Français

Top 200 accessible Web sites in Québec, selected from the top 500 most popular Web sites in French Canada, made public by ComScore in May 2007.

You are here : Home > Methodology, objectives, and context

Methodology, objectives, and context

Methodology

Important! Note : The evaluation was conducted on pages that were online between July 9 and August 17, 2007. At that time, the code of the pages evaluated was saved in our evaluation tool database. Any mention of code on these sites refers to the version saved at that time. Any modifications made after that were not taken into account in this project.

The 2007 Triennial Evaluation is based on the forty six checkpoints of priority levels 1 and 2 of the W3C accessibility guidelines. A sample of three pages considered sufficiently representative of each site was selected for the purpose of the evaluation. This sample also needed to include the following page types :

  • The home page,
  • A hub page or section page, and
  • At least one page containing a data table or form.

We therefore evaluated nearly 600 pages of the most popular Web sites in French Canada, published by ComScore in May 2007.

Accessibility guidelines are defined by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and are widely adopted by the international community. For the sake of simplicity, the evaluation uses a ranking system that is based on the four main criteria of version 2.0 of the Web content accessibility guidelines, currently being developed by the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). Checkpoint evaluations, however, refer directly to version 1.0 since it is still the only officially recognized version.

The W3C classifies the guidelines into a set of priority levels based on their impact on accessibility. The priority levels are as follows :

Priority 1 : A Web content developer must satisfy this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it impossible to access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint is a basic requirement.

Priority 2 : A Web content developer should satisfy this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it difficult to access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint will remove significant barriers to accessing Web documents.

Priority 3 : A Web content developer may address this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it somewhat difficult to access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint will improve access to Web documents.

This evaluation ranks Web sites according to their compliance with priority levels and success criteria (perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust).

While these guidelines do not claim to solve all the problems of Internet users who have an impairment that can affect their Web experience, they do take into account all types of disabilities, including visual, hearing, neuromotor, and cognitive. We consider this evaluation to be entirely faithful to, and fully representative of, the accessibility standards put in place by the W3C.

Evaluation tool

To ensure the success of the evaluation, AccessibilitéWeb used the same tool as in 2003, which was developed by a team of experts. Although the tool has greatly evolved, both functionally and ergonomically, Web pages can be processed just as effectively.

The main improvement made was to the weighting method of the various checkpoints, making it even more accurate today. In fact, since the method now takes into account the impact or importance of one checkpoint versus another, the functional accessibility results are more accurate than ever.

Objective of the evaluation

Following a first evaluation of 200 Web sites published in 2003, it seemed only natural to want to conduct a follow-up evaluation, four years later, to find out if the Web had in fact become more accessible to people with disabilities.

A lot of time and energy has been invested in the last few years to raise awareness among decision makers and Web designers about the importance of Web accessibility for people with disabilities. It was time to track the progress of these initiatives.

A study of this magnitude, which is rare if not unique in the international arena, is yet another opportunity to generate awareness among the various players. The 2003 evaluation triggered a series of initiatives to improve Web site accessibility. We hope that the release of the 2007 results will have the same positive impact—if not an even greater one.

Buy your 2007 report in PDF format.

Context of the evaluation

In 2007, Web site accessibility for people with disabilities was more and more on the agenda of decision-makers and Web site designers in Quebec and around the world.

  • The W3C, author of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, published in 1999, is actively working on version 2.0, which has already reached an advanced stage. One of the objectives of this new version is to cover a larger range of Web technologies already in use or in development.
  • Forty-some certified accessibility experts have been trained over the past three years in Quebec.
  • The Coopérative AccessibilitéWeb has developed a certification program to evaluate Web sites and train experts.
  • Web design companies have developed their expertise in Web accessibility and included it in their service offer.
  • Major organizations have included accessibility within their Web site redesign project specifications.
  • The Canadian government has given accessibility a high priority in its new Common Look and Feel for the Internet 2.0 standards.
  • The Government of Quebec is developing mandatory accessibility standards scheduled for implementation at the end of 2008 or in early 2009.
  • There has been media coverage on lawsuits being filed in various countries for discrimination due to inaccessible Web sites.
  • A study conducted by the UN in 2006 examining 100 Web sites across twenty countries revealed that this field still requires a great deal of work.
  • In December 2006, the UN adopted a Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which includes, in Article 9, the right to accessible information.
Â