Accessibility of Norwegian Public Web Sites - Svein Ølnes, Vestlandsforsking

Content Main questions answered Background Web accessibility and public web sites Results 2004 - 2006 Accessibility and national objectives

Main questions answered

Background

Web accessibility and public web sites

Results 2004 - 2006

Accessibility and national objectives

Main questions answered The state of accessibility of public web sites in Norway Are the eNorge 2009 goals realistic?

The state of accessibility of public web sites in Norway

Are the eNorge 2009 goals realistic?

Background Quality evaluations of public web sites since 2001 Statskonsult responsible for the first evaluations, since then an important part of Norge.no’s work Annual evaluations (except one evaluation for 2002 and 2003) Accessibility an important part of all the different evaluation schemes Web accessibility one of the few areas with explicit goals in the eNorge 2009 plan W3C’s Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) as the central premise provider in this area

Quality evaluations of public web sites since 2001

Statskonsult responsible for the first evaluations, since then an important part of Norge.no’s work

Annual evaluations (except one evaluation for 2002 and 2003)

Accessibility an important part of all the different evaluation schemes

Web accessibility one of the few areas with explicit goals in the eNorge 2009 plan

W3C’s Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) as the central premise provider in this area

Web accessibility and public web sites Public web portals play an ever increasing important part of information and dialogue with the inhabitants Access for all a democracy issue “ Access for all” stated as important part of eNorge 2009 strategy “ An Information society for all” the name of St.mld. 17/2006 “ An Information society for all” an important part of EU ICT policy

Public web portals play an ever increasing important part of information and dialogue with the inhabitants

Access for all a democracy issue

“ Access for all” stated as important part of eNorge 2009 strategy

“ An Information society for all” the name of St.mld. 17/2006

“ An Information society for all” an important part of EU ICT policy

Web accessibility and legislation EU and Norway: Carrot guidelines, benchmarking, evaluations USA: Stick “section 508” – Rehabilitation Amendments Act ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act Official Norwegian Report Equality and Accessibility (2005) human rights rather than welfare/charity perspective a separate act against discrimination universal design secured through legislation web accessibility might be established by law

EU and Norway: Carrot

guidelines, benchmarking, evaluations

USA: Stick

“section 508” – Rehabilitation Amendments Act

ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act

Official Norwegian Report Equality and Accessibility (2005)

human rights rather than welfare/charity perspective

a separate act against discrimination

universal design secured through legislation

web accessibility might be established by law

Web accessibility indicators 2004 - 2006 Score is computed as percentage of max. obtainable points 28,9 1 Data tables should be marked with row and column headers 99,6 1 Web pages should be free of flickering images 90,1 1 Web pages should be readable also without accompanying style sheets (css) 85,1 1 Do not rely solely on colours for navigation 53,1 1 Provide alt. text for all non-textual elements Score (%) Priority Indicator

Data tables should be marked with row and column headers

Web pages should be free of flickering images

Web pages should be readable also without accompanying style sheets (css)

Do not rely solely on colours for navigation

Provide alt. text for all non-textual elements

Web accessibility indicators 2004 - 2006 Score is computed as percentage of max. obtainable points 90,7 2 Service provider clearly marked (especially with the use of frames) 15,2 - Direct links to contenct etc. 87,0 2/3 Good contrast between foreground and background 77,2 1 Preserve functionality also if using special technologies (javascript, java, plug-ins etc.) 75,9 1 Compensation for use of frames Score (%) Priority Indicator

Service provider clearly marked (especially with the use of frames)

Direct links to contenct etc.

Good contrast between foreground and background

Preserve functionality also if using special technologies (javascript, java, plug-ins etc.)

Compensation for use of frames

Results 2004 – 2006 (%) Score is computed as total obtained points in percentage of max. obtainable points 67,3 60,6 58,4 Municipalities 72,3 69,0 2006 71,8 64,5 2005 69,4 62,4 2004 Government agencies Total Year

Results 2004 - 2006 eNorge 2009 goal: 80 % by 2007 2006 2005 2004 Year 690 699 674 Number of inst. 6 1 2 Number of inst. fulfilling all access. criter. 1,0 0,1 0,3 Percentage

eNorge 2009 goal: 80 % by 2007

Conclusion Far from reaching accessibility goals 2006: 1,0 % as opposed to the 80 % goal stated in eNorge 2009 No way the goal can be reached in 2007 Public web sites still has a long way to go regarding accessibility Small improvements from year to year Speak softly and carry a big stick? Speak softly: Yes (quality evaluations, eNorge goal) Carry a big stick: No Time’s up for establishing accessibility requirements by law? Today’s methods do not seem to be enough

Far from reaching accessibility goals

2006: 1,0 % as opposed to the 80 % goal stated in eNorge 2009

No way the goal can be reached in 2007

Public web sites still has a long way to go regarding accessibility

Small improvements from year to year

Speak softly and carry a big stick?

Speak softly: Yes (quality evaluations, eNorge goal)

Carry a big stick: No

Time’s up for establishing accessibility requirements by law?

Today’s methods do not seem to be enough

End of presentation Thanks! Contact information Svein Ølnes – [email_address]

Thanks!

Contact information

Svein Ølnes – [email_address]