Janahan Sivaraman



The W3C has established guidelines which make a website more accessible. These take into account those with disabilities, including vision impaired, hearing impaired, cognitively impaired, physically impaired, photosensitive individuals, and those with any combination of the aforementioned or any of those not mentioned above.

These guidelines are broken down into four principles which I will investigate further in the contents of this critique.

Principle 1: Percievable

1.1. Not all non-textual components of the page are accompanied by an alt tag which that delivers a similar purpose. Many alt tags are actually left blank, and others just use the phrase, "loading...". These do not adequately describe images for those who cannot see it.

1.2. and 1.3. are not applicable to this website.

1.4. The background is distinguished from the foreground by use of black for the former and red for the latter. This guides users towards the red to complete active tasks and the black for background information.

The page is also center justified which is a good thing according to the guidelines. The space between paragraphs is also at least 1.5 times the size of the text.

However, when zoomed in, the reader must scroll horizontally to read an entire line of text, which does not meet the guidelines.

This website is partially complete according to principle one. Non-textual elements are not completely represented otherwise, which is not implemented, but other parts, such as spacing of paragraphs, is implemented.

Principle 2: Operable

2.1. Not all of the components of the website are accessible by the keyboard, only the first four buttons, home, sign in, help, and FAQ.

2.2. On the top of the page, there is a blinking indicator for the news. It includes that WV tickets are sold out, etc. This is not time adjustable and therefore not completely accessible.

The blinking also changes every four seconds, instead of five seconds, which may not allow all users to be able to read it before it changes.

2.3. It does not, however, have any other flashing components and should be safe for those who are prone to seizures.

2.4. is not applicable to this website.

This principle is also partially implemented as some guidelines are followed and some aren't.

Principle 3: Understandable

3.1. The language of the page cannot be changed and therefore is not accessible to those who don't know English.

3.2. There is no explanation for what an FAQ is from the main page. It is assumed the user knows and doesn't even have a mouse rollover.

3.3. User inputs for ID or password emphasize recall or recognition, which seems more secure but against the guidelines.

This section is not implemented as none of the guidelines have been followed.

Principle 4: Robustness

4.1. The page uses standard HTML and CSS and is therefore robust by use of a conventional markup language.

I cannot verify that this site works with assistance technologies as I do not have any that I could test run the website with.

This section, at this point, can be assumed only to partially implemented unless I recieved access to assistance technologies to verify their compatibility.


The ticket request site for Maryland sporting events can best be characterized as a partial implementation. It is not clear that the designers of the website explicitly followed these guidelines or by chance fulfilled some of those requirements. The page is visually clean, but lacks support for all the guidelines set forth in the standard.