has used internet in 2017. From 3200 million, more than half of the people are from

developing countries and 38% of people belong to developed countries. Since internet plays a major role for

people's communication in everyday life, worldwide accessibility of websites remains a big challenge for website

designers and research people. Web accessibility gives a way to access web resources for different people with no

dependency on age, language, tradition, physical condition and so on. It represents the website's quality to ensure

the effective utilization, easier to navigate and identifying its structure with no objective or other constraints

(Burks et al. 2006). World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) pointed out that the web accessibility is designed for all

individual people (people with physically challenged, different interest and needs). It includes the people with

lower Internet speed, aging conditions and system capability constraints such as browser, monitor resolution, or

system configurations (Providenti and Zai, 2007; De Andrés et al. 2010). W3C began a procedure called Web

Accessibility Initiative (WAI), and then it is known as Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Every

individual website should meet these rules to achieve accessibility. These rules are represented as de-facto

standard to assess web accessibility (Rømen and Svanæs 2012). WCAG 1.0 standard is introduced in the mid of

1990; it provides rules to create websites where it will be easy to access by different kinds of people. It comprises

of 14 rules, 67 checkpoints with 3 levels of priorities in each checkpoint. They are employed to identify the

conformity to WCAG 1.0. The 3 level of priorities are mentioned here.

 Priority 1: it is necessary to satisfy the checkpoints in terms of web content to achieve easier accessibility.

Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation; 32(2)

ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X

www.turkjphysiotherrehabil.org 2785

 Priority 2: reduces the issues faced by particular set of people to satisfy the checkpoints

 Priority 3: improve the web easily to accessible.

W3C announced the revised form of WCAG called WCAG 2.0 in 2008 (W3C, 2008), it includes a large number

of recommendations to make the websites to be easily accessible (Peters and Bradbard, 2010). It is comprised of

12 guidelines, partitioned to four principles, 61 success measures, three levels in each success measures and 5

needs of conformance. The four design principles are Perceive, Operate, Understand and Robust (POUR).

Similarly, Section 508 of the US Rehabilitation Act in 1973 faces various issues of physically challenged people

to access websites. This act dictates the US federal agencies to provide equal access to the usage of electronics

and internet. It lists out 16 components to create websites with accessibility (Web AIM, 2013). Recently, learning

and development company websites gains popularity since the learning process begins with these types of

websites. Few of these companies include Harvard business, safety media, degreed, Lynda, etc. Since e-learning

domain is highly helpful for students across diverse levels, it is essential to access those websites for

accessibility.

Contribution of the paper

This study assesses the websites of hundred e-learning and development companies using four evaluation tools

namely EvalAccess2.0, Run FAE, TAW, Tenon and Hera. The performance evaluation indicates that the

websites should be improved so that it can be accessible worldwide.

Organization of the paper

The residue of the paper is arranged as follows. The related on web accessibility is explained in Section 2. The

assessment tools are given in Section 3. The web pages are assessed and the results are analyzed in Section 4. The

highlights of the study are given in section 5. Suggestion are given in section 6.and the paper is Conclusion is

given in Section 7.

II. EXISTING WORKS ON WEB ACCESSIBILITY

With the consideration of web accessibility significance, numerous studies have done in several

institutions such as library (Comeaux and Schmetzke, 2007) hotel and restaurants (Williams and Rattray,

2005), financial institutions (Williams and Rattray, 2003) and government sectors (Serra et al. 2015;

Kamoun and Basel Almourad, 2014;Baowaly and Bhuiyan, 2012). The studies revealed that the web

accessibility of higher learning institutions. (Adepoju and Shehu, 2014) provides considerable compliant

of 36 Nigerian federal university websites on accessibility rules using HERA and WAVE tools.

Similarly, 74 Spanish university websites are also investigated in (Chacon-Medina et al. 2013) and it

revealed that less to medium level of compliance in accessibility level. (Laitano, 2015) validates the

websites of Argentina universities by WCAG 2.0, the performance represents various difficulties on

major area of the websites, especially on structure, appearance and text readability. (Shawar, 2015)

performed an experimenton higher educational institutions in Middle East and England. The

performance analysis reported that the websites in those institutions are easily accessible than

developing countries. Despite of the declaration done regarding e-government practices is improvedin

Malaysia and the websites indicates higher enhancements for accessibility (Rashid et al. 2014). (Aziz et.

Al, 2010) analyzes 120 websites of higher education organizations revealed some constraints to access

websites.

Then, an experiment is carried out on government higher educational organization websites in Malaysia

by employing 3 assessment tools and results indicates slighter improvement in web accessibility in a

duration of 2 years (Abuaddous and Basir, 2013). On the other side, (Latif and Masrek, 2010) an experiment

is done to analyze the current scenario of the government websites and found diverse aspects on web

accessibility. The result represents that the websites are not satisfied even with the least accessibility

compliance level (Priority 1). (Bavani, 2014)presented the dimension of physically challenged people to

access websites, pictures, hyperlinks and page layouts which does not meet the needs of persons with

visual impairment. An experiment is done on (Li et al. 2016) which provide the current situation of32 Chinese

public websites and collected different aspects to improve web accessibility. The study indicated that

Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation; 32(2)

ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X

www.turkjphysiotherrehabil.org 2786

majority of the websites required to improve accessibility. (Hayfa et al. 2016) carried out a study to give recommendations to avoid the difficulties to access websites. They also pointed out to correctly train the website

designers to think the issues of accessibility in the process of developing. Jordanian University websites are

analyzed in (Kamal et al. 2016); metrics form different accessibility methods are integrated to conduct this study.

The web pages of universities in India are assessed under WCAG guidelines using two traditional assessment

tools (Ismail and Kuppusamy, 2016). The outcome of this study indicates the necessary rules should be followed

to enhance web accessibility. In (Leporini and Paternò, 2008), the authors selected 15 chosen ways to improve

website usability in the quantitative and qualitative way. It minimizes the time to navigate by 37% and it makes

websites to access easily by persons with visual impairment. Numerous studies pointed out that the public are

easy to access when compared to private websites (Yu and Parmanto, 2011; Hackett et al. 2004). The authors in

(Hanson and Richards, 2013) done a study in the longer of 14 years from 1999 to 2012, it revealed that the public

websites are improved significantly in the recent years with lesser number of accessibility violations. (Ismailova,

2017; Ismailova and Kimsanova, 2017) provides the current situation of Kyrgyz Republic public websites and

collected different aspects to improve web accessibility. It showed that major websites attainlesser usability error rate compared to other websites with lesser security.

III. WEB ACCESSIBILITY TOOLS FOR DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS.

The top 100 learning and development company websites are gathered from internet in the duration of September

to November 2017. The subsections analyses the accessibility results of the above mentioned 100 websites using

five popular web accessibility assessment tools namely EvalAccess2.0, TAW, Tenon, Run FAE and Hera are

analyzed. The website homepages are investigated by five assessment tools to find out the issues and generate a

report under WCAG 1.0, WCAG 2.0 and Section 508 guidelines. The five assessment tools are five evaluation

tools namely EvalAccess2.0, Run FAE, TAW, Tenon and Hera. The websites are assessed by these tools by

easily providing URL of the website to the home page of the assessment tools.

3.1. EvalAccess2.0:

EvalAccess2.0 is introduced by the University of the Basque in Spain. It accesses the single webpage and also the

whole website for or WCAG 1.0 and Section508 compliance. The assessment of multiple webpages is available

under the basis of subscription. There are three ways to assess the web accessibility includes

 Evaluating a URL- the URL of the webpage should be entered to assess it

 Evaluating a whole website- the whole website can be easily assessed

 Evaluating HTML Markup- the HTML source code can be assessed by applying the HTML source code.

Once the input URL is given, it generates the report in an easier format and it does not involve any additional

installation procedure. This tool can be utilized by providing the website's URL has to be tested. By pressing the

evaluate button of the form, the report will be the generated with embedded indicators and icons. This tool gives

the errors and warnings about the web page under three priorities P1, P2 and P3. Table 1 shows the list of top 100

learning company websites with URL and names.

Table1 List of Top 100 Learning Company Websites with URLs and Name

Urls Learning company Website Name

https://elearning.adobe.com/ Adobe eLearning Learning Technologies

http://eu.wiley.com Wiley Learning Technologies

https://www.cipd.co.uk CIPD Learning Technologies

http://www.lynda.com lynda.com Learning Technologies

http://www.mindtools.com Mind Tools Learning Technologies

http://www.alison.com Alison Learning Technologies

http://www.onefile.co.uk Onefile Learning Technologies

http://www.pluralsight.com Plural sight Learning Technologies

http://www.goanimate.com Go Animate Learning Technologies

http://eu.wiley.com/

https://www.cipd.co.uk/

Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation; 32(2)

ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X

www.turkjphysiotherrehabil.org 2787

http://www.articulate.com Articulate Learning Technologies

http://www.bcs.org/ BCS The Chartered Institute for IT Learning

Technologies

http://www.ilxgroup.com ILX Group Learning Technologies

http://www.webanywhere.co.uk Web anywhere Learning Technologies

http://www.infor.com Infor Learning Technologies

http://www.pebblepad.co.uk Pebble Pad Learning Technologies

http://www.virtual-college.co.uk Virtual College Learning Technologies

http://www.ispringsolutions.com iSpring Solutions Learning Technologies

http://www.successfactors.com SAP SuccessfactorsLearning Technologies

http://www.learningpool.com Learning Pool Learning Technologies

http://www.skillsforhealth.org.uk Skills for Health Learning Technologies

https://www.findcourses.co.uk/ Findcourses.co.uk Learning Technologies

http://www.lumesse.com Lumesse Learning Technologies

http://www.saba.com Saba Learning Technologies

http://www.desire2learn.com Desire2Learn Learning Technologies

http://www.tribalgroup.com Tribal Group Learning Technologies

http://www.degreed.com Degreed Learning Technologies

http://www.dpgplc.co.uk/ DPG (Developing People Globally) Learning

http://www.happy.co.uk Happy Learning Technologies

http://www.saba.com Saba Software (UK) Ltd Learning Technologies

http://www.ashridge.org.uk Ashridge Learning Technologies

http://www.dpgplc.co.uk Developing People Globally Learning Technologies

http://www.skillsoft.com/ Skill soft Learning Technologies

http://www.brainshark.com Brainshark Learning Technologies

http://www.newhorizons.com New Horizons learning Technologies

http://international.psionline.com/ PSI International learning Technologies

http://www.elearningbrothers.com eLearning brothers learning Technologies

http://www.ebsco.com EBSCO Learning Technologies

http://www.spiral.ac Spiral Learning Technologies

http://www.remotelearner. net Remote Learner learning Technologies

http://www.nlplifetraining.com NLP Life Training learning Technologies

http://www.opensesame.com Open Sesame Learning Technologies

http://www.d2l.com Bright space by D2L Learning Technologies

https://filtered.com/ Filtered Learning Technologies

http://www.forskills.co.uk ForSkills Learning Technologies

http://www.dlcandtraining.co.uk DLC and Training Learning Technologies

http://www.trivantis.com Trivantis Learning Technologies

http://www.unicorntraining.com Unicorn Training learning Technologies

http://www.synergylearning. com/ Synergy Learning Learning Technologies

http://www.customguide.com/ CustomGuide Inc. Learning Technologies

http://www.kineo.com Kineo Learning Technologies

http://www.prioritymanagement.co Priority Management Learning Technologies

http://www.safetymedia.co.uk Safety Media Ltd Learning Technologies

http://www.harvardbusiness.org Harvard Business Learning Technologies

http://www.towardsmaturity.org/ Towards Maturity Learning Technologies

https://www.totaralms.com/ Totara Learning Learning Technologies

http://www.sumtotalsystems.com Sumtotal Systems Learning Technologies

Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation; 32(2)

ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X

www.turkjphysiotherrehabil.org 2788

http://www.globallingo. com Global Lingo Learning Technologies

http://www.litmos.com/ Litmos Learning Technologies

http://www.premierit.com Premier IT Learning Technologies

http://leolearning.com/ LEO Learning Technologies

http://www.growthengineering.co.uk/ Growth Engineering Learning Technologies

http://www.thelpi.org The Learning and Performance Institute Learning

Technologies

http://www.getadministrate.com/ Administrate Learning Technologies

http://www.cornerstoneondemand.co.uk Cornerstone OnDemandLearning Technologies

http://www.preloaded.com Preloaded Learning Technologies

http://www.allencomm.com Allencomm Learning Technologies

http://www.saffroninteractive.com Saffron Interactive Learning Technologies

http://www.luminalearning.com Lumina Learning Learning Technologies

http://www.gototraining.com Goto Training Learning Technologies

http://www.kallidus.com Kallidus Learning Technologies

http://www.gamelearn. com www.gamelearn.com Learning Technologies http://www.beeline.com Beeline Learning Technologies

http://www.questionmark.co.uk Questionmark Learning Technologies

http://www.blueeskimo.com Blue Eskimo Learning Technologies

http://www.softchalk.com Soft Chalk Learning Technologies

http://www.fuseuniversal.com/ Fuse Universal Learning Technologies

http://www.learnupon.com Learn Upon Learning Technologies

https://www.docebo.com/ Docebo Learning Technologies

http://www.elearningnetwork.org eLearning Network Learning Technologies

http://www.crossknowledge.com/ Cross Knowledge Learning Technologies

http://www.rws.com/elearning RWS Group Learning Technologies

http://www.geneeworld.com Genee World Learning Technologies

http://www.luminis.eu Luminis UK Learning Technologies

http://www.aquafadas.com Aquafadas Learning Technologies

http://www.upsidelearning.com Upside Learning Learning Technologies

http://www.ciatraining.co.uk CIA Training Learning Technologies

http://www.appraisal360.co.uk Appraisal360 Learning Technologies

http://www.dominknow.com Dominknow Learning Technologies

http://www.imparta.com The Imparta Virtual Sales Academy Learning

Technologies

http://www.charitylearning.org/ Charity Learning Learning Technologies

http://www.spongeuk.com Sponge UK Learning Technologies

http://www.jaluch.co.uk Jaluch Learning Technologies

https://www.elucidat.com Elucidat Learning Technologies

http://www.sysop.co.uk Sysop Learning Technologies

http://www.alleninteractions.com Allen Interactions Learning Technologies

http://www.expertus.com Expertus Learning Technologies

http://www.turningtechnologies.co.uk Turning Technologies Learning Technologies

http://www.instinct.co.uk Instinct eLearning Recruitment Learning

Technologies

http://www.btl.com btl Learning Technologies

http://www.ydp.eu Young Digital Planet Learning Technologies

3.2. Functional Accessibility Evaluator (FAE) 2.0:

http://www.gamelearn.com/

Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation; 32(2)

ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X

www.turkjphysiotherrehabil.org 2789

FAE assess an entire website or a webpage under WCAG 2.0 A and AA requirements. The Rules specified in

FAE 2.0 are based on Open Ajax Evaluation Library and the rules follow accessibility specifications. There are

two types of rule set available and they are:HTML5 and ARIA techniques and HTML4 Legacy Techniques. It

provides some additional functionality like

 Assess several pages through web crawling

 It generates a summary report which denotes the problem design features

 The generated reports will be saved in Archived Reports list

The report of the assessed webpage contains the number of violations, warnings, manual checks, passed, score

and status.

3.3. TAW

TAW is accessibility testing tool developed by CTIC Centro Tecnólogico that assesses accessibility of website

under WCAG 1.0 and 2.0. This tool can be utilized by providing the website's URL has to be tested. By pressing

the analyze button of the form, the report will be generated with the number of problems, warnings and not

reviewed in terms of perceivable, Operable, Understandable and Robust.

3.4. TENON

Tenon is a tool which assesses the websites for the compliance of WCAG 2.0 and Section 508. It employs APIs

which can be easily combined to the tool used for Unit Testing, Acceptance Testing, System Testing and Issue

Tracking. Presently, Tenon APIs are existing for the listed accessibility issues.Finally, Tenon API produces the

test results in JSON String format which include result set node that holds array of issues.

3.5. Hera

It is used to test the accessibility of Web pages based on the WCAG 1.0 rules and regulations. It executes some

tests on the webpage and finds errors or checkpoints, and checkpoints require additional human assessment.

Human intervention is necessary to check whether a page is accessible. Hera 2.1 helps in manual revision by

specifying the parts of the page that require testing, giving instructions to do the validation and provide two views

of the page with the major elements for checking highlighted through colors and icons. It is also available to

create the report to print or save in (XHTML, RDF / EARL and PDF) formats. This tool can be utilized by

providing the website's URL has to be tested. By pressing the click button of the form, the report will be

generated with the number of pass, fail and not available items in terms of three priorities p1, P2 and P3.

IV. Experiments and results

The top 100 learning and development company websites are gathered from internet in the duration of September

to November 2017. This section analyses the accessibility results of the above mentioned 100 websites using five

popular web accessibility assessment tools namely EvalAccess2.0, TAW, Tenon, Run FAE and Hera are

analyzed The website homepages are investigated by five assessment tools to find out the issues and generate a

report under WCAG 1.0, WCAG 2.0 and Section 508 guidelines. The obtained results of 100 websites are

explained in the subsequent sections.

4.1. Performance analysis using EvalAccess2.0

This subsection explains the assessment results of 100 websites are analyzed by EvalAccess2.0. The websites are

tested for errors and warnings for three levels of priorities. The comparison of total number of errors with 3

conformance levels for websites are illustrated in Fig. 1. The comparison of total number of warnings under three

conformance levels for websites is depicted in Fig. 1. The statistical results of EvalAccess tool gives the total

number of errors and warnings under three priorities (P1, P2, P3) with its average and standard deviation (SD)

values respectively. The maximum value of error occurred at P2 with the value of 624, mean 7.1724 and SD of

26.88399. Likewise, the maximum value of warnings occurred at P2 with the value of 7995, mean 91.8965 and

SD of 150.124.

Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation; 32(2)

ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X

www.turkjphysiotherrehabil.org 2790

Fig.1.Wave Tool: Graphical Representation of Learning Company Websites result

4.2. Performance analysis using Run FAE

This subsection explains the assessment results of 100 websites are investigated by Run FAE. The websites are

tested for errors and warnings for three levels of priorities. The comparison of violations, warnings, manual

checks, passed and score for HTML 4 rule set total number of errors with 3 conformance levels for 100 websites

is shown in Fig. 2. Next, the assessment results of 100 websites are investigated by Run FAE for HTML 5. The

websites are tested for errors and warnings for three levels of priorities. The comparison of violations, warnings,

manual checks, passed and score for HTML 5 rule set total number of errors with3 conformance levels for 100

websites The statistical results of Run FAE HTML4 tool is given in Table 1 which gives the total number of

violations, warnings, manual checks, passed and score with its average and SD values respectively. The table

shows that the total number of violations is 457, mean of 5.0219 and SD of 1.9435. Likewise, the total number of

warnings is 213, mean of 2.4482 and SD of 1.4122.

Table 1 Run FAE Tool (HTML4) report for learning company websites

Run FaeHTML4

Violations Warnings Manual checks Paased Score

Total 457 213 2783 1459 3177

Average 5.021978 2.448276 30.58242 16.03297 34.91209

Stdev 1.943525 1.412228 4.587582 5.700781 6.853464

Fig.2.Run FAE Tool (HTML4): Graphical Representation of Learning Company Websites result

Table2 Run FAE Tool (HTML5) report for learning company websites

2000

4000

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85

Comprasion of Errors and warning using by Eval Access2.0 Tool

Errors Errors Errors warnings warnings warnings

Total

Average

Stdev 0

1000 2000 3000 4000

Violations Warnings

Manual checks

Paased Score

Run FaeHTML4

Comprasion report about learning company home page using RunFAE Tool

Total Average Stdev

Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation; 32(2)

ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X

www.turkjphysiotherrehabil.org 2791

Run FaeHTML5

Violations Warnings Manual checks Paased Score

Total 723 202 2881 1786 3361

Average 7.8586957 2.295455 31.31521739 19.41304 36.53261

Stdev 2.7076673 2.239453 5.720465185 7.089928 9.723034

The statistical results of Run FAE HTML5 tool is given in Table 2 which gives the total number of violations,

warnings, manual checks, passed and score with its average and SD values respectively. The table shows that the

total number of violations is 723, mean of 7.8586 and SD of 2.239. Likewise, the total number of warnings is

202, mean of 2.295 and SD of 2.239 respectively.

4.3. Performance analysis using TAW

This subsection explains the accessibility results of 100 websites by TAW are explained. The websites are

validated for errors and warnings for three levels of priorities. The comparison of problem, warning and not

reviewed items under AAA conformance levels for 100 websites. The statistical results of TAW tool for A is

tabulated in Table 3 with the total number of problems, warnings and not reviewed pages. The results are given

on the basis of Perceivable (P), Operable (O), Understandable (U), Robust(R) and Success criteria(S). The table

shows that the maximum number of problems appeared is 1995 with the average value of 21.22 and SD of 21.01.

Similarly, the total number of warnings occurred are 74728 with the average and SD of 794.97 and 844.32

respectively. The maximum number of not reviewed items found is 1000 with the average and SD of 10.63 and

1.54 respectively. In the same way, the statistical results of TAW tool for AA and AAA compliance is tabulates

in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 3 TAWTool report for learning company websites

TAW(WCAG2.0)- Level-A

PROBLEMS WARNINGS NOT REVIEWED

P O U R S P O U R S P O U R S

Tota

1995 858 195 140

529 2760 1698 257 7472

635 284 540 172 41 100

Avg 21.2

9.12 2.07 14.9 5.6

29.3

18.0

2.73

795 6.7

3.02

5.74

1.83 0.4

10.6

Stde

21.0

15.1

2.12

13.6 1.5

59.9

20.1

2.49

844.3 1.8

0.14

0.76

0.63

1.6 1.54

Table 4 TAW Tool report for learning company websites

TAW(WCAG2.0) Level-AA

PROBLEMS WARNINGS NOT REVIEWED

P O U R S P O U R S P O U R S

1968 850 191 1446 528 3472 3945 728 7450

932 376 709 448 24 15

20.9

9.04

2.03

15.3

5.62 36.9

41.9

7.74

792.

9.91

4 7.54

4.76

0.25

20.8

15.1

2.11

14.7

1.53 60.7

34.4

6.74

845.

2.54

0 0.86

0.42

0.98

Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation; 32(2)

ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X

www.turkjphysiotherrehabil.org 2792

Table 5 TAW Tool report for learning company websites

TAW( WCAG2.O)Level-AAA

PROBLEMS WARNINGS NOT REVIEWED

P O U R S P O U R S P O U R S

tal

2016 226

195 1460 640 3410 3979 1820 722

1131 662 106

822 22 25

21.44

24.0

2.07

15.53 6.81 36.28 42.33 19.36

768.

12.03

7.043 11.3

8.74

0.2

21.42

25.7

2.13

14.46 1.81 60.92 34.53

13.11

846.

4.824

0.789 1.52

0.62

0.9

4.4. Performance analysis using Hera2.1

This subsection explains the accessibility results of 100 websites which are validated by Hera are given. The

comparison of obtained results in terms of needs checking, pass and fail for 4 sets of websites are depicted in

Fig.3. The evaluation report of Learning company websites by using Hera accessibility analysis tool to generate

results in positions of warnings called number of checkpoints wants to testing, passed checkpoints, testing with

checkpoints with errors and in-applicable checkpoints. The statistical results of Hera tool gives the total number

of pages’ needs checking, pass, fail and not available under three priorities (P1, P2 and P3). The maximum value

of pages’ needs checking occurred at P2 with the value of 1468, mean 17.07 and SD of 1.68. The maximum pass

value appears at P2 with the value of 225, mean 2.62 and SD of 1.15. Similarly, the maximum fail value appears

at P2 with the value of 283, mean 4.453 and SD of 1.642 respectively.

Fig.3.Hera2.1 Tool: Graphical Representation of Learning Company Websites result

Table 9Hrra2.1 Tool report for learning company websites

Hera2.1

Needs Checking PASS FAIL N/A

P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3

Total 632 1468 936 9 225 93 101 383 214 720 408 366

AVG 7.3488 17.07 10.88 1 2.62 1.31 1.53 4.453 2.4884 8.3721 4.7442 4.256

Stdev 0.8369 1.6859 1.384 0 1.15 0.523 0.684 1.643 0.9042 0.895 1.6174 0.857

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85

Comparison report about learning company homepages using Hera 2.1 Tool

Needs Checking Needs Checking Needs Checking PASS

PASS PASS FAIL FAIL

FAIL N/A N/A N/A

Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation; 32(2)

ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X

www.turkjphysiotherrehabil.org 2793

4.5. Performance analysis using Tenon

This subsection explains the accessibility results of 100 websites which are validated by Tenon are explained.

The issues by test id, issue count by text are listed out in Table 14. Furthermore, during website evaluation

process, the Tenon tool performed 74 tests of guidelines on websites to give result status of these tests in terms of

numbers namely number of passed tests and number of failed tests of the particular websites. The overall passed

and failed tests results of learning company websites out of 74 tests of Tenon tool are shown Table 10 show that

result of summary values appear in issues found in total (3726), Average (37.63), Standard deviation (42.44)

Processed in, Seconds total (854.36), Average (8.6298), Standard deviation (33.52),pagesizekbtotal

(12819),Average (129.48), Standard deviation (118.72) and Test.Test having two partst.There are Fail and Pass.

The overall passed and failed tests results of learning company websites out of 74 tests of Tenon tool are shown

in Table 10.In Table 10, the Fail value appear in the total value(660),Average(6.6),and SD(2.74) and Pass value

appear in the total value(6666),Average(67.63),and SD(2.74).As per Tenon tool, there are 8 webpages having

density distribution above 100 plus and 21 webpages having 51 to 100 and others fall between 0 to 50. It was also

found that there were 5757 unique issues by 61 WCAG success criteria. As per this tool used, the average report

in terms of per page are as:

 Average Errors per page 54

 Average Warnings per page 4

 Average issues per page 39,

 Total Distinct Pages 93,

 Total Successful 97,

 Total Unsuccessful 1,

 Avg. Issue Certainty 95%,

 Avg. Issue Priority 95%.

Table 6Comparison Table of Multiple Tools used with respect to their Attributes

Tools/Attribu

tes HERA TENON Eval Aceess2.0 Run fae TAW

Guidelines WCAG 1.0

WCAG1.0,

WCAG2.0, Section

508

WCAG1.0, WCAG2.0 WCAG2.0

Automatically

checks

Single webpages,

printedwebpages

Single webpages,

printedwebpages,

Group of web pages

or websites

Single

webpages,

printedwebpages

Single

webpages,

printedwebpages

, Evaluate

multiple pages

via web

crawling

Single

webpages,

printedwebpages

Online

Service On line checker

On line checker,

hosted service,

server installation

On line checker On line checker On line checker

Accessibility

check by Webpage URL

Webpage URL,

code Webpage URL, Webpage URL Webpage URL,

API Absent Absent Absent Absent Present

Browser

plugins Firefox Chrome Chrome Chrome Firefox

Language English, Spanish English English English English

Supported

Formats CSS,HTML

CSS,HTML,XHTM

L,Images HTML

HTML4lEGAC

HTML5,ARIA

CSS,HTML

Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation; 32(2)

ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X

www.turkjphysiotherrehabil.org 2794

Testing by

levels

(A, AA,AAA)

Absent Absent Absent PRESENT(Leve

l A,AA)

Present(Level

AA)

Testing by

priorities(p1,

p2,p3)

Present Absent Present Absent Absent

Accessibility

Review

output

Need checking

Pass, Fail, Not

Applicable

Issues, passes and

failed TestIDs

Errors,

Warnings

Violations,

Warnings,

Manual checks,

Passed

Problems,warnin

gs,Not reviewed

Report

formats

HTML,XHTML,P

HTML,XML,CSV,J

SON HTML, HTML, CSS,HTML

License Free software,

Open source

Trial or demo,

Enterprise,

commercial

Free software,

Open source

Free software,

Open source

Free software,

Open source

Assisted by

Generating reports

of evaluation result,

displaying

information within

webpages and

providing step by

step evaluation

guidelines

Generating reports

of evaluation result.

Generating

reports of

evaluation

result.

Generating

reports of

evaluation

result.

Generating

reports of

evaluation result

4.6 Comparison between multi tools

From this Table 7, we have thirteen parameters and five tool. Yes, means the parameters are available in

corresponding tool. An analysis of accessibility score of top 100 learning and company websites using these tools

such as aChecker, Hera 2.1, Tenon, EvalAccess 2.0, TAW, Cynthia Says and Wave tool. An analysis of

accessibility score of e-learning websites using aChecker tool, it has some barriers such as Known, Likely,

potential, Level A,AA, AAA, these are indicated in Yes letters and also remaining barriers are not there such as

warnings, errors, alerts, Feature Structural elements . HTML5&ARIA, Contrast, Priority1, priority2, and priority3

and these are indicated in NO letters. Similarly, the other tools also following same process, means that which

tool having the Yes letter, it has some barriers and also which tool having NO letters, it has no barriers and No

means the parameters are not available in corresponding tool.

Table 7 Comparative parameters with respect Tool

Tool/Problems RUN FAE HERA2.1 Tenon Eval

Access2.0

TAW

Know NO NO NO NO NO

Likely NO NO NO NO NO

Potential NO NO NO NO NO

Level-A YES NO YES NO YES

Level-AA YES NO YES NO YES

Level-AAA NO NO YES NO YES

Warning YES YES YES YES YES

Errors YES YES YES YES YES

Alerts NO NO NO NO NO

Features Structural Elements NO NO NO NO NO

HTML5 & ARIA yes NO NO NO NO

Contrast NO NO NO NO NO

Priority 1 NO YES NO YES NO

Priority 2 NO YES NO YES NO

Priority3 NO YES NO YES NO

Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation; 32(2)

ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X

www.turkjphysiotherrehabil.org 2795

V. DISCUSSIONS

Based on our study learning company websites and results, the following ideas should be taken into consideration

while developing and designing websites.

 Text alternative should be for all non-text web content.

 There should be proper Link Purpose and parsing, name role, value attributes

 Headers to be include for each page Titled, Heading and Labels, section Heading and Language of page.

 There should be supported for Info and Relationships in web accessibility.

 There should be supported mechanism for Keyboard and controlling color contrast.

 This Link has a `title` Attribute that’s the same as The Text inside the Link.

 This Frames Has A `title` Attribute that’s The Same AsAnother Frame

 This `id` Is Being Used More Than Once

 Same ALT Text on Images with Different Src Attributes

 This Image is missing an `alt` Attribute

VI. CONCLUSION

Several studies have been done to assess the web accessibility of diverse websites. Recently, learning and

development company websites gains popularity since the learning process begins with these types of websites.

Few of these companies include Harvard business, safety media, degreed, Lynda, etc. Since e-learning domain is

highly helpful for students across various levels, it is essential to access those websites for accessibility. In this

study, 100 learning and development company websites are assessed using four evaluation tools namely

EvalAccess2.0, Run FAE, TAW, Tenon and Hera 2.1. The result indicates that the websites should be improved

so that it can be accessible worldwide.

REFERENCES

1. Abuaddous, H. J. M. Z., &Basir, N. (2013, August). Study of the accessibility diagnosis on the public higher institutions websites in Malaysia. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computing and Informatics (ICOCI 2013), Kuching, Sarawak (pp. 412-417).

2. Adepoju, S. A., &Shehu, I. S. (2014, September). Usability evaluation of academic websites using automated tools. In User Science and Engineering (i-USEr), 2014 3rd International Conference on (pp. 186-191). IEEE.

3. Aziz, M. A., Isa, W. A. R. W. M., &Nordin, N. (2010, December). Assessing the accessibility and usability of Malaysia Higher Education Website. In User Science and Engineering (i-USEr), 2010 International Conference on (pp. 203-208). IEEE.

4. Baowaly, M. K., &Bhuiyan, M. (2012, May). Accessibility analysis and evaluation of Bangladesh government websites. In Informatics, Electronics & Vision (ICIEV), 2012 International Conference on (pp. 46-51). IEEE.

5. Bavani, R., Jaafar, A., &Yatim, N. F. M. (2010, December). A study on web experience among visually impaired users in Malaysia. In User Science and Engineering (i-USEr), 2010 International Conference on (pp. 11-15). IEEE.

6. Rutter, R., Lauke, P. H., Waddell, C., Thatcher, J., Henry, S. L., Lawson, B. & Urban, M. (2007). Web accessibility: Web standards and regulatory compliance. Apress.

7. Chacón-Medina, A., Chacón-López, H., López-Justicia, M. D., &Fernández-Jiménez, C. (2013). Dificultades en la Accesibilidad Web de las UniversidadesEspañolas de acuerdo a la Norma WCAG 2.0. Revista Española de DocumentaciónCientífica, 36(4), 025.

8. Comeaux, D., &Schmetzke, A. (2007). Web accessibility trends in university libraries and library schools. Library hi tech, 25(4), 457-477.

9. CynthiaSays, (2016). Cryptzone Cynthia says portal. http://cynthiasays.com/.

10. De Andrés, J., Lorca, P., &Martínez, A. B. (2010). Factors influencing web accessibility of big listed firms: an international study. Online Information Review, 34(1), 75-97.

11. EvalAccess2.0 web accessibility tool available at http://sipt07.si.ehu.es/evalaccess2/

12. Hackett, S., Parmanto, B., & Zeng, X. (2004, October). Accessibility of Internet websites through time. In ACM SIGAccess Accessibility and Computing (No. 77-78, pp. 32-39). ACM.

13. Hanson, V. L., & Richards, J. T. (2013). Progress on website accessibility?. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), 7(1), 2.

14. Hayfa, Y.A., MohdZ.J. and Basir N. (2016) Web accessibility challenges. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications. 7(10), 172-181.

15. Hera web accessibility tool available at http://www.sidar.org/hera/

16. Ismail, A., &Kuppusamy, K. S. (2016). Accessibility of Indian universities’ homepages: an exploratory study. Journal of King Saud University- Computer and Information Sciences.

17. Ismailova, R., &Kimsanova, G. (2017). Universities of the Kyrgyz Republic on the Web: accessibility and usability. Universal Access in the Information Society, 16(4), 1017-1025.

18. Ismailova, R. (2017). Web site accessibility, usability and security: a survey of government web sites in Kyrgyz Republic. Universal Access in the Information Society, 16(1), 257-264.

Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation; 32(2)

ISSN 2651-4451 | e-ISSN 2651-446X

www.turkjphysiotherrehabil.org 2796

19. Kamal, I. W., Alsmadi, I. M., Wahsheh, H. A., & Al-Kabi, M. N. (2016). Evaluating Web Accessibility Metrics for Jordanian Universities. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 1, 113-122.

20. Kamoun, F., & Basel Almourad, M. (2014). Accessibility as an integral factor in e-government web site evaluation: The case of Dubai e- government. Information Technology& People, 27(2), 208-228.

21. Laitano, M. I. (2015). Accesibilidad web en el espaciouniversitariopúblicoargentino. Revistaespañola de documentacióncientífica, 38(1), 079.

22. Latif, M. H. A., &Masrek, M. N. (2010). Accessibility evaluation on malaysian e-Government websites. Journal of E-Government studies and best practices, 1-11.

23. Leporini, B., &Paternò, F. (2008). Applying web usability criteria for vision-impaired users: does it really improve task performance?. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24(1), 17-47.

24. LI, L. C., BU, J. J., Zhi, Y. U., Wei, W. A. N. G., & Can, W. A. N. G. (2016). An Overview of Web Accessibility Evaluation of Government Websites in China. DEStech Transactions on Social Science, Education and Human Science, (icssd).

25. MM Group. (2015). World Internet Users Statistics and 2015 World Population Stats.

26. Peters, C., &Bradbard, D. A. (2010). Web accessibility: an introduction and ethical implications. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 8(2), 206-232.

27. Providenti, M., &Zai III, R. (2007). Web accessibility at Kentucky's academic libraries. Library Hi Tech, 25(4), 478-493.

28. Rashid, M. A. A., Othman, M. N. A., & Hassan, N. (2014). Discovering Malaysian State e-Government Maturity Stage: Implementation Process and Progress. Gading Journal for the Social Sciences, 18(02), 51-75.

29. Rømen, D., &Svanæs, D. (2012). Validating WCAG versions 1.0 and 2.0 through usability testing with disabled users. Universal Access in the Information Society, 11(4), 375-385.

30. Serra, L. C., Carvalho, L. P., Ferreira, L. P., Vaz, J. B. S., & Freire, A. P. (2015). Accessibility evaluation of e-government mobile applications in Brazil. Procedia Computer Science, 67, 348-357.

31. Shawar, B. A. (2015). Evaluating Web Accessibility of Educational Websites. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 10(4).

32. TAW web accessibility tool available at http://www.tawdis.net/ingles.html?lang=en

33. Tenon web accessibility tool available at https://tenon.io/

34. WebAIM, (2013). Accessibility evaluation tools. http://webaim.org/articles/tools/s

35. Williams, R., & Rattray, R. (2003). An assessment of Web accessibility of UK accountancy firms. Managerial Auditing Journal, 18(9), 710-716.

36. Williams, R., & Rattray, R. (2005). UK and US hotel web content accessibility: Mandates for action. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(1), 78-87.

37. World Wide Web Consortium. (2008). Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.

38. Yu, D. X., &Parmanto, B. (2011). US state government websites demonstrate better in terms of accessibility compared to federal government and commercial websites. Government Information Quarterly, 28(4), 484-490.

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy Rehabilitation is the property of Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy & Rehabilitation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.