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.'

All change at the top for System Concepts
Source: System Concepts Ltd, 3 July 2009
 
Leslie Fountain has been promoted to joint Managing Director of leading usability consultancy System Concepts.

Life in UCD immortalised in fiction: you couldn't make it up
Source: UN, 2 July 2009
 
Sarah Herman's fictitious book on life in a user-centred design company has hit the shelves and The Guardian's book pages...

Interfaces Magazine - Issue 79: The Education Issue
Source: Interaction Group, 1 July 2009
 
The latest issue of Interfaces is now available as a free download from the Interaction Website.

Two new Behavioural research Tools from Noldus
Source: UN, 30 June 2009
 
Tool updates make on-site behavioural data collection easier.

Cell Phones that Listen and Learn
Source: MIT Technology Review, 29 June 2009
 
New software tracks a user's behavior by monitoring everyday sounds.

Top Six Don’ts for Usability Testing
Source: FutureNow Inc., 27 June 2009
 
Six tips for creating quality usability tests to ensure useful feedback from testers.

Usability: ‘Lovely software. But I can’t work it’
Source: FT.com, 26 June 2009
 
In a recent survey by Global Graphics, 77 per cent of office workers estimate they lose up to one hour a week because business software is difficult to use.

And what do you do?
Source: Dexo Design, 25 June 2009
 
How do you describe your job role? Here are the results of a recent 'Preferred UX/UI Title' Poll.

Most Doctors cite Usability as critical to Electronic Health Record Adoption
Source: TMCNet, 24 June 2009
 
It's all about 'meaningful use'.

Glossy monitors look good but can hurt
Source: QUT, 23 June 2009
 
A new advisory cites research which suggests high gloss monitors make users sit awkwardly.