Nomensa Accessibility Study into FTSE 100 Websites makes Disappointing Reading

FTSE 100 websites have come in for a canning from Nomensa, whose analysis of the accessibility of corporate sites shows an average score of 3.76 out of a possible 15, in their new study. As author Leonie Watson put it: 'the average figure speaks for itself. Low levels of attainment in almost every field suggest that understanding of accessibility and usability within the FTSE 100 companies is significantly lower than might be hoped. There are signs of promise, with high scores of 9, but with lows of 0, the overall outcome is disappointing.'

In comparison with the Top 100 University websites (as listed by the Financial Times), evaluated by Nomensa in 2003, the FTSE 100 is failing and 'has clearly not embraced the spirit of accessibility to an equal level. For example, the average score achieved for a Top 100 University web site was 9, whereas that was the highest score achieved only by the top 6 organisations within the current research.'

Results in detail include:
* 79% of sites failed to provide alternate text for all images. 'Despite being among the most basic of accessibility concepts, less than a quarter of sites included alt text on all images, failing a Priority 1 checkpoint under the WCAG in the process. For example, the Hanson site displays several graphics without alternate text, rendering them incomprehensible to users of adaptive technology. Instead of hearing a lucid description of the image content, a screen reader user would hear "front/sharebtn" or similar meaningless text.
* 77% of sites did not allow the font size to be rescaled. 'More than three quarters of sites failed a Priority Two checkpoint by failing to allow users to resize their font. For example, the Next website does not permit resizing, making the reading experience difficult, maybe even impossible for some users.'
* Only, 1% of sites used valid code to create web documents. 'Overwhelming proportions of sites are not constructed using valid code and consequently fail a Priority 2 checkpoint under the WCAG. It is a requirement for Double-A conformance that all web pages should be constructed using code that conforms to formal specifications and grammars. The stark fact is that the use of non-valid code creates potential problems for every user on the Web. Each of the wide variety of browsers on the market will interpret the page in a different manner which may lead to an inconsistent display of the page. This problem becomes exponentially worse, when adaptive technologies enter the equation.'
* 89% of sites failed to achieve the most basic level of accessibility. 'With only 11% achieving Level AA conformance against the WCAG and a total absence of Level AAA passes throughout the review, the overall standard of accessibility is deeply inadequate. Many of the FTSE 100 have a long way to go in providing a public facing web site that supports a diverse range of people with some form of disability.'
* 56% of sites did not use appropriate alternate text for images. 'Although alternate text may be present, it may not necessarily be suitable and with only 8% of sites achieving high marks in this field, this is a clearly misunderstood aspect of usability. It is important for users to feel they are participating in the same information as their able contemporaries. If the ALT text does not adequately describe the graphic, then meaning is lost for those people using adaptive technologies such as screen readers.'
* 46% of sites evaluated used reasonable link text. 'Nearly half of sites included clear, descriptive link text, and consequently passed an important Priority Two checkpoint, suggesting link quality to be one of the more promising areas under review.'
* 49% of sites used unique, descriptive page titles.
* 99% of sites did not include access keys. 'Only one site reviewed implemented keyboard shortcut keys (access keys), which are an invaluable aid to accessibility and constitute a Priority Three checkpoint.'

User Interviews - Analysis Simplified
Source: Webcredible, 6 January 2009
 
You’ve conducted your user interviews, but now you need to make sense of all that information you’ve gathered.

Why Products Fail
Source: ComputerWorld, 5 January 2009
 
Most gadget and software makers don't understand what users want most: control.

How to Design Websites for Mobile Phones
Source: stemkoski.com, 3 January 2009
 
Tips from Ryan Stemkoski's web design blog.

Pioneer of Cyberspace honoured
Source: BBC, 2 January 2009
 
A professor who invented a forerunner of the world wide web has been made a dame in the New Year Honours.

2008 in Review: Developments that rocked the world of User Experience
Source: Catalyst Resources, 1 January 2009
 
A look back at 2008 highlights some of the key developments that rocked the world of user experience.

2008: The Year Online
Source: MIT Technology Review, 31 December 2008
 
The business of social networking, cloud computing, and a flaw in the fabric of the Internet top the most notable stories of 2008.

Shoveling through the Spamalanche
Source: UN, 30 December 2008
 
A ‘Spamalanche’ of 3,000 emails will be waiting in your inbox by the time you get back to work. What can you do besides 'delete all'?

New guidelines boost Web Access
Source: BBC, 29 December 2008
 
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has announced a new standard to make sites more accessible to older and disabled people.

Measuring Emotional Engagement
Source: UN, 27 December 2008
 
New applications of electroencephalography (EEG) provide the means to gather detailed information on a user’s emotional relationship with a brand or service.

UXalliance thrives on Research strengths
Source: UN, 24 December 2008
 
The UXalliance provides clients with access to over 220 user experience professionals and 40 test labs worldwide.