Web Accessibility for the Blind: Corporate Social Responsibility or Litigation Avoidance? Jonathan Frank Suffolk University Boston, MA

Background 45m. blind individuals worldwide 1.3m. blind individuals in US (0.48% pop.) Web Accessibility Guidelines & Laws Lawsuits

45m. blind individuals worldwide

1.3m. blind individuals in US (0.48% pop.)

Web Accessibility Guidelines & Laws

Lawsuits

Text Browser & Screen Reader

Previous Work on Web Accessibility Frustrated and annoyed blind users [Lazar et al, 2004] Time-oriented accessibility ignored [Takagi 2004] Website increasing complexity [Zeng et al 2004] Developers use syntactical checking [Mankoff 2005] Lack of training, client support, confusing guidelines, inadequate software tools [Lazar et al, 2004]

Frustrated and annoyed blind users [Lazar et al, 2004]

Time-oriented accessibility ignored [Takagi 2004]

Website increasing complexity [Zeng et al 2004]

Developers use syntactical checking [Mankoff 2005]

Lack of training, client support, confusing guidelines, inadequate software tools [Lazar et al, 2004]

Corporate Social Responsibility

CSR Postures Reactive Defensive Accommodative Proactive

Reactive

Defensive

Accommodative

Proactive

Model CSR Propensity Perceived Litigation Threat Website Accessibility (CSR Posture) Product/ Service Type Web Media Complexity + + +/- - Time + +

Measuring Accessibility Enabling people with disabilities to perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with the Web” [Henry 2006] Limitation of popular tools Alternative approach -- aDesigner – IBM navigability and listenability metrics

Enabling people with disabilities to perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with the Web” [Henry 2006]

Limitation of popular tools

Alternative approach -- aDesigner – IBM

navigability and listenability metrics

Sample QVC Publix Office Max Office Depot Menard Marshall Lowe's Kmart Family Dollar CompUSA Winn-Dixie Dollar General Whole Foods Markets Dillard's Wegmans Costco Wal-Mart Burlington Coat Factory T.J.Maxx Blockbuster Supervalu BJ's Sears Bed Bath and Beyond Ross Stores Barnes & Noble Rite Aid Albertsons Radio Shack A&P

Method Wayback Machine Initially sampled 1 st occurrence of homepage 4/03, 2/06, & 6/07

Wayback Machine

Initially sampled 1 st occurrence of homepage 4/03, 2/06, & 6/07

Declining Accessibility 0 0 18 Radio Shack 60 72 86 T.J.Maxx 40 72 74 Marshall 44 65 88 Burlington Coat 49 49 100 Costco Jun-07 Feb-06 Apr-03 Name

Target Corp Improves Accessibility

Worst Accessibility 2007

Best Accessibility 2007

Gains in Accessibility after Target Case Begins(Feb-06 to Jun-07)

Retailers’ reaction to the Target case 0.0000 74.5 53.4 Accessibility 0.1904 53.4 49.2 Accessibility P June-2007 Feb-2006 P Feb-2006 Apr-2003

CSR Propensity & Accessibility BedBath, QVC, Walmart, Radioshack, Officemax, KMart, Winn-Dixie, Target, Riteaid, Barns and Noble, Apsupermarket, Meijer, CompUSA, Blockbuster, Marshallonline, Dollargeneral , Lowes, Dillards, Wholefoods, BJs, Costco, Albertsons, Publix, Tjmaxx, Burlingtoncoatfactory, Rosstore, Office depot, Familydollar, Wegmans, Supervalu Sample Companies IBM, Fannie Mae, Avon Products, Timberland, Bank of America, Southwest Airlines, FedEx Corp., JP Morgan Chase, Symantec Corp., Lexmark International, New York Times, Microsoft, Charles Schwab, Marriott International, Adobe Systems, Hewlett-Packard Top CSR Companies

Regression results t=1,2…7 Anova of Betas 0.425 2.553 1.812 Top CSR companies (N=14) 0.006 11.107 1.806 Sample companies (N=27) P Slope after Feb-06 Slope before Feb-06

Conclusions