Guidelines, Icons and Marketable Skills: An Accessibility Evaluation of 100 Web Development Company Homepages
Teresa D. Gilbertson, Colin H. C. Machin · 2012 · Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A) · doi:10.1145/2207016.2207024
Summary
This study examined whether web development companies that market accessibility as a skill actually practice what they preach, by evaluating the homepages of 100 UK web development companies selected from Google searches across four geographic regions. Each homepage was tested using AChecker automated validation against WCAG 2.0 AAA, followed by manual inspection by an experienced accessibility evaluator focusing on keyboard accessibility and alt text quality. The researchers also catalogued whether companies mentioned accessibility as a selling point, displayed validation or conformance icons (XHTML, CSS, WCAG), or provided accessibility statements. The study was motivated by evidence that over 70% of websites still did not conform to WCAG 1.0 as of 2004, and that accessibility tends to decline over time as sites are updated.
Key findings
The central finding is damning: mentioning accessibility as a selling point had no statistically significant effect on the actual accessibility of the company's own homepage (t(98) = -.463, p = .644). Of 100 companies, 46 listed accessibility as a skill, yet their average Level A errors (M=11.8) were actually slightly higher than companies not mentioning accessibility (M=10.1). Only 8 out of 100 homepages passed WCAG 2.0 Level A through automated testing. The most common accessibility barrier, present on 71% of sites, was the trivially correctable failure to declare page language (SC 3.1.1). Missing alt text affected 41 sites after adjusting for false positives, with slideshow banners being the primary culprit — suggesting accessibility degrades as dynamic content is updated. Missing form labels affected 36% of sites. Keyboard accessibility was problematic in 10-15 sites, primarily due to Flash content creating keyboard traps and forms preventing keyboard escape. Conformance icons were unreliable: only 9 of 23 sites displaying HTML validation icons actually passed revalidation, and the single site with a WCAG 2.0 icon failed Level A. Of 8 sites with WCAG conformance icons, 7 still referenced the superseded WCAG 1.0. Four companies described accessibility purely in terms of screen readers and visual impairment, and invisible skip navigation links on some sites reinforced that many developers equate accessibility exclusively with screen reader support.
Relevance
This study exposes a credibility gap in the web development industry: accessibility is increasingly marketed as a skill but not reliably demonstrated in practice. For organisations procuring web development services, the clear message is that a company claiming accessibility expertise is no guarantee of accessible output — clients should require evidence of accessibility testing on the developer's own site and on deliverables, not just marketing claims. The finding that the simplest barrier (missing lang attribute, fixable in one line of HTML) was also the most prevalent (71%) underscores that accessibility failures often stem from lack of awareness rather than technical difficulty. The observation that accessibility degrades over time — particularly in dynamic content like slideshow banners and portfolio grids that are regularly updated — reinforces that accessibility is a maintenance concern, not a one-time build task. The study's finding that conformance icons are frequently stale and unreliable echoes the Keith et al. certification study from the same conference, collectively undermining trust in self-declared conformance.
Tags: web accessibility · WCAG compliance · developer awareness · conformance testing · accessibility evaluation · web development · accessibility policy
Standards referenced: WCAG 2.0 · WCAG 1.0