A Review on the Portuguese Enterprises Web Accessibility ... › download › pdf ›...

Procedia Computer Science 27 ( 2014 ) 176 – 185

1877-0509 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Programme Committee of the 5th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion (DSAI 2013).doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2014.02.021

ScienceDirectAvailable online at www.sciencedirect.com

5th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion, DSAI 2013

A Review on the Portuguese Enterprises Web Accessibility Levels – A website accessibility high level improvement proposal

Ramiro Gonçalvesa,b,*, José Martinsa, Frederico Brancoa aUniversity of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal

bINESC TEC (coordinated by INESC Porto), Porto, Portugal

Abstract

Click here and insert your abstract text. The Web accessibility issue has been subject of study for a wide number of organizations all around the World. The current paper describes an accessibility evaluation that aimed to test the Portuguese enterprises websites. Has the presented results state, the evaluated websites accessibility levels are significantly bad, but the majority of the detected errors are not very complex from a technological point-of-view. With this is mind, our research team, in collaboration with a Portuguese enterprise named ANO and the support of its UTAD-ANOgov/PEPPOL research project, elaborated an improvement proposal, directed to the Web content developers, which aimed on helping these specialists to better understand and implement Web accessibility features. © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Programme Committee of the 5th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion (DSAI 2013).

Keywords: Web accessibility, Portugal, Enterprises, Evaluation, Improvement Proposal.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +351-259350331;

E-mail address: [email protected]

© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Programme Committee of the 5th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion (DSAI 2013).

Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

177 Ramiro Gonçalves et al. / Procedia Computer Science 27 ( 2014 ) 176 – 185

1. Introduction

In a Time where the ability to access Information is considered a key issue and the Internet is one of the most used tools of accessing it, we should consider the relevance of developing websites that are accessible to all 1-4.

The ability of a given person, with a disability or incapacity, to access a product or service or to execute a task in an equal manner as one without any impairment is, according to 5, 6, the clear and simple definition for the accessibility concept. By transposing the accessibility concept to the Web environment, it is possible to acknowledge that Web accessibility is the existence of Web interfaces and platforms that can be used and perceived by all users, in an equal manner.

By taking in consideration the considerable relevance of the Web accessibility topic, our research group assumed that it was extremely important to hold the knowledge on the Portuguese enterprises websites accessibility levels, in order to, not only fully understand the phenomenon, but also to achieve solutions to the existent Web accessibility problems. With this in mind, an accessibility evaluation to the websites belonging to the 1000 biggest enterprises with operation in Portugal 7 against W3C WCAG2.0 was made and the results of this evaluation were analyzed, discussed and used for achieving new inferences.

When considering the achieved results, it was possible to perceive that, from a disable or incapacitated person point of view, it is quite difficult to access the evaluated enterprises websites, thus precluding taking advantage of the products or services those enterprises have to offer. Despite the economic factor behind the presented results and facts, it is our opinion that the social and ethical factors should also be reviewed.

One of the mechanisms available to integrate people with a disability or incapacity in any society is the use of ICT in various activities relating to day-to-day 8. Using these same technologies is advocated by the Nobel Peace Prize Ban Ki-Moon, and a new pacifying dimension is added to the global ICT context 9.

The present paper is organized in six sections, being section 1 the introduction to the paper and section 2 and 3 those where the main theoretical concepts are presented. In section 4 the Web accessibility evaluation that was carried out is characterized and the achieved results are presented. Section 5 contains an improvement proposal for the accessibility errors that were most recurrent in the evaluated websites. Some final considerations are presented in section 6.

2. A Web Made For Everyone

In this section we intend to present, not only a contextual background to the Web accessibility topic, but also a refreshing and clear perspectives on the current concerns and visions regarding the referred topic.

2.1. Theoretical Background and Initial Perspectives

When analyzing the ICT and the positive aspects that they bring to the table, it is almost demanding to assume that these technologies are essential to the citizen’s wellbeing and quality of life. This positive impact has been widely accepted both the political/social and scientific worlds 10, 11. In times were the Information and Communication Technologies are being used in a never seen scale in our societies, one can perceive the compelling need for these same technologies to become accessible to all 12-14.

Despite the fact that the term accessibility is normally associated with a physical characteristic of objects or buildings, by transposing the term "accessibility" to the ICT, it is possible to state that the term accessibility concerns the creation of usable and perceivable interfaces that can be easily used by people who have special characteristics, such as physical or cognitive disabilities, functional limitations or other problems 15, 16.

Considering the previously mentioned, one can assume that the term defined by the existence of Web interfaces that present themselves usable and perceivable in the same way by both users without disabilities as well as users with some kind of disability, is in fact “Web accessibility” 5, 16.


In an Information craving society such as the European, the Web has been presenting an innovative set of ways to access information and to create opportunities for disabled and impaired citizens to actively participate in their society. The W3C Consortium, widely known and respected in our field of research, claims that despite the simple definition, the Web accessibility issue is extremely complex, mainly because it is directly related to a set of factors in which are included the Web content developers skills, the availability of tools that allow evaluation Web content against existent regulations and recommendations, the capabilities of the existent software solutions in providing tools to develop accessible Web content, and so many others 16-19.

By considering the presented arguments, our research group takes as a clear truth that Web accessibility should be given the rightly needed attention and importance. An accessible Web, available to all citizens in an equal manner, can help the development and the evolution of both societies and economies 20, 21.

2.2. Web Accessibility Regulatory Framework

Since late 1990’s many have been the international organizations focusing their attention and work on the Web accessibility problematic 22. These efforts have resulted in several different outcomes, being one of the most relevant the regulations and recommendations that have been published and that have been allowing for a proper Web content development, evaluation and classified.

Despite the widely worthy work made by the most diverse national and international organizations, the one whose goals and results have been most significant is the W3C Consortium. Since 1999 this consortium has published several regulations and recommendations towards fixing the existent Web accessibility issues, from which one can highlight the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines – WCAG.

“…These guidelines explain how to make Web content accessible to people with disabilities. The guidelines are intended for all Web content developers (page authors and site designers) and for developers of authoring tools. The primary goal of these guidelines is to promote accessibility. However, following them will also make Web content more available to all users, whatever user agent they are using (e.g., desktop browser, voice browser, mobile phone, automobile-based personal computer, etc.) or constraints they may be operating under (e.g., noisy surroundings, under- or over-illuminated rooms, in a hands-free environment, etc.). Following these guidelines will also help people find information on the Web more quickly. These guidelines do not discourage content developers from using images, video, etc., but rather explain how to make multimedia content more accessible to a wide audience…” (Direct quote from 23).

Has it was previously mentioned, in 1999 W3C published the first version of WCAG guidelines that became known has simply WCAG1.0. As time gone by, and both technologies and societies evolved, W3C through its Web Accessibility Initiative – WAI kept working on the accessibility guidelines in order to made them more up-to-date and contemplative of the new existent technologies. This modernization work resulted in the publication of a second version of the WCAG guidelines, that was named WCAG 2.0 16. In accordance with other relevant published works (namely by the ISO organization), in WCAG 2.0, The WAI Initiative also used the concept of principals as a functional concept 16, 24, 25: • Be Perceivable – Information and user interface components must be presentable to users in ways that they can

perceive. This means that users must be able to perceive the information being presented (it can't be invisible to all of their senses);

• Be Operable – User interface components and navigation must be operable. This means that users must be able to operate the interface (the interface cannot require interaction that a user cannot perform);

• Be Understandable – Information and the operation of user interfaces must be understandable. This means that users must be able to understand the information as well as the operation of the user interface;

• Be Robust – Content must be robust enough so that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies. According to W3C WCAG 2.0, in order for a given Website to be accessible it has to satisfy a set of WCAG 2.0

Success Criteria. The Success Criteria are a written testable checkpoints (mainly technical and organized by


priority levels), that if satisfied can assure that a Website is accessible (has a given conformance level). The tests inherent to WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria involve a combination of both automated and human evaluation. The conformance levels can be understood has the level of accessibility that a given Website presents. If a website implemented all priority level 1 accessibility checkpoints then it would have the conformance level A. If a given website presented all the priority level 1 and 2 accessibility checkpoints covered then it would have the conformance level AA. By implementing all the priority levels 1, 2 and 3 accessibility checkpoints, a website would have the conformance level AAA 16, 17.

Several have been the efforts towards improving the accessibility levels of the existent websites, whether from a more guidance point of view or from a more practical point of view 26-31. Even though the Web accessibility issue is a global problem that needs attention from all the countries, some have been more pro-active than others. In Portugal, for instance, the incorporation of Web content accessibility standards in the active legislation was made in an early stage (late 1990’s through a resolution from the ministers council 32). Regardless of this early incorporation, the Portuguese websites still present several critical accessibility faults and the majority of the Portuguese Web content creators present a clear and evident lack of knowledge on the subject. Thus, resulting in several access barriers to the almost 10% Portuguese citizens with some sort of disability or incapacity 33. In order to further analyze the Portuguese situation one should simply consider the studies regarding Web content accessibility in Portugal that have been published21, 34-41.

3. Web Accessibility Evaluation

When creating websites and online platforms with the development main focus on the visual aspect rather than the ability to be accessed by all users, including those with some sort of disability or incapacity, the Web content creators are going against the term Web accessibility basic conceptualization 5.

By perceiving this increasing reality, one can assume the existent need for efforts towards evaluating the referred Web content, reporting the evaluations results to the Web content creators and finally impelling them to improve the accessibility levels of their creations by making them more acquaintance with the regulations and supply them with simple and clear solutions proposals.

3.1. Evaluation Procedures and Results

Drawing on the existent literature, the Web accessibility evaluation process can be considered a complex set of distinct activities, that when performed in the planned manner will accomplish valid and reliable results. With this in mind, for the evaluation process inherent to this paper, we defined the following activities: 1) Definition of the evaluation scope; 2) Target group definition and analysis; 3) Web accessibility evaluation tools analysis and definition; 4) Web accessibility evaluation; 5) Evaluation results analysis and discussion.

3.1.1. Evaluation Scope Definition According to W3C 17, in order for a Web accessibility evaluation process to be valid and dependable it is

necessary to properly define its scope. The evaluation scope definition encompasses the characterization of the regulatory/indicative guidelines that are going to be used as the standard and the procedures used to perform the evaluation.

For the purpose of this paper, and following the existent literature, the research team defined W3Cs WCAG 2.0 guidelines conformance level AAA as the standard to which the websites are going to be validated against 16. In parallel, it was defined that the evaluation procedure would be carried out in an automatic manner – using a software tool – and that the manual evaluation activities would not be considered as a consequence of time and budget limitations.


3.1.2. Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools Analysis and Definition The focus of a scientific work with the characteristics of the one presented by this paper should be, at the same

time, valid and representative of a given situation. By taking in consideration the existent work 4, where firms financial slack is considered reversely proportional to the Web accessibility, the research team decided to choose the list of the 1000 Portuguese enterprises with the biggest business volume, in order not only to characterize a significant part of the Portuguese enterprise spectrum but also to assume some considerations on the relation between the available financial slack and the Web accessibility levels of the referred enterprises websites.

3.1.3. Web Accessibility Evaluation Procedures and Results Analysis For the present project the Web accessibility evaluation process was divided in two fundamental stages: 1)

Target group analysis; 2) Website accessibility automatic evaluation. Given the project target group definition presented earlier, in order to perform the aimed website accessibility

evaluation it was necessary to firstly perceive, not only the target group website availability and its compatibility with the selected evaluation tool.

As shown in Figure 1, although several entities, of unquestionable importance, in recent years have been stating that it is essential for the success of all companies to maintain an online presence, almost 10% of the 1000 largest companies operating in Portugal, still lack a website. Another fact that it is possible to deduce from Figure 1 is that 46 of the 1000 evaluated companies (about 5% of total sample) have, at the time proceeded to the evaluation inherent to this study, their website offline or in maintenance, which in our view, is extremely worrying. Another relevant point to state is that 7% of the initial target group is totally made using the Macromedia Flash technology or is developed.

After reaching the list of enterprises with registered website, our research group used an automatic evaluation

process that included running the Sortsite tool for each website. The results from this evaluation – to the 790 enterprises websites (figure 2).

Fig. 2 - Web accessibility evaluation target group distribution.

Fig. 1 - Web accessibility evaluation target group distribution.


As the results presented in figure 2 reveal, the average number of Web accessibility errors is very significant.

Besides this, it is also possible to verify the existence of websites with over three thousand WCAG level A errors, thus proving the existence of websites that, in theory, are totally inaccessible to every user that has a deficiency or incapacity.

One of the most important findings of the Web accessibility evaluation project inherent to this paper is the fact that only 4 of the initial 1000 enterprises that composed the target group have a WCAG 2.0 level A conformance level and that none of the remaining enterprises have a website compliant with WCAG 2.0 Level AA or Level AAA.

Even though the appalling results achieved during our evaluation, they are inline with other previously published works. This issue has encouraged our research group to pursuit the reasons why the developers of Portuguese Web content are not implementing the so needed accessibility features. With this in mind, a deeper analysis to our evaluation results was made and an effort to identify the most common Web accessibility errors in the target group websites, as can be seen in figure 3, and with that in mind trying to present a simple and practical proposal for the development of accessible Web content.

Fig. 2 - Web accessibility evaluation errors results distribution.


The top 5 errors that are presented in figure 3 were chosen because they represent almost 50% of the detected

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 errors. Considering this, we have undergone an extensive study to the guidelines that were most infringed, and made a simple and clear summary that allowed a better understanding of the referred errors.

Table 1 - Top 5 Web accessibility errors with most records.

Error Code Error Description

WCAG2 A 2.1.1 All functionality of the content is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints.

WCAG2 A 1.1.1 All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose.

WCAG2 AAA 3.2.5 Changes of context are initiated only by user request or a mechanism is available to turn off such changes.

WCAG2 A 2.4.4 The purpose of each link can be determined from the link text alone or from the link text together with its programmatically determined link context, except where the purpose of the link would be ambiguous to users in general.

WCAG2 AAA 2.4.9 A mechanism is available to allow the purpose of each link to be identified from link text alone, except where the purpose of the link would be ambiguous to users in general.

Fig. 3 - WCAG 2.0 guidelines that presented more infractions.


3.2. Portuguese Websites accessibility high level improvement proposal

As it is possible to perceive by analyzing table 1, the improvement of the Portuguese websites may be a not so complex task given the relative simplicity of the most common errors.

Given the broad scope behind this paper, and in order to better refine and analyze the achieved results, we decided to discuss them with a Portuguese enterprise named ANO (whose main product is a public procurement platform – the ANOgov platform) that through its research project in the fields of Web accessibility and usability (named UTAD-ANOgov/PEPPOL and implemented in partnership with the University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro) have been researching and developing mechanisms and practices for improving the accessibility and usability levels of their Web platform. From these interactions a set of points relative to the improvement of the Portuguese Web accessibility and usability were accomplished.

In this section we present the referred set of points that, in our opinion, are simple and direct enough to, at the same time, provide the concepts and the methods necessary to develop accessible websites, thus improving the Web accessibility levels in Portugal:

• When developing Web content, the developers must have in consideration that some users may have to use the

keyboard as the only mechanism to interact with the referred content. This said, the developers should correctly use HTML form controls and links, should incorporate event handlers that are triggered by keyboard actions (if necessary through the use of scripting), should provide keyboard access to all FLASH objects, and should also ensure correct tabbing and reading order.

• When creating controls or inputs a Web developer has to provide a valid and contextual name for each one of them. When referring to media content, the Web developer should provide a textual alternative (through the use of the correct syntax element). When creating content that would be invalid if presented in text, the Web developers should create textual alternatives for this same content. If a Web developer uses non-text content as a decoration tool, than this implementation must be done according to the international standards in a way that it can be ignored by assistive technology.

• In order to assure that changes in context are only user-triggered, the Web content developer must follow the following requisites: ○ Provide request mechanism that manage the content update (instead of implementing automatic updates); ○ When automatically redirecting the Web content navigation, these redirects must be done or in the server

side or by using meta-refresh to create an instant client-side redirect; ○ When the use of popup windows is necessary, the Web content developers should implement mechanisms

that ensure the opening of new windows only on user request; ○ If the “onchange” event (on a select element) is used, than this event should be implemented without causing

a change of context. • When using links, the Web content develops should always ensure that these elements have a link text that

describes the purpose of the link and that have a valid “title” definition.

4. Final Considerations

With the current project it was possible to perceive that, despite the vast and excellent works on the field of Web accessibility, the accessibility levels of the Portuguese enterprises websites is extremely low and concerning. It was also possible to see that from the 1000 biggest Portuguese enterprises there is a significant part that does not have a registered website and that from the ones that have a registered website, there is also an important part of them that have a website in a state of maintenance or offline. After analyzing the achieved results our research group decided to retrieve the most common Web accessibility errors within the evaluated websites in order to understand if there were some serious technical issues behind this problem.


When scrutinizing the referred most common errors identified and reviewing the existent scientific bibliography, our research group created an improvement proposal with some technical points that, in our opinion, will help Web content developers to better understand the technical demands behind the implementation of Web accessibility features.

Acknowledgments

This paper was supported by the project anoGov peppol, Nº 21.578, financed by the European Regional Development Fund, through the North Operational Programme by the Systems of Incentives for Research and Technological Development, with an eligible investment of 714.785,37€. We would like to thank the EU – European Union, to ERDF – European Regional Development Fund, to QREN – Quadro de Referência Estratégica Nacional Portugal 2007-2013 and to PO NORTE – Plano Operacional Regional do Norte.

References

1. Al-Khalifa, H., The accessibility of Saudi Arabia government Web sites: an exploratory study. Universal Access in the Information Society 2012, 11 (2), 201-210.

2. Gonçalves, R.; Oliveira, M. A.-Y., Interacting with technology in an ever more complex World: Designing for an all-inclusive society. In Strategies and technologies for a sustainable future, Wagner, C. G., Ed. World Future Society: 2010; pp 257-268.

3. May, S.; Zhu, Q., A web accessibility assessment on the Texas public school system. Universal Access in the Information Society 2010, 9 (1), 87-96.

4. Gonçalves, R.; Martins, J.; Pereira, J.; Oliveira, M. A.-Y.; Pinto Ferreira, J. J., Accessibility levels of Portuguese enterprise websites: equal opportunities for all? Behaviour & Information Technology 2011, 31 (7), 659-677.

5. Bradbard, D.; Peters, C., Web accessibility theory and practice: An introduction for university faculty. The Journal of Educators Online 2010, 7 (1), 1-46.

6. Slatin, J.; Rush, S., Maximum Accessibility: Making your web site more usable for everyone. Addison-Wesley Professional: 2002; p 640. 7. InformaDB, Lista das 1000 maiores empresas em volume de negócio de Portugal. DB, I., Ed. 2011. 8. EU Objective ICT-2009.7.2. Accessible and Assistive ICT. http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/programme/challenge7-accessible_en.html

(accessed 27th February 2012). 9. Ki-Moon, B. Opening Remarks of the Meeting of the Steering Committee of the Global Alliance for Information and Communication

Technologies and Development 2007. 10. EU Challenges for the European information society beyond 2005.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/information_society/strategies/l24262_en.htm (accessed 5th June 2012). 11. Mansell, R.; all., e., The challenges of ICTs. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2007; pp 1-33. 12. W3C Social Factors in Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization. http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/soc.html

(accessed 20th February 2012). 13. Thatcher, J.; all, e., Web accessibility web standards and regulatory compliance. Friends of ED: Berkeley, California, 2006; p 648. 14. Yuan, B.; Folmer, E.; Frederick C. Harris, Jr., Game accessibility: a survey. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2011, 10 (1), 81-100. 15. Cavender, A. C.; Bigham, J. P., Toward web accessibility for older users. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2011, 10 (4), 357-358. 16. W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20 (accessed 29th February 2012). 17. W3C Conformance Evaluation of Web Sites for Accessibility. http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/conformance.html (accessed 15th January

2012). 18. W3C Why Standards Harmonization is Essential to Web Accessibility. http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/harmon.html (accessed 27th

February 2012). 19. W3C Web Accessibility Initiative. http://www.w3.org/WAI/ (accessed 2013/02/03). 20. Easton, C., The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0: An Analysis of Industry Self-regulation. International Journal of Law and

Information Technology 2011, 19 (1), 74-93. 21. Gonçalves, R.; Martins, J.; Pereira, J.; Oliveira, M. A.-Y.; Pinto Ferreira, J. J., Accessibility levels of Portuguese enterprise websites: equal

opportunities for all? Behaviour & Information Technology 2011. 22. Becker, A.; Chen, H.; Brandt, L.; Gregg, V.; Traunmüller, R.; Dawes, S.; Hovy, E.; Macintosh, A.; Larson, C. A., Accessibility of Federal

Electronic Government - Digital Government. Springer US: 2008; Vol. 17, pp 141-155. 23. W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ (accessed 27th April 2013). 24. ISO, ISO 9241-110 – Ergonomics of human system interaction – Part 110 – Dialogue principles. ISO, Ed. 2006. 25. Sharp, H.; Rogers, Y.; Preece, J., Interaction Design: Beyonf Human-Computer Interaction. 2nd Edition ed.; Wiley: 2007; p 800. 26. Lazar, J.; Dudley-Sponaugle, A.; Greenidge, K.-D., Improving web accessibility: a study of webmaster perceptions. Computers in Human

Behaviour 2004, 20, 269-288. 27. Gonçalves, R.; Martins, J.; Pereira, J.; Au-Yong, M. O.; Ferreira, J. J., Enterprise Web Accessibility Levels Amongst the Forbes 250: Where

Art Thou O Virtuous Leader? Journal of Business Ethics 2012.


28. ISO, ISO TS 16071 - Ergonomics of human system interaction — Guidance on accessibility for human-computer interfaces. ISO, Ed. 2002.

29. ISO, ISO 9241-171 - Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Guidance on software accessibility. ISO, Ed. 2008. 30. TBCS Guidance on Implementing the Standard on Web Accessibility. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ws-nw/wa-aw/wa-aw-guid-eng.asp

(accessed 22/05/2013). 31. W3C Planning and Implementing Web Accessibility. http://www.w3.org/WAI/managing.html (accessed 10/04/2013). 32. Gama, J., RCM 96/99 - National Initiative for Citizens with Special Needs in the Information Society. Government, P., Ed. 1999; Vol. DR

Nº199, Serie B, 26/08/1999, pp 5822-5823. 33. INE Censos 2011. http://censos.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=CENSOS&xpgid=censos2011_apresentacao (accessed 24th January 2012). 34. Gonçalves, R.; Martins, J.; Pereira, J.; Santos, V.; Mamede, H. Relatório sobre acessibilidade web - Ponto de situação das maiores

empresas portuguesas; APDSI: Portuguese Communications Foundation - Lisbon, Portugal, 2009. 35. Gonçalves, R.; Martins, J.; Pereira, J.; Santos, V.; Mamede, H. Acessibilidade Web - Ponto de situação das maiores empresas portuguesas;

APDSI: SIBS Auditorium - Lisbon, Portugal, 2011. 36. Gonçalves, R.; Martins, J., Acessibilidade Web no Sector da Banca em Portugal. DICT 2011, 2 (3), 91-97. 37. Gonçalves, R.; Martins, J.; Pereira, J.; Santos, V.; Mamede, H. Acessibilidade Web - Ponto de Situação em Portugal; APDSI: Oporto,

Portugal, 2012. 38. Pereira, J. Avaliação da Acessibilidade Web das Plataformas Electrónicas de Contratação Pública em Portugal. Universidade de Trás-os-

Montes e Alto Douro, 2010. 39. Gonçalves, R.; Fernandes, A.; Martins, J.; Pereira, J., Portuguese Web Accessibility Indicators. In 12th IBIMA Conference on Creating

Global Economies Through Innovation and Knowledge Management, Kuala Lumpur, 2009. 40. Gonçalves, R.; Martins, J.; Pereira, J.; Mamede, H.; Martins, M. In Portuguese Web Accessibility Snapshot - Status of the Portuguese

Websites Regarding Accessibility Levels, ICEIS 2010 - 12th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Funchal, Madeira, Funchal, Madeira, 2010; pp 223-226.

41. Martins, J.; Gonçalves, R.; Mamede, H.; Pereira, J.; Martins, M., Web Accessibility 2.0 - Web accessibility status of the Banks with activities in Portugal. In DSAI 2010, Oxford, Reino Unido, 2010.

A Review on the Portuguese Enterprises Web Accessibility ... › download › pdf ›...

Documents

Transcript of A Review on the Portuguese Enterprises Web Accessibility ... › download › pdf ›...