This research from 2009, presented at IADIS 2009 conference in Portugal looks at Web 2.0 accessibility challenges by examining the social networking site experiences of a group of users with visual impairments compared with a group of sighted users. Note that since 2009, things have improved considerably but you may like to replicate approach and update findings.

1. ANTI-SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES: WEB 2.0 AND
SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Denise Leahy
Trinity College Dublin,
Ireland
Ultan Ó Broin
Trinity College Dublin,
Ireland
ABSTRACT
The European Union (EU) promotes the concept of eInclusion as part of the i2010 initiative (European Commission,
2005). This includes areas such as eAccessibility, Digital Literacy and eGovernment – all to “improve people’s quality of
life”. Internet-based economic opportunity and political engagement are also part of the socially driven Web 2.0 concepts
of participation and collaboration. Increasingly, Web 2.0 technologies are adopted by enterprises to integrate with the
collective intelligence of the community at large, for example using social networking sites for sales opportunities
(McKinsey, 2007).
If accessibility is not built into these systems, people with disabilities may be excluded from social interaction, political
organization, economic, and other opportunities. Despite the widely accepted claims about Web 2.0’s inclusiveness based
on participative patterns of usage (O’Reilly, 2004), (Madden and Fox, 2006), is the lack of accessibility support within
Web 2.0 technology itself actually creating social exclusion? This research looks at Web 2.0 accessibility challenges by
examining the social networking site experiences of a group of users with visual impairments compared with a group of
sighted users.
KEYWORDS
Accessibility, social networking, Web 2.0
1. INTRODUCTION
The Internet now plays an important part in the lives of many. However, those without access to the
Internet may be missing opportunities to participate fully in the Information Society. Research by Nielsen
(2006a) and the Worldwide Web Consortium (1999) show how disability can negatively impact Internet
participation. Concern about this impact on society is reflected by the emergence of the policy concept of
eInclusion and the following of web accessibility guidelines to enable equal opportunity through the Internet
- “It is essential that the Web be accessible in order to provide equal access and equal opportunity to people
with disabilities” (Henry, 2007).
The eEurope vision is of an Information Society that releases human and economic potential to improve
productivity and the quality of life for the citizens of Europe (ETSI, 2003). The European Commission cites
the main causes of social exclusion as unemployment and the lack of access to resources and training
(European Commission, 2002). As people increasingly adopt what is called “Web 2.0” to interact with
others, is this creating a new kind of digital social exclusion of persons with a disability?
This research examines the use of social networking sites (Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, etc) by Irish users
as a good indicator of social inclusion, as such sites “allow individuals to present themselves, articulate their
social networks, and establish or maintain connections with others” (Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe, 2007).

2. 2. HOW IS WEB 2.0 BEING USED?
2.1 Social networking
Social networking sites are a people based concept that can be work-related, (such as LinkedIn),
romantically oriented (Friendster), or shared interest and social relationships (Bebo, MySpace, Facebook and
others). Facebook had 123.9 million unique visitors in May 2008, MySpace 114.6 million, and Bebo 25.1
million (Schonfeld, 2008), and the uptake is increasing globally. The use of these social networking sites
represents the very essence of user collaboration and participation on a mass scale. These sites allow users to
post and share content, links, images, video, music, join and create online groups of common interest, engage
in online debate and other exchanges, mail and instant message each other.
Social inclusion, or eInclusion, is an area of increasing interest for academics, practitioners, and policy
makers. The centrality of Internet technology to everyday lives and its potential to provide opportunity to
alleviate disadvantage is recognized. For example the eEurope “Information Society” (European Council,
2005) aims to improve productivity and quality of life for the citizens of Europe (ETSI, 2003) through
modern online public services; including e-government, e-learning, and e-health for citizens working in an e-
business environment.
However, not everybody has access to online environments and there are different reasons for the
adoption of technology across different groups of users in the community (Venkatesh, et al, 2003). People
with disability face barriers when using websites and services simply because the online technology and
content do not support how they use the web. To address these issues there are a wide variety of guidelines
and regulations, best known of which is the voluntary guidelines of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
(1999), supported by local, national, and international legislation and aspirations.
Notwithstanding the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (2003) claim that Internet
technology is an opportunity “for disabled groups and other vulnerable groups to gain equality of access to
participation in society not just as another means by which they are to be disenfranchised or excluded”,
Shawn Henry (Thatcher, et al, 2006) argues that although web accessibility is essential for equal opportunity
we constantly need to work to ensure “the Web be accessible in order to provide equal access and equal
opportunity to people with disabilities”.
2.2 User created content
The OECD’s (2007) report “Participative Web and User-Created Content: Web 2.0, Wikis, and Social
Networking” also recognizes the social, cultural economic opportunities and impacts of participative content,
referred to as user-created content (UCC). This they define as: “Content made publicly available over the
Internet which reflects a certain amount of creative effort”, and which is created outside professional routines
and practices. It is this creation of content that has major social implications because it has “altered the
economics of information production, increased the democratisation of media production, and led to changes
in the nature of communications and social relationships.” Such content has great potential to increase user
participation and diversity and the volume is rapidly expanding, with a minimum of 130 million pieces of
content under Creative Commons licences alone by mid-2008 (Creative Commons, 2008).
Web 2.0 is perceived as mainly a social phenomenon, changing the patterns of “who communicates with
whom, under what conditions, and at whose discretion” (Benkler, 2006). Tapscott and Williams (2006) state
“the new web is fundamentally different in both its architecture and its applications… Whether people are
creating, sharing, or socializing, the new Web is principally about participating rather than about passively
receiving information”. Lessig’s work (2005) reveals how participatory web empowers a participatory
culture in society
An AbilityNet (2008) survey found that the most popular social networking websites on the Internet today
are “either difficult or impossible for disabled people to use – in many cases a user is not even able to register
with the website.” Zajicek (2007) defines accessibility in a way of particular interested to participation on the
web - “A community web site is accessible if it includes the user in its group and the user wants to be
included. If you are excluded from a service, then it is not accessible to you”. Raman (2009) says, “A
significant portion of our social interaction increasingly happens via the Web”. So, who is using Web 2.0 and
is the lack of accessibility within Web 2.0 technology creating social exclusion?

3. 3. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
The survey was distributed to visually impaired users using announcements sent to the Irish-based
Visually Impaired Computer Society (VICS) forum (http://vicsireland.org/), as well as to other private and
public groups working in the area of visual impairment. The research was broad, but only the parts that relate
use of social networking are discussed in this paper.
Despite user pre-testing and checking against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (1999), some
users with visual impairments experienced difficulty and did not complete all survey questions. This was
addressed by relabeling some options, rewriting instructions, and adding details of switching into Forms
mode in JAWS. The problem was caused by the different assistive technologies’ handling of web forms and
the varying user expertise with the same assistive technology (Thatcher et al, 2006). This needs to be borne
in mind for all researchers in the area.
Respondents were asked if their usage of these web sites was passive - such as merely having an account,
or activities like viewing or reading; or more active - such as editing, contribution, posting. The research
literature indicates most usage is largely passive (Nielsen, 2006a).
Respondents were asked about the challenges to their usage of the sites and services and the seriousness
of these challenges on a number of areas (age, social circle, privacy fears, content mistrust, and so on), and
then to give their opinion on the best approach to achieving the desired accessibility. Open-ended questions
were asked and the respondents were invited to comment on how users who have visual impairments could
best influence web site development or others users who create content or relationships to deliver an
accessible user experience for all (for example, by providing feedback, leveraging legal, political, social
processes, and so on).
3.1 Profile of the respondents
20 sighted users and 29 users with visual impairments completed the survey. More than two thirds of the
respondents with visual impairments were completely blind, with low vision making up the second most
common visual impairment. JAWS, Windows-Eyes and other screen readers were reported as the most
common assistive technology used (79.3%).
Most respondents were in the 25-35 age range; 35% of those with visual impairments and 60% of sighted
respondents were in this group. Most of the other sighted respondents were aged between 35 and 45, while
the remaining 65 % of respondents with visual impairments were evenly spread across all age groups.
3.2 The use of social networks
For sighted respondents, there was almost universal usage of Wikipedia (94.7%), followed by YouTube
with the next highest usage (89.5%), followed by Amazon (73.7%), and then social networking sites (63.2%)
and EBay (63.2%). For visually impaired respondents, the pattern is different. Although Wikipedia is the
most widely used site or service (75%), it was closely followed by Amazon (71.4%), while no other category
of site or service that could be considered “Web 2.0” made it past the 50% mark.
Sighted respondents expressed very strong or strong reasons for using social networking sites like
Facebook, Bebo and MySpace and such services as: being part of social groups of common interest (52.9%);
obtaining opinions on goods and services by real users (strong and very strong reasons were both 29.4%);
finding out information about jobs and career development (58.8%); wanting to find out more information
(55.6%); and making new friends or linking up with new ones (44.4%). Visually impaired respondents
showed less interest in using such technology to make new friends and link up with old ones (34.8%), and a
conflicted equally strong and neutral reason for being part of social groups of common interest (26.1%).
Using the technology for career development was a very weak interest (30.4%). Using web sites and services
to obtain opinions on goods and services by real people and finding out more information was recorded as a
strong reason (50%) and very strong reason respectively (56.5%). Making input to debates and reading the
opinions and recommendations of others were also strong (40.9% and 45.5%).
We can conclude that although all respondents were interested in using Web 2.0 for individual reasons
(shopping, finding out information, and so on), with visually impaired users this is less to do with social

4. networking or employment networking, which may have implications for inclusion and building social
capital across the community as a whole.
3.3 Challenges to Information Sharing and Collaboration
The major issue reported by most respondents was the use of an inaccessible Captcha (Completely
Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart) at sign-up time (94.7%). Other major
challenges included: the inability of screen readers to detect changes on dynamic page (70%); badly designed
online forms for data entry (70%); lack of ability to determine content of visual elements (65%); and no
ability to control interactive elements such as audio and video players (63.2%). These, and the remaining
challenges are all well known by accessibility practitioners and users of assistive technology alike, and
widely acknowledged by accessibility guidelines as serious areas for redress, but yet they remain present.
Of the top five accessibility challenges, the most serious, the use of inaccessible Captchas (Figure 1)
precludes any further involvement with social networking sites (unless visually impaired users obtain help
from another person to proceed.) The next most serious challenge, badly designed forms, prevents users from
collaborating and participating, as online forms are widely used to enter data, submit comments and
feedback; while the inability of assistive technology to determine dynamic changes indicates that the widely
used technologies (notably Asynchronous JavaScript and XML [AJAX]) used for Web 2.0’s rich user
experience is a problem. Visually-impaired users also experienced problems with the highly graphical,
multimedia, and user-created content that make up a very significant percentage of Web 2.0 content,
represented by the fourth and fifth most serious challenges recorded.
Figure 1. Inaccessible Captcha example from Bebo.com
The survey also explored the other concerns users had when using Web 2.0 sites and services. For both
groups, major issues identified were privacy fears and content mistrust. However, for visually impaired
respondents, the major challenge was the lack of accessibility support in the technology itself (80%).
These respondents were asked to rank the seriousness of the different types of accessibility issue they
experienced using the sites and services mentioned. The details of these challenges are shown in Table 1
“Accessibility challenges of users with visual impairments to using Web 2.0 sites and services.”

5. Major Issue Slight Issue Neutral Issue Not an Issue
Use of inaccessible Captcha on sign-
up 18 (94.7%) 0 (0%) 1 (5.3%) 0 (0%)
Badly designed online forms for data
entry 14 (70%) 5 (25%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
Inability of screen readers to detect
changes on dynamic page 14 (70%) 5 (25%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
No ability to determine visual content
with text (e.g. no Caption, Title or
Alternative on images) 13 (65%) 4 (20%) 1 (5%) 2 (10%)
No ability to control interactive
elements such as audio and video
players 12 (63.2%) 2 (10.5%) 4 (21.1%) 1 (5.3%)
Videos with no soundtrack or text
transcript alternative 9 (45%) 8 (40%) 2 (10%) 1 (5%)
Use of specific colours to indicate
functionality 7 (35%) 5 (25%) 6 (33.3%) 2 (10%)
Requirements to add plug-ins before
the content can be accessed. 7 (35%) 4 (20%) 7 (35%) 2 (10%)
Complex tables used for illogical
layout 6 (31.6%) 3 (15.8%) 7 (36.8%) 3 (15.8%)
Inability to expand links or show
hidden text 6 (31.6%) 4 (21.1%) 5 (26.3%) 4 (21.1%)
Complicated, wrongly marked up data
tables that confuse screen readers 6 (31.6%) 8 (42.1%) 4 (21.1%) 1 (5.3%)
Unclear text-speak language and
abbreviations in content 6 (30%) 5 (25%) 5 (25%) 4 (20%)
No ability to Navigate 6 (30%) 5 (25%) 3 (15%) 6 (30%)
Colour-combinations on text or
backgrounds 4 (20%) 1 (5%) 4 (20%) 11 (55%)
No keyboard support on keys, links,
hot-keys, shortcut keys etc. 4 (20%) 6 (30%) 4 (20%) 6 (30%)
Inability to control text size on
content 2 (11.1%) 1 (5.6%) 5 (27.8%) 10 (55.6%)
Table 1. Accessibility challenges of users with visual impairments to using Web 2.0 sites and services (ranked
by number of respondents and percentage of total)
3.4 Active and passive use of Web 2.0
The figures for passive usage of the web sites and services show that for sighted respondents the strongest
usage is looking up information on Wikipedia followed by reading comments feedback and ratings and
having accounts on social or employment related sites. Visually impaired respondents also expressed a strong
preference for Wikipedia, but with a lower score for reading comments, feedback, and ratings. However,
having accounts on social or employment related sites recorded a much lower score than sighted users,
though the figure for reading blogs is higher (60%). Here, we can also conclude there are implications for
social inclusion given the potential of social networking sites for community or political organization and
economic opportunity.
In terms of active participation, we can expect lower figures than for passive (Nielsen, 2006b). From the
survey, we find that for sighted respondents, posting images on photo sharing sites was the top activity
(77.8%), followed by submitting feedback, comments, reviews, or ratings to a site (55.6%) and posting blog
articles (50%). For visually impaired respondents, the top activities were submitting feedback, comments,
reviews or ratings to a site (55%), posting a blog article (40%), and editing a Wikipedia article (36%). Not
surprisingly, posting images to photo sharing sites records a much lower score (5%). “None of these
activities” recorded 32%. The implications for social inclusion here are clearly in line with the AbilityNet

6. report (2008), but also indicate that the concerns expressed over the ability of existing guidelines to deliver
an accessible web are valid (Kelly, et al, 2007), (Burnett, 2006).
4. HOW CAN THIS BE ADDRESSED?
All respondents were asked how to best achieve accessibility in Web 2.0 sites and services. Visually
impaired respondents were very specific and discussed areas of education, lobbying, and the technical issues,
which should be addressed. The most common sentiment was to “lobby government agencies, European and
UN agencies. Educate web developers. Support all regulatory organizations such as W3C, etc.”
Sighted respondents identified the provision of development tools with built in accessibility for content
creation, the following of coding standards, and information for content developers and beta testing as very
important. The employment of usability experts with accessibility expertise and offering free screen readers
was seen as somewhat important, with a neutral opinion on the policing of sites for non-accessible content.
Visually impaired respondents were unanimous in stating the importance of following the widely
accepted web accessibility guidelines, the provision of development tools that build in accessibility support
when content is created, accessibility information for content developers, beta testing before rollout and
employment of usability experts with accessibility expertise. The provision of free screen readers was
recorded as of “neutral” importance and the policing of non-accessible content was very important. All
respondents said that coding standards and the accessibility guidelines were important.
Respondents were also asked about their agreement with statements about the strategic direction of
accessibility. Sighted respondents somewhat agreed that web accessibility is becoming more about the
flexibility of assistive technology with alternative versions of web sites becoming the norm, and completely
agreed that user generated content was always likely to offer poor accessibility. Respondents with visual
impairments completely agreed with the statement about the flexibility of assistive technology. However,
they completely disagreed that alternative accessible versions of web sites will become the norm, and
somewhat agreed with the likelihood that user-generated content would always offer poor accessibility. From
this we can see recognition of the challenge of user-generated content in terms of accessibility, but also the
recognition that web accessibility guidelines alone are not providing accessibility. Visually impaired
respondents reflected their “overall” usability and wider stakeholder participation concerns by indicating that
“alternative” sites and services are not acceptable (Horton, 2005).
Comments about accessibility of current web sites included:
• “As a person, who is totally blind, I cannot, at this time, sign myself on a My Space, Plaxo or
LinkedIn account independently because I get stuck in all of the boxes. So I have to have someone
help me, which is very disheartening since I need to be a part of these networking sites for my
profession. I’m feeling that, in my career, I am not able to keep up with my colleagues, which is a
little scary.
• “So-called accessible versions of websites have been disastrous up to now, and are less of an answer
than properly structured web sites. Tesco in the UK came adrift with this one. The ‘accessible’ site
was never kept up to date, didn’t have special offers, and anyway formed a kind of ‘ghetto’ for
disabled people. Special provision for disabled people could cause resentment from other users and
those who have to build the services on the sites, not to mention the disabled people themselves.”
• “When major players such as Yahoo and MySpace won’t even reply to e-mail about their
inaccessible Captcha systems, there is still quite a long way to go in breaking down barriers. On the
other hand, Google, Twitter and others have been amenable to changing their systems. Technically,
however, audio Captcha are going to be easy to crack with speech recognition, so seems the future is
uncertain here.”
The technical issues identified by the users were:
• “Need a way of making screen readers tell us how we can use all the new types of link and control
building into coding so they can speak them like tutor messages, and need screen readers to
automatically read new text on existing pages.”
• “I’ve heard of WYSIWYG web development tools which prompt for ALT tags... but we all know
most people just ignore those!”

7. • “The increasing prevalence of AJAX poses a great problem to the goal of a more accessible
Internet. It is important that the tools used to generate web content incorporate accessibility by
default. These days anybody in the world can create a website. We can’t expect everybody to have
an understanding of the requirements needed to create accessible content. Therefore, it must be
made as easy as possible by building it into the tools used.”
5. CONCLUSION
The survey results and comments support the wide recognition of the importance of the collaborative and
participative features of Web 2.0 sites and services. In their use of the Web 2.0 technology, respondents with
visual impairments showed similar patterns to sighted respondents in their looking up of information, reading
blogs and comments, feedback and ratings on sites like Amazon and eBay. However, there is a marked
difference in usage when it comes to using social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace LinkedIn and
Bebo, which have come to define the very collaborative and participative nature of Web 2.0 and are very
widely used (Schonfeld 2008). These findings have serious implications for social inclusion. Visually
impaired respondents recognized the learning, social, lobbying and employment potential of such sites, but in
using such sites they are presented with some very serious accessibility challenges. As a result the
respondents mentioned being “disheartened”, “unable to keep up with colleagues” and “banished” from these
sites.
When questioned on the challenges presented to using the sites and services mentioned in the survey, it is
shown that accessibility is by far the greatest challenge to the visually impaired user. The top five
accessibility challenges alone identified by respondents are all synonymous with the technology used to
provide Web 2.0’s rich user experience.
Although there are other issues of concern to all; issues like privacy, content trust worthiness and issues
like age, occupation, and social circle are similar between visually impaired and sighted users, it is clear that
social networking sites are to a large extent inaccessible and therefore the visually impaired user must be
considered as being socially excluded. This is contrary to not only well-known accessibility guidelines such
as the WCAG but also the claims of Web 2.0 thought leaders, and the aspirations of the EU and other public
policy bodies. This exclusion has serious implications on a community and individual level, as visually
impaired users can be excluded from social interactions, and also political processes and economic
opportunity.
What is of major concern about these findings is that none of the top ten accessibility challenges
identified is an unknown quantity from the accessibility guidelines and usability viewpoint. Even the more
“recent” accessibility issues relating to key Web 2.0 technologies such as AJAX are currently being
addressed through WAI-ARIA (Worldwide Web Consortium, 2008) or other guidelines (Gibson, 2006).
What is lacking is the willingness to apply these guidelines. Given that the more straightforward issues like
tables, images or links were not addressed in our research it is hard to see how more complex, newer, ones
will be.
This is an area of great potential for further research, using more extensive survey techniques, larger
respondent pools, and exploring impacts of factors such as other disabilities (age, for example) and other
reasons for uptake of technology by respondents.
If lessons are not heeded by policy-makers and technology innovators, the likelihood for dealing with
accessibility challenges in other important and emerging, and sometimes Web 2.0 related computing
platforms such as mobile (Hartley, 2008), (Abrahams, 2008) is not very promising, thus increasing social
exclusion further.
REFERENCES
AbilityNet. 2008, 19 August 2008, State of the eNation Reports: Social networking sites lock out disabled users. Online,
Available from: http://www.abilitynet.org.uk/enation85 (accessed 19th
February 2009)
Abrahams, P. 2008. Why not make the iPhone more Accessible? Available from: http://www.it-
analysis.com/business/change/content.php?cid=10678 (accessed 19th Feb 2009)

8. Burnett R. 2006, Disability Discrimination and Internet Accessibility, Accountancy Books: UK, ISBN: 9781841524122
Creative Commons, 2008. Metrics. Available from: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Metrics (accessed 18th
February
2009)
Ellison B, Steinfield C, and Lampe, C., 2007. The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’
Use of Online Social Networking Sites in Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Vol 12, 2007, pp 1143-
1168.
European Commission, 2002, Delivering eAccessibility: Improving disabled people’s access to the Knowledge Based
Society. Available from: http://www.epractice.eu/document/4074 (accessed 19th
February 2009)
European Commission, 2005, i2010 - A European Information Society for growth and employment, Online, Available
from: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/index_en.htm, (accessed 18th
February 2009)
European Telecommuications Standards Institute (ETSI), 2003, Human Factors (HF); Mutlimodal interaction,
communication, and navigation guidelines, ETSI Guide 202 191 v1.1.1 (2003-08)
Gibson B. 2006. JavaScript and AJAX Accessibility. Available from: http:// www-
03.ibm.com/able/dwnlds/AJAX_Accessibility.pdf (accessed 18th
February 2009)
Hartley S, 2008, Global Mobile Market Outlook: 2008-2013. Available from: http://www.ovum.com/go/content/s,75685,
(accessed 19th February 2009)
Henry, L S. 2007, Just Ask: Integrating Accessibility Throughout Design, Madison, WI: ETLawton, 2007. ISBN 978-
1430319528 www.uiAccess.com/JustAsk/ (accessed 19th
February 2009)
Horton S. 2005, Access by Design: A Guide to Universal Usability for Web Designers. New Riders Press: UK
Kelly B, Sloan D, Brown S, Seale J, Petrie H, Lauke P, Ball S. 2007. Accessibility, Policies and Process, Technical
paper, 16th
International Worldwide Web Conference
Lessig, L. 2005. Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. New York: USA.
Madden M and Fox S. 2006 Pew Internet Project. Riding the Waves of “Web 2.0”: More than a Buzzword but still not
easily defined. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/189/report_display.asp (accessed 19th
February
2009)
McKinsey Quarterly, 2007, How Businesses are using Web 2.0: A McKinsey Global Survey. Available from:
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/information_technology/management/how_businesses_are_using_web_20_a_mc
kinsey_global_survey_1913 March 2007 (accessed 19th
February 2009)
Nielsen, J. 2006a, Digital Divide: The Three Stages. Available from: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/digital-divide.html
(accessed 19th
Feb 2009)
Nielsen J. 2006b, Participation Inequality: Encouraging More Users to Contribute. Available from:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html (accessed 19th
February 2009)
O’Reilly T. 2005. What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Available
from: http://www.oreillynet.com/ (accessed 19th
February 2009)
OECD, 2007, Participative Web and User-Created Content: Web 2.0, Wikis, and Social Networking, OECD: Paris.
Raman T V, “Toward 2w
, Beyond Web 2.0”, Communications of the ACM, February 2009, vol. 52, no. 2
Schonfeld, E. 2008. Facebook Blows Past MySpace in Global Visitors for May. June 20, 2008. Available from:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/20/facebook-blows-past-myspace-in-globalvisitors-for-may/ (accessed 19th
February 2009)
Thatcher J, Burks M R, Henry S L, Kirkpatrick A, Lauke P, Lawson B, Regan B, Rutter R, Urban M, Waddell C. 2006.
Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance, Friendof, New York, ISBN: 1590596382
Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis G, and Davis D. 2003 User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view.
MIS Quarterly, 2003, Volume 27 Issue 3.
Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C). 1999. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Available from:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#priorities (accessed 19th
February 2009)
Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C). 2008. WAI-ARIA Primer: W3C Working Draft 4 February 2008.
Zajicek M. 2007, Web 2.0 Hype or Happiness, Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary conference on
Web accessibility (W4A), Available online from: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1243441.1243453 (accessed
19th
February 2009)