Kevin Van - Accessibility HW

The website I am evaluating is the University of Maryland’s Disabilities Support Service home page. I thought it would be both interesting and relevant to see how accessible this website was because there is a good chance that accessibility is very important to some, if not many, of its visitors.

Perceivable: Partially Complete
1.1 – Partially Complete
1.2 – Not Applicable
1.3 – Complete
1.4 – Complete

Not all non-text content has a meaningful alt-tag. The main image of the Shoemaker building does have a useful description of the picture but all of the other images on the page just use “Image” as their alt tag. This does not adequately inform the user of anything meaningful about the images. There is no non-text content that accepts user input. There is no time-based media and so guideline 1.2 is not applicable. The webpage however is completely up to standards with respect to Guideline 1.4. The foreground and background are very distinguishable and overall it is easy to navigate the interface visually.

Operable: Complete
2.1 – Complete
2.2 – Not Applicable
2.3 – Complete
2.4 – Complete

The webpage is fully navigable with the keyboard and there are no parts of the webpage that cause a “keyboard trap”. All images and text on the webpage are static and so the user has no time limitations. As stated previously, without any moving images or text, there is no worry about the webpage causing seizures. The webpage is easily navigable with links providing enough useful information about their destinations. There is however a small issue when using keyboard only navigation: sometimes the item focused on could be a little more obvious.

Understandable: Partially Complete
3.1 – Partially Complete
3.2 – Complete
3.3 – Complete

The webpage would be considered completely readable if you only considered the English language. The language is clear and concise and not overly complicated. Unfortunately, with no ability to change the language I would have to consider the implementation with respect to readability only partially complete. The design is very predictable and it is very obvious where the links will lead. User input is also labeled with helpful text. There is error prevention with a calendar input being used instead of making the user manually type in dates. The only other input is a search panel which is clearly labeled and offers no error prevention which allows the user to search for whatever they need.

Robust: Partially Complete
4.1 – Partially Complete
By viewing the source of the page I was able to determine that the page uses standard HTML. In addition the HTML seems well formed. To assess the compatibility I used the WebAnywhere reader at The reader was able to read every link on the page and I felt like it would have been helpful for navigation if I were vision-impaired. However, there were alt tags on images that weren't meaningful at all so I have to consider the webpage partially implemented according to guideline 4.1.