Evaluating the accessibility of online library guides at an academic library



Online accessibility, universal design, Americans with Disabilities Act


This article describes an exploratory research study assessing the level of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance and general accessibility of online information resources at a mid-sized, 4-year, public institution in the state of Ohio. A rubric, available freely online as a living document, was developed based on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and web design best practices. From 2015-2016, the authors used the rubric containing 14 criteria (12 criteria from the WCAG 2.0, a criterion from Section 508, and a criterion related to universal web design best practices) to assess a random sample of online library guides (18 guides) at this institution.The authors found that the template developed by the administrator and used by all library guides at the study institution caused 70% of the applicable criteria to fail. The content contributed by individual library guide authors did not pass all of the criteria, but generally performed better than the template. Library guide author contributed content failed an average of seven rubric criteria. Many of the common library guide author errors in this study coincide with those reported by other institutions.Combining the WCAG 2.0 criteria with additional universal web design best practices criteria within the rubric eliminated most of the universal accessibility concerns that remained after applying the WCAG 2.0; a concern that had been identified in previous literature examining WCAG 2.0 applications to online information resources. It was concluded that the rubric was sufficiently comprehensive and that further exploration of its utility was warranted. This includes asking a heterogeneous group of users to assess the usefulness of the rubric by applying it to library guides outside of this study.

Author Biographies

Tammy Stitz, The University of Akron

Tammy Stitz is the Applied Science Librarian at The University of Akron, where she works with most of the engineering departments, engineering technology, and computer science. She has a MLIS from Kent State University and a MS from The University of Akron in Electrical Engineering.

Shelley Blundell, Youngstown State University

Shelley Blundell is an assistant professor in journalism and communication at Youngstown State University. She has a Ph.D. in Communication and Information, a MLIS, and bachelor’s degrees in history and magazine journalism, all from Kent State University.


Aldred, R. (2008). Ethical and political issues in contemporary research relationships. Sociology, 42 (5), 887-903.

Ashok, M., & Jacko, J. A. (2009). Dimensions of user diversity. In C. Stephanidis, The universal access handbook, pp. 1-15. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.

Barnes, C. (2003). What a difference a decade makes: Reflections on doing ‘Emancipatory’ disability research. Disability & Society, 18 (1), 3-17.

Carmona, I., Azpiroz, J., Scheuhammer, J., Welche, P. & van Isacker, K. (2010). AEGIS 2nd User forum meetings proceedings. Retrieved 25 June, 2015 from http://www.aegis-project.eu/images/docs/ID5.3.2_User_forum_v4.pdf

De Couvreur,L. & Goossens, R. (2011). Design for (every)one: co-creation as a bridge between universal design and rehabilitation engineering. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 7 (2), 107-121.

Gemou, M. & Bekiaris, E. (2010). From User Modelling to Iterative Design and Development: The AEGIS IP UCD Approach. In N. González, A. Kämäräinen, O. Kalla & I. Vélez (Eds.), Tangible Information Technology for a Better Ageing Society, pp.31-44. Jyväskylä: AGORA Center.

Gregor, P., Sloan, D., & Newell, A. F. (2005). Disability and technology: building barriers or creating opportunities?. Advances in computers, 64, 283-346.

Holone, H., & Herstad, J. (2013). Three tensions in participatory design for inclusion. In W. Mackay et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2903-2906. New York: ACM.

Kitchin, R. (2000). The researched opinions on research: disabled people and disability research. Disability & Society, 15 (1), 25-47.

Korn, P., Bekiaris, E., & Gemou, M. (2009). Towards open access accessibility everywhere: The ÆGIS concept. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Addressing Diversity (pp. 535-543). Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Macdonald, S. J. & Clayton, J. (2013). Back to the future, disability and the digital divide. Disability & Society, 28 (5), 702-718.

Munteanu,C., Molyneaux, H., & O’Donnell, S. (2004). Vulnerable populations. Ethical implications for human computer interaction research. Interactions, 21 (1), 50-53.

Muller, M.J. (2009). Participatory design: The third space in HCI. In A. Sears and J. Jacko (Eds.), Human computer interaction: Development process, 165-186. Florida: CRC Press.

Ortega-Moral, M., Peinado, I., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (2014). Cloud4all: Scope, Evolution and Challenges. In C. Stephanidis and M. Antona (Eds.), Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Design for All and Accessibility Practice (pp. 421-430). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Sainz, F., & Bustamante, J. (2014). Aspectos éticos en la participación de personas con diversidad funcional en proyectos de investigación tecnológica. Revista Española de Discapacidad, 2 (1), 165-174.

Sainz, F., Turrero, M., González, L., & Madrid, R. I. (2014). Involucración de personas con discapacidad en proyectos tecnológicos de I+ D+ i: el caso de APSIS4all. Revista Española de Discapacidad, 2 (2), 121-144.

Sainz, F. et al. (2012). Deliverable D401.1: Cloud4all user population and UCD implementation plan. Retrieved June 19, 2015 from http://www.cloud4all.info/research/public-deliverables/d401-1-cloud4all-user-population-and-ucd-implementation-plan/

Slegers,K., Duysburgh,P., & Jacobs, A. (2010). Research methods for involving hearing impaired children in IT innovation. In A. Blandford, et al. (Eds.). NORDICHI 2010: Extending Boundaries. Proceedings of the Sixth Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp.769-772). New York, NY: ACM Press.

Slegers,K., Duysburgh,P., & Hendriks, N. (2015). CoDesign with people living with cognitive and sensory impairments. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 11 (1), 1-3.

TECH (Technosite), NOVA (Norwegian Social Research), & CNIPA (Italian National Center of Informatics in Public Administration) (2011). Monitoring eAccessibility in Europe: 2011 Annual Report. Retrieved March 6, 2014 from http://www.eaccessibility-monitoring.eu/researchResult.aspx.

Vines, J., McNaney, R., Lindsay, S., Wallace, J., & McCarthy, J. (2014). Designing for and with vulnerable people. Interactions, 21 (1), 44-46.

Walmsley, J., & Johnson K. (2003). Inclusive research with people with learning disabilities: Past, present and futures. London: Jessica Kingsley.



How to Cite

Stitz, T., & Blundell, S. (2018). Evaluating the accessibility of online library guides at an academic library. Journal of Accessibility and Design for All, 8(1), 33-79. Retrieved from http://www.jacces.org/index.php/jacces/article/view/145