As the decade progressed and web authoring tools became commonplace, most cities advanced to the point where they had at least a token web presence. While the sites were primitive when compared to commercial websites, local government saw the Internet as revolutionary. Suddenly there was this great tool that could be used to quickly disseminate all kinds of information to the community. Best of all, the medium was relatively cheap. There was incredible excitement about this new high tech, cost effective information delivery method.

Needless to say, accessibility was not a consideration in the early days of the web. As we discovered in our recent survey of municipal web accessibility, it’s not much of a consideration today, either, despite the pressing needs of each agency’s constituency. Of the 408 California cities we tested, 91% failed to achieve Section 508 compliance. The numbers were nearly as bad for the WCAG guidelines, with 89% of the sites failing to achieve WCAG’s Priority 1.

Our findings indicate that the vast majority of city websites are frozen in time — not only are they inaccessbile, but most are unsuable. The only change in the past nine years is that most cities appear to have forgotten why they embraced the web in the first place. The novelty of the Internet has worn off, and unbridled enthusiasm has been replaced by the day-to-day realities of posting city council agendas and annual financial statements. The result is that many cities put little effort into improving the quality of their websites.

This failure is a shame for a couple of reasons:

• For the disabled, including many senior citizens, the Internet is usually the most convenient way to interact with local government agencies. It’s generally safe to say that disabilities frequently result in mobility challenges. For disabled individuals, a trip to city hall might require as much planning as a trip to another country.
• The Internet remains a cost effective information delivery platform. In California (and around the country), municipalities struggle to do more with less. The web represents their best hope for continuing acceptable levels of customer service in the face of shrinking budgets. It is arguable that the failure of municipalities to effectively deliver accessible web content actually costs cities money — in both direct costs and indirect costs such as valuable staff time expended fulfilling routine information requests that could easily be routed through the city website.

In addition to accessibility-related problems, most municipal web sites exhibit significant usability problems. In fact, many of the sites we evaluated were challenging to use even before we factored disabilities into the mix. As we performed manual testing, we noted dozens of common usability issues ranging from poorly coded JavaScript menus to extensive use of uncompressed image files, which created unnecessarily long page load times.

Lack of consistent navigation was one of the most widespread problems. Time and again, we were dropped into a site with no roadmap forward or backward. As mentioned, city websites can impact direct and indirect costs, yet we suspect most constituents give up in frustration a few clicks into the website. We’ve noted nearly a dozen common usability issues that were present on nearly every site that was tested manually. If our experience is any indication, best practices are almost non-existent on municipal websites.

Testing Notes:

We limited our testing to municipalities in the state of California (primarily because that’s where we’re located). We tested 408 city websites in two phases. The first phase involved automated testing using the Bobby testing tool. Sites were tested for compliance with Section 508 and WCAG 1.0. Following the initial testing phase, a secondary manual testing phase was undertaken to confirm the Bobby results. Approximately 75 sites were tested manually, including all sites that passed the initial test. There were several instances where sites passed the automated test, but failed manual testing. In most cases, these sites had poorly coded splash pages that were unusable without images. When in doubt, we accessed sites using the text-based Lynx browser. Questionable sites that passed automated testing, but were unusable in Lynx, were failed.

I’ll be the first to admit that our results may be somewhat misleading. We only tested the home pages of the sites. In nearly all cases, further testing would lead to a higher rate of failure. In some respects, we tried to be generous in our testing. We’re of the belief that it’s better to encourage the few that are close to compliance than it is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that absolutely no sites are in compliance.

I should also note that Section 508 is a Federal standard. Municipalities are not bound to comply to Section 508 or WCAG. Frequently, however, we find that municipalities identify Section 508 compliance as a voluntary goal because of the important role their sites play in day-to-day operations. Unfortunately, many agencies seem unaware of the details of Section 508 compliance, or the fact that maintaining accessibility is an ongoing process, rather than a one-time effort. We hope our survey raises awareness of this important issue and look forward to hearing from municipalities who wish to be proactive in making their sites more accessible.

• Read the complete Alt Tags Municipal Accessibilty Survey Results

Our complete report details our findings and recommendations for municipalities wishing to improve the accessibility of their websites. We’re presenting our report in a PDF format and encouraging readers to pass this on to interested parties in hopes that we can raise awareness of this important issue.

• Alt Tags Municipal Web Accessibility Report

Wow. If you have to create a mirror site, it makes me ask just what, exactly, is going on with your site in the first place? The sheer amount of effort required to make a site so inaccessible that a second site is required boggles my mind. I can only imagine the effort and maintenance going into this endeavor.

Yet, many developers and their clients immediately assume a second site is the first and best option. After what I can only assume is a quick perusal of the guidelines, it is determined that two sites are better than one.

Not true. The guidelines are very clear on this point. From §1194.22(k) of the Section 508 guidelines:

“A text-only page, with equivalent information or functionality, shall be provided to make a web site comply with the provisions of this part, when compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way. The content of the text-only page shall be updated whenever the primary page changes.“

Note the language: equivalent information or functionality. No matter how you look at this, equivalent means equal, though the shape may change. This means images and forms and content must be maintained on two sites. Sure, it’s a little easier if you have a content management system, but even that’s not a guarantee of success. The bottom line here is duplicate effort is required. Two sets of identical data must be maintained by someone, somewhere, somehow. It’s pretty easy to see how this story will end. And the problems it will create.

Not to mention the questions raised by your so-called “accessible website.” Accessible for whom? How will assistive technology users find this site? What purpose does this site serve? Why are you expending all that effort? For what purpose?

If a site is well-developed the first time, there are few stumbling blocks to maintaining accessbility. The majority are coding issues that can be resolved with policies and procedures bolstered by training. In fact, the very skills required to keep the second site updated are required to keep your inaccessible site current. (because they are, when you get down to it, just following the standards). It’s the exact same HTML. So why are you expending all that effort?

Dual, or multi, use sites reduce effort for everyone involved. Content is entered once. Forms are updated once. Information remains consistent. The site remains accessible.

And that was the goal, right?

While federal and state agencies have put much effort into egovernment, local agencies still lag behind. This is due to budget constraints, lack of staff, and different priorities. I think some agencies hope this Internet thing is a fad that will go away before they have to worry about it.

The bad news is the Internet is going to stick around — and residents and businesses are expecting their local government to provide the same level of service they get from federal and state agencies. This is a contrast to the past where the most responsive government was local. There is something disconcerting about the fact that the IRS website is easy-to-use while I can’t figure out how to pay a parking ticket in my city. The good news is that meeting constituent expectations can save time, money, and effort.

Section 508 compliance means, very simply, that your city (town or special district) has built a website that is accessible by the greatest number of users possible. Blind. Deaf. Limited vision. Mobility impaired. Learning impaired. Cell phone users. PDA users. Technology-to-be-named-later users. It means your site will work equally well in Internet Explorer, Mozilla, Mac browsers, screen readers…access for everyone, no matter what.

So, while Section 508 focuses on disabled persons, the benefits of building a Section 508 compliant site extend beyond that group. Given the vast array of technology available today, and the fact that people access the Internet in so many ways, I cringe when I see a site “that works best in Internet Explorer.” The mere fact that it’s designed for one browser (and specific versions of that browser) tells me that the agency doesn’t particularly care about its constituents. It doesn’t particularly care that potential businesses and residents use the Internet to learn about a community before making an expensive move. It doesn’t particularly care that money is being wasted due to inaccessible information on its website.

Building a Section 508 compliant site isn’t onerous. Sure, it takes thought and planning. All successful projects do. But when you factor in the benefits — and the fact that maintaining a Section 508 compliant website is no more difficult than a non-compliant site — it makes sense that local government adopt Section 508 standards.

After all, isn’t time that local government regained its crown of being the most responsive government?

Many states and local governments do voluntarily comply with the provisions of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. They recognize that when it comes to their websites, maximum accessiblity by constituents is critical. With the trend toward e-government applications — which save both constituents and government staff time and money — access is doubly important. For these government agencies, accessibility makes good business sense. What I find perplexing is that commercial entities don’t feel the same way.

According to this press release from the National Council on Disability, the provisions of the Americans with Disability Act apply to websites as well. Okay. That’s great. This recommendation was made in July, 2003. In October, 2002, a federal judge ruled that the ADA applies to physical space only…not your website.

It’s arguable that a website is a public accommodation. If it’s a place of business, how could it be anything else? For example, you cannot get into your car, drive a short distance, park, and walk through the doors of a store called Amazon.com. There is no such animal. The store is entirely virtual. In order for Amazon to accommodate the public (and I’m not saying their site isn’t accessible — I know there were issues in the past years, but they have made great strides in improving accessibility), they must make their site accessible from a purely bits and bytes perspective.

Getting back to the judge’s ruling, her argument was because Congress so carefully spelled out what it meant by public accommodation, websites are, by definition, excluded. Well, in 1990, the Internet wasn’t ubiquitous. Sure, Congress has been slow to act on updating this Act to reflect the modern world, but it surprises me that businesses would be so opposed to making basic accommodations. What, exactly, is the logic behind alienating even one potential client? Especially when achieving the lowest level of compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) isn’t that difficult?

Accessibility does not need to be a burden on business. Opening doors, both physical and virtual to all people (and it’s a fact that improving your website’s accessibility also makes it easier for users of other technologies, such as cell phones, to access your site), should be a business no-brainer. So, my question is: what is stopping business from embracing the WCAG? What is stopping business from building accessibility into their Internet strategy? And what can we do to change this?

1. Dual use design. If done properly you shouldn’t have to create a separate accessible version of your site.
2. If you’re looking for a business case to justify accessibility, think of Google as a blind user. Accessibility and web standards will also make your site more search engine friendly.