You are here:

The Effects of Implementing Web Accessibility Standards on the Success of Secondary Adolescents
Article

, , Arizona State University, United States ; , Utah State University, United States

Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Volume 17, Number 3, ISSN 1055-8896 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Web accessibility has become a paramount concern in providing equal access to audiences of all abilities. Unless web accessibility is supported and employed, the internet does not deliver worldwide access as it was intended. This study engaged 60 students in a secondary school setting in order to identify the navigational effectiveness and response accuracy of web sites constructed to adhere to federal guidelines relating to web accessibility. The goal of the study was to determine the effects of following or not following these guidelines in the creation of instructional, web-based learning modules for adolescents. Two separate informative web sites were created for adolescents with and without disabilities; one accessible and one non-accessible. The purpose was to evaluate the accuracy of response and time for each participant. Results of the study showed that all students who used the accessible web site scored higher on accuracy of response than those who used the non-accessible site. The results of this study indicate that web sites created using universal design guidelines that adhere to federal recommendations for web accessibility may assist all types of students in improving the accuracy of response when using information from a web site.

Citation

Opitz Savi, C., Savenye, W. & Rowland, C. (2008). The Effects of Implementing Web Accessibility Standards on the Success of Secondary Adolescents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(3), 387-411. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 15, 2024 from .

© 2008 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal of Documentation, 57(2), 218-259.
  2. Bennett, F. (2002). The future of computer technology in K-12 education. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 621-626.
  3. Burgstahler, S. (2002). Universal design of distance learning. Information Technology and Disabilities, 8(1). Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv08n1/burgstahler.htm
  4. Campbell, N. (2001). Usability assessment of library-related web sites: Methods and case studies. Chicago: American Library Association.
  5. Carney, R., & Levin, J. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5-26.
  6. Casey, C.A. (1999, March). Accessibility in the virtual library: Creating equal opportunity web sites. Information Technology and Libraries (pp. 22-24).
  7. Cook, R. A., & Gladhart, M. A. (2002). A survey of online instructional issues and strategies for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Information Technology and Disabilities, 8(1). Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv08n1/gladhart.htm
  8. Defur, S. (2002). Education reform, high-stakes assessment, and students with disabilities: One state’s approach. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 203-211.
  9. Eisenman, L., Hill, D., Bailey, R., & Dickison, C. (2003). The beauty of teacher collaboration to integrate curricula: Professional development and student learning opportunities. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 28(1). Retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JVER/v28n1/eisenman.html
  10. Flowers, C. P., Bray, M., & Algozzine, R.F. (1999). Accessibility of special education program home pages. Journal of Special Education Technology, 14, 21-26.
  11. Foley, A., & Regan, B. (2002). Web design for accessibility: Policies and practice. Education and Information Technology Library, 10(1), 62-80.
  12. Frick, T., Monson, J., Xaver, R., Kilic, G., Conley, A., & Wamey, B. (1999, February). Navigational structure on the world wide web: Usability concerns,
  13. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Williams, J., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. American Educational Research Association, 71, 279-320.
  15. Hall, S., & Moats, L. (2000).Why reading to children is important. American Educator, 24, 26–33.
  16. Harrison, S. (2003). Creating a successful learning environment for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: Policy and practice. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 33, 131-145.
  17. Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smaldino, S. (1999). Instructional media and technologies for learning (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  18. Henley, M., Ramsey, R.S., & Algozzine, R.F. (1999). Characteristics and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  20. Kana, R., Keller, T., Cherkassky, N., Minshew, N. & Just, M. (2006). Sentence comprehension in autism: Thinking in pictures with decreased functional connectivity. Brain, 129(9), 2484-2493.
  21. Kruger, L. (2001). Computers in the delivery of special education and related services: Developing collaborative and individualized learning environments. New York: The Hayworth Press.
  22. Lynx (2002). Lynx [Computer software]. By delorie software. Retrieved August 29, 2007, from http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html
  23. Mayer, R. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  25. McCray, A.D., Vaughn, S., & Neal, L. (2001). Not all students learn to read by third grade: Middle school students speak out about their disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 35, 17-30.
  26. Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.
  27. Opitz, C., Savenye, W., & Rowland, C. (2003). Accessibility of State Department of Education home pages and special education pages. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(1), 17-27.
  28. Palmer, J. (2002). Web site usability, design, and performance metrics. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 151–167.
  29. Robyler, M.D., & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
  31. Schmetzke, A. (2001). Web accessibility at university libraries and library schools. Library Hi Tech, 19(1), 35-49.
  32. Schmezke, A. (2000). Web page accessibility on University of Wisconsin campus: 2000 survey data. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/Accessible/UW-campuses/Survey2000/contents2000.htm
  33. Shinew, D., & Walter, S. (2003). Information literacy instruction for educators: Professional knowledge for an information age. New York: The Hayworth Press.
  34. Spool, J.M., Scanlon, T., Schroeder, W., Snyder, C., & DeAngelo, T. (1999). Web site usability: A designer’s guide. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
  35. Stokes, S. (2002). Visual literacy in teaching and learning: A literature perspective. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 1(1). Retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume1No1/Stokes.html
  36. United Nations. (1998). Implementation of the world programme of action concerning disabled persons. Retrieved June 7, 2007, from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disa54e0.htm
  38. Vanderheiden, G.C., & Chisholm, M. (1999). Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0. Trace R and D Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
  39. Vanderheiden, G.C., & Chisholm, M. (2000). HTML techniques for web content accessibility guidelines 1.0. Trace R and D Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WD-WCAG10-TECHS-20000615/html-techniques.html
  41. Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Guzmán, A. (2003). Who are secondary students in special education today? (NLTS2 Data Brief). Menlo Park, CA: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition in partnership with the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2.
  42. Walser, N. (2007). Response to intervention: A new approach to reading instruction aims to catch struggling readers early. Retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://www.edletter.org/current/response.shtml
  43. Wissick, C.A., & Gardner, J.E. (2000). Multimedia or not to multimedia? Teaching Exceptional Children, 32, 34-43.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections