Quality Evaluations and Accessibility

600 views

Published on

Quality Evaluations and Accessibility of Norwegian Public Web Sites 2006. Presentation at the T4P Conference in Kristiansand 26.06.2007

Published in: Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
600
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
41
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
27
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Quality Evaluations and Accessibility

  1. 1. Quality Evaluations and Accessibility of Public Web Sites Svein Ølnes Vestlandsforsking 26.06.2007
  2. 2. Content • Background • Method • Indicators • Results 2006 • Future development
  3. 3. Background • Evaluations started in 2001 • Norge.no responsible from 2004 • Annual evaluation of all public web sites in Norway • 2006: 691 web sites evaluated • 2007: In addition to public sector web sites, also some private web portals will be evaluated
  4. 4. Method • Expert evaluation • Ca. 1 hour per. site • Trained evaluators to reduce variations • Indicators formulated from standards, best practice and eGovernment objectives
  5. 5. Quality 2006 • Three main areas: – Accessibility (10 indicators – max 21 points) • derived from WCAG priority 1 guidelines (“must”) • possible to transform into measurable indicators – User orientation (16 indicators – max 38 pts) – Usable services (9 indicators – max 28 pts) • Relative weight – Accessibility: 24 % – User orientation: 44 % – Usable services: 32 % • Accessibility is important but must be seen in connection with other requirements – you can have perfect accessibility on a perfectly useless web site
  6. 6. Accessibility is part of the picture Peter Morville’s User Experience Honeycomb
  7. 7. 2006 Results Number of % av Indicator Alternative sites total 1.1 ALT-text No 240 34,8 % Problem 1.1 Partly 251 36,4 % 1.1 Yes 199 28,8 % 1.2 Accessible also without colours? No 103 14,9 % 1.2 Yes 587 85,1 % 1.3 Functionable without CSS instructions? No 68 9,9 % 1.3 Yes 622 90,1 % 1.4 Free from blinking elements etc. No 3 0,4 % 1.4 Yes 687 99,6 % 1.5 Are data tables marked up correctly? No 408 59,1 % Problem 1.5 Partly 166 24,1 % No data 1.5 table 58 8,4 % 1.5 Yes 58 8,4 %
  8. 8. 1.6 Meaningful titles on frames, if frames? No 166 24,1 % Results 1.6 No frames 511 74,1 % 1.6 Yes 13 1,9 % 1.7 Functionable without scripts and plug-ins? No 98 14,2 % 1.7 Partly 118 17,1 % 1.7 Yes 474 68,7 % 1.8 Contrast between foreground and background colours Poor 90 13,0 % 1.8 Good 600 87,0 % 1.9 Is there a way to jump directly to content? No 586 84,9 % Problem 1.9 Yes 104 15,1 % 1.10 When using frames, is provider clearly marked and No 64 9,3 % 1.10 is the complete frameset loaded? No frames 564 81,7 % 1.10 Yes 62 9,0 % 2006 Total number of evaluated web sites 690
  9. 9. Quality 2006 - results • Accessibility: 75 % of max points • User orientation: 63 % of max points • Usable services: 54 % of max points • Accessibility problems: – Alternative text (ALT text) to graphic elements – Use of data table – Link to content
  10. 10. Quality evaluation – lessons learned • The proof of the pudding is in the eating -> – the proof of the indicators is in the testing • The difficult part is to transform guidelines into operable indicators – difficult to reduce the subjective factor and thus secure minimal variations between evaluators • What do we measure? – do we measure what is important for the users?
  11. 11. Possible future of quality evaluations • Combination of – expert testing – automatic testing • User tests for evaluation of the test framework itself
  12. 12. Thank you! Contact information Svein Ølnes email: svein.olnes@vestforsk.no Web: www.vestforsk.no

×