UN Gives Failing Accessibility Grades To The Planet’s Top Web Sites

Written by Evan Schuman
December 5th, 2006

The problem of Internet accessibility for the visually-impaired is global, with a United Nations study finding only three leading web sites around the world–out of 100 studied–meeting the needs of “persons with disabilities,” according to a U.N. statement issued Tuesday.

The study, commissioned by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) and conducted by the British firm Nomensa, examined what the study team considered the world’s leading web sites in 20 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, India, Kenya, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and United States.

Of the 100 examined, the only three that were considered to have met the standards were three government sites: the German Chancellor; the British Prime Minister; and the Spanish Government.

Thomas Schindlmayr, a policy specialist with DESA, said in a United Nations statement that the survey shows that ?we?re not close to reaching the Internet?s full potential for use by persons with disabilities. Webmasters around the world ? including at the United Nations itself ? should be aware that they are losing a significant portion of their intended audience by not being fully accessible to all people.?

The study relied on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (established in 1999 by the World Wide Web Consortium) that require users to be able to easily adjust text size, navigate through the site, differentiate between colors, allow keyboard shortcuts and offer an alternative to JavaScript, which prevents many people from accessing key information, the report said.

According to a Canadian Broadcasting Company story on the report, 93 percent failed to provide adequate text descriptions for graphics, 73 percent relied on Javascript or Flash for important functions, 87 percent used pop-ups, which cause problems for those using screen magnification software, 97 percent did not allow people to alter or resize pages, 78 percent used colors with poor contrast and 89 percent offered poor page navigation.

The challenges of making robust comprehensive E-Commerce sites fully accessible to all users is nothing new, with Target being the latest major retailer to face the music with a National Federation for the Blind lawsuit centered around violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The accessibility challenge has impacted Web site performance ratings, which tends to get the attention of E-Commerce execs. When doing the right thing can also accelerate a site’s page delivery, the industry typically takes notice.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.