Eğitim İnternete Göç Ederken Özel Gereksinimli Bireyleri Geride mi Bıraktık? Uludağ Üniversitesi Erişilebilirlik Değerlendirmesi

Öz

Webin teknolojilerinin kullanımı özellikle üniversite eğitiminde neredeyse bir zorunluluk haline gelirken, web sitelerinin erişilebilirlik kurallarına uymaması özel gereksinimli öğrencilerin karşısına yeni bir engel olarak çıkabilir. Bu problemden yola çıkarak yapılan araştırmada Uludağ Üniversite’sine bağlı sitelerinin erişilebilirlik değerlendirmesinin yapılması amaçlanmıştır. Erişilebilirlik değerlendirmesi otomatik değerlendirme yöntemi ile yapılmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak AChecker ve WAVE olmak üzere iki farklı otomatik değerlendirme aracı kullanılmış ve değerlendirme iki farklı kılavuza (WCAG 2.0, Bölüm 508) göre yapılmıştır. Her iki otomatik değerlendirme aracı alternatif metin, uyarlanabilirlik, navigasyon, okunabilirlik ve giriş yardımı yönergelerinde hata tespit etmiş ve sonuç olarak web sitelerinin erişilebilirlik değerlendirmesini geçemediği görülmüştür. Çıkan erişilebilirlik hatalarının çözümünün oldukça kolay olması da hataların varlığının web erişilebilirliği konusundaki farkındalık eksikliğinden kaynaklanabileceğini düşündürmüş ve erişilebilirliğin diğer ülkelerde olduğu gibi kamu kurumu sitelerinde zorunlu hale getirilmesi, üniversitelerde erişilebilirlik konusunda derslerin verilmesi gibi öneriler de bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Web Erişilebilirliği,Otomatik Değerlendirme,WCAG 2.0

While Education is Immigrating to Internet, Do We Leave Disabled Behind? Uludağ University Accessibility Evaluation

Öz

While the use of the web becomes almost a necessity, especially in university education, the failure of websites to comply with accessibility rules can be a new barrier for students with disabilities. Starting from this problem, it was aimed to make the accessibility evaluation of the sites of Uludağ University. Accessibility evaluation was done by two automatic evaluation methods Achecker and WAVE, and evaluated by two different manulas (WCAG 2.0, Bölüm 508). Both automatic assessment tools have detected errors in the guidelines for alternative text, adaptability, navigation, legibility and input aid. Hence, as a result it has been seen that websites can not pass accessibility evaluation. The fact that the resolution of the accessibility mistakes that are made is fairly straightforward suggests that the existence of errors may be due to the lack of awareness of web accessibility. Making accessibility obligatory in public institutions like in other countries, and giving accessibility lessons in universities are suggested.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Web Accessibility,Automatic Evaluation,WCAG 2.0

Kaynakça

1. 10 Free Web-Based Web Site Accessibility Evaluation Tools. (2017). https://usabilitygeek.com/10-free-web-based-web-site-accessibility-evaluation-tools/ adresinden erişildi.
2. Abascal, J., Arrue, M. and Vigo, M. (2007). A Methodology for Web Accessibility Development and Maintenance. P. Zaphiris ve S. Kurniawan (Ed.), Human Computer Interaction Research in Web Design and Evaluation içinde (ss. 185–208). Idea Group.
3. Accessibility. (2017).World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility adresinden erişildi.
4. Accessibility Principles. (2017). https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/people-use-web/principles adresinden erişildi.
5. Ahmi, A. and Mohamad, R. (2016). Evaluating accessibility of Malaysian public universities websites using AChecker and WAVE. Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 15(2), 114–193.
6. Andrés, J. De, Lorca, P. and Martínez, A. B. (2010). Factors influencing web accessibility of big listed firms: an international study. Online Information Review VO - 34, (1), 75. doi:10.1108/14684521011024137.
7. Babu, R. and Xie, I. (2017). Haze in the digital library: design issues hampering accessibility for blind users. Electronic Library, 35(5), 1052–1065. http://10.0.4.84/EL-10-2016-0209 adresinden erişildi.
8. Basdekis, I., Klironomos, I., Metaxas, I. and Stephanidis, C. (2010). An overview of web accessibility in Greece: a comparative study 2004--2008. Universal Access in the Information Society VO - 9, (2), 185.

9. Borchard, L., Biondo, M., Kutay, S., Morck, D. and Weiss, A. P. (2015). Making journals accessible front ve back: Examining open journal systems at CSU northridge. OCLC Systems and Services, 31(1), 35–50. doi:10.1108/OCLC-02-2014-0013.
10. Brajnik, G. (2006). Web Accessibility Testing: When the Method Is the Culprit. In: Miesenberger K., Klaus J., Zagler W.L., Karshmer A.I. (eds) Computers Helping People with Special Needs. ICCHP 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4061. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p.156-163. doi.org/10.1007/11788713_2
11. Brown, J. and Hollier, S. (2015). The challenges of Web accessibility: The technical and social aspects of a truly universal Web. First Monday, 20(9), 1–16. doi:10.5210/fm.v20i9.6165
12. Clarke, I., Flaherty, T. B. and Mottner, S. (2001). Student Perceptions of Educational Technology Tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(3), 169–177. doi:10.1177/0273475301233002
13. Comeaux, D., Comeaux, D. and Schmetzke, A. (2013). Accessibility of academic library web sites in North America Current status and trends (2002-2012). LIBRARY HI TECH.
14. Çağıltay, K. (2011). İnsan Bilgisayar Etkileşimi ve Kullanılabilirlik Mühendisliği: Teoriden Pratiğe, METU-Press, Ankara.
15. Delen, E. ve Abdüsselam, M. (2015). Eğitim Fakültesi Web Sitelerinin İşlevselliklerinin İncelenmesi: Sorunlar ve Öneriler. Sakarya Üniversitesi Journal of Education, 5-2, 158-173.
16. Durmus, S. ve Cagiltay, K., (2012). Kamu Kurumu Web Sıtelerı Ve Kullanılabılırlık. "E-devlet Kamu yonetimi ve teknoloji iliskisinde guncel gelismeler", s.293-322.
17. Euronews. (2017). Euronews. http://tr.euronews.com/2016/07/05/bm-İnterneti-temel-insan-hakki-olarak-kabul-etti adresinden erişildi.
18. Facts About W3C. (2017).World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/Consortium/facts.html adresinden erişildi.
19. Farrelly, G. (2011). Practitioner barriers to diffusion and implementation of web accessibility. Technology and Disability, 23(4), 223–232. doi:10.3233/TAD-2011-0329
20. Gonçalves, R., Martins, J. and Branco, F. (2014). A Review on the Portuguese Enterprises Web Accessibility Levels – A Website Accessibility High Level Improvement Proposal. Procedia Computer Science, 27, 176–185. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2014.02.021
21. Gonçalves, R., Martins, J., Pereira, J., Oliveira, M. A.-Y. and Ferreira, J. J. P. (2012). Accessibility levels of Portuguese enterprise websites: equal opportunities for all? Behaviour ve Information Technology, 31(7), 659–677. http://10.0.4.56/0144929X.2011.563802 adresinden erişildi.
22. Gonçalves, R., Martins, J., Pereira, J., Oliveira, M. A.-Y. and Ferreira, J. J. P. (2013). Enterprise Web Accessibility Levels Amongst the Forbes 250: Where Art Thou O Virtuous Leader? Journal of Business Ethics VO - 113, (2), 363. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1309-3
23. Guenther, K. (2002). Section 508 and your Web site. (Web Site Management). Online VO - 26, (2), 71.
24. Henry, S. and Grossnickle, M. (2004). Just Ask: Accessibility in the User-Centered Design Process. Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
25. Hong, S. G., Trimi, S., Kim, D. W. and Hyun, J. H. (2015). A Delphi Study of Factors Hindering Web Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 55(4), 28.
26. Ismail, A. and Kuppusamy, K. S. (2016). Accessibility of Indian universities’ homepages: An exploratory study. Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences. doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2016.06.006
27. Ismail, A., Kuppusamy, K. S. and Nengroo, A. S. (2017). Multi-tool accessibility assessment of government department websites:a case-study with JKGAD. Disability And Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 1–13. doi:10.1080/17483107.2017.1344883
28. Ismailova, R. ve Inal, Y. (2017). Accessibility evaluation of top university websites: a comparative study of Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkey. Universal Access in the Information Society, 1–9. doi:10.1007/s10209-017-0541-0
29. İnal, Y., Rızvanoğlu, K. ve Yesilada, Y. (2016). Türkiye’deki Kullanıcı Deneyimi Profesyonellerinin Web Erişilebilirliğine Yönelik Algısı. Journal of Exercise Therapy ve Rehabilitation, 3, S-19-S-19.
30. Kesswani, N. and Kumar, S. (2016). Accessibility analysis of websites of educational institutions. Perspectives in Science, 8 (Recent Trends in Engineering and Material Sciences), 210–212. http://10.0.3.248/j.pisc.2016.04.031 adresinden erişildi.
31. Kubuş, O. ve Çağıltay, K. (2006). E-Devlet Siteleri Görme Engelliler için Erişilebilir mi? TBD Bilişim Kurultayı, Ankara,
32. Lenhart, A., Simon, M. and Graziano, M. (2001). The Internet and Education: Findings of the Pew İnternet ve American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=39 adresinden erişildi.
33. Masood Rana, M., Fakrudeen, M. and Rana, U. (2011). Evaluating Web Accessibility of University Web Sites in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge ve Society, 7(3), 1–15.
34. Moniz Pereira, L., Espadinha, C., Moreira da Silva, F., Espadinha, C., Pereira, L. M., Da Silva, F. M. and Lopes, J. B. (2011). Accessibility of Portuguese Public Universities’ sites. Disability and Rehabilitation.
35. O’Grady, L. (2005). Accessibility compliance rates of consumer-oriented Canadian health care Web sites. Medical Informatics ve the İnternet in Medicine, 30(4), 287–295. http://10.0.4.56/14639230500367746 adresinden erişildi.
36. Parmanto, B. and Hackett, S. R. (2011). A case study examination of the impact of lawsuits on website accessibility. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 6(2), 157–168. doi:10.3109/17483107.2010.512971
37. Pascual, A., Granollers, T. and Ribera, M. (2015a). Impact of web accessibility barriers on users with a hearing impairment. DYNA (Colombia), 82(193), 233–240. doi:10.15446/dyna.v82n193.53499
38. Pascual, A., Granollers, T. and Ribera, M. (2015b). Impact of accessibility barriers on the mood of users with motor and dexterity impairments. Journal of Accessibility and Design for All, 5(1), 1–26. doi:10.17411/jacces.v5i1.93
39. Pivetta E.M., Saito D.S., da Silva Flor C., Ulbricht V.R. and Vanzin T. (2014). Automated Accessibility Evaluation Software for Authenticated Environments. In: Stephanidis C., Antona M. (eds) Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Design for All and Accessibility Practice. UAHCI 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8516. Springer, Cham. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07509-9_8
40. Potter, A. (2002). Accessibility of Alabama government Web sites. Journal of Government Information, 29, 303–317. http://10.0.3.248/S1352-0237(03)00053-4 adresinden erişildi.
41. Pribeanu, C., Marinescu, R.-D., Fogarassy-Neszly, P. and Gheorghe-Moisii, M. (2012). Web Accessibility in Romania: The Conformance of Municipal Web Sites to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Informatica Economica, 16(1), 28–36.
42. Rau, P.-L. P., Zhou, L., Sun, N. and Zhong, R. (2016). Evaluation of web accessibility in China: changes from 2009 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society VO - 15, (2), 297. doi:10.1007/s10209-014-0385-9
43. Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (2017). Unıted States Access Board. https://www.access-board.gov/the-board/laws/rehabilitation-act-of-1973#508 adresinden erişildi.
44. Roberts, J. B., Crittenden, L. A. and Crittenden, J. C. (2011). Students with disabilities and online learning: A cross-institutional study of perceived satisfaction with accessibility compliance and services. The Internet and Higher Education VO - 14, (4), 242.
45. Schmetzke, A. (2001). Web accessibility at university libraries and library schools. Library Hi Tech VO - 19, (1), 35. doi:10.1108/07378830110384584
46. Schmetzke, A. and Comeaux, D. (2007). Web accessibility trends in university libraries and library schools. Library Hi Tech VO - 25, (4), 457. doi:10.1108/07378830710840437
47. Solovieva, T. I. and Bock, J. M. . (2014). Monitoring for Accessibility and University Websites: Meeting the Needs of People with Disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education ve Disability, 27(2), 113–127.
48. Southwell, K. L. and Slater, J. (2012). Accessibility of digital special collections using screen readers. Library Hi Tech VO - 30, (3), 457. doi:10.1108/07378831211266609
49. Tatomir, J. and Durrance, J. C. (2010). Overcoming the information gap : Measuring the accessibility of library databases to adaptive technology users. Library Hi Tech VO - 28, (4), 577. doi:10.1108/07378831011096240
50. Thatcher, J., Burks, M. R., Heilmann, C., Henry, S. L., Kirkpatrick, A., Lauke, P. H., … Waddell, C. D. (2006). Web Accessibility. [electronic resource] : Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance. Springer eBooks. Berkeley, CA : Apress, 2006.
51. Velleman, E. and Abou-Zahra, S. (2017). Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM) 1.0. W3C Working Group Note. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/ adresinden erişildi.
52. Vigo, M. and Brajnik, G. (2011). Automatic web accessibility metrics: Where we are and where we can go. Interacting with Computers, 23, 137–155. http://10.0.3.248/j.intcom.2011.01.001 adresinden erişildi.
53. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. (2017). https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ adresinden erişildi.
54. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview. (2017). https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag adresinden erişildi.
55. Yi, Y. J. (2015). Compliance of Section 508 in public library systems with the largest percentage of underserved populations. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 75–81. http://10.0.3.248/j.giq.2014.11.005 adresinden erişildi.
56. Yükseköğretim Bilgi Yönetim Sistemi (2017). Yükseköğretim Kurulu. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr adresinden erişildi.