Are Ivy League Library Website Homepages Accessible? ARTICLES Are Ivy League Library Website Homepages Accessible? Wenfan Yang, Bin Zhao, Yan Quan Liu, and Arlene Bielefield INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES | JUNE 2020 https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v39i2.11577 Wenfan Yang (youngwf@126.com) is a master’s student in the School of Management, Tianjin University of Technology, China. Bin Zhao (andy.zh@126.com) is Professor in School of Management, Tianjin University of Technology, China. Yan Quan Liu (liuy1@southernct.edu) is Professor in Information and Library Science at Southern Connecticut University and Special Hired Professor of Tianjin University of Technology. Arlene Bielefield (bielefielda1@southernct.edu) is Professor in Information and Library Science at Southern Connecticut University. Copyright © 2020. ABSTRACT As a doorway for users seeking information, library websites should be accessible to all, including those who are visually or physically impaired and those with reading or learning disabilities. In conjunction with an earlier study, this paper presents a comparative evaluation of Ivy League university library homepages with regard to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandates. Data results from WAVE and AChecker evaluations indicate that although the error of Missing Form Labels still occurs in these websites, other known accessibility errors and issues have been significantly improved from five years ago. INTRODUCTION An academic library is “a library that is an integral part of a college, university, or other institution of postsecondary education, administered to meet the information and research needs of its students, faculty, and staff.”1 People living with physical disabilities face barriers whenever they enter a library. Many blind and visually impaired persons need assistance when visiting a library to do research. In such cases, searching the collection catalog, periodical indexes, and other bibliographic references are frequently conducted by a librarian or the person accompanying that individual to the library. Thus, professionals in these institutions can advance the use of academic libraries for the visually impaired, physically disabled, hearing impaired, and people with learning disabilities. Library websites are libraries’ virtual front doors for all users pursuing information from libraries. Fichter stated that the power of the website is in its popularization.2 Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential reason for its popularization. Whether users are students, parents, senior citizens, or elected officials navigating the library website to find resources, or sign up for computer courses at the library, the website can be either a liberating or a limiting experience.3 According to the Web Accessibility Initiative (https://www.w3.org/WAI/), website accessibility means that people with disabilities can use the websites. More specifically, website accessibility means that people with disabilities can perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with websites and that they can contribute to the websites. Incorporating accessibility into website design enables people with disabilities to enjoy the benefits of websites to the same extent as anyone else in their community. This study evaluated the current state of the accessibility of university websites of the American Ivy League university libraries using guidelines established by the Americans with Disabilities Act mailto:youngwf@126.com mailto:andy.zh@126.com mailto:liuy1@southernct.edu mailto:bielefielda1@southernct.edu https://www.w3.org/WAI/ INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES JUNE 2020 ARE IVY LEAGUE LIBRARY WEBSITE HOMEPAGES ACCESSIBLE? | LIU 2 (ADA) for those who are visually or physically impaired or who have reading or learning disabilities. ADA’s Section 508 and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) provide guidelines for website developers which define what makes a website accessible to those with physical, sensory, or cognitive disabilities. Since a broad array of disabilities are recognized under the ADA, websites seeking to be compliant with the ADA should use the Act’s technical criteria for website design. This study used two common accessibility evaluation tools—WAVE and AChecker—for both Section 508 and the WCAG version 2.0 Level AA. Among universities in the United States, the eight Ivy League universities—Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, University of Pennsylvania, and Yale—all have a long and distinguished history, strict academic requirements, high-quality teaching, and high-caliber students. Because of their good reputations, they are expected to lead by example, not only in terms of academic philosophy and campus atmosphere, but also by the accessibility of their various websites. Of course, any library website, whether an urban public library or a university library, should be accessible to everyone. Hopefully, this study of their accessibility can enlighten other universities on how to better develop and maintain library websites so that individuals with disabilities can enjoy the same level of accessibility to academic knowledge as everyone else. LITERATURE REVIEW In 1999, Schmetzke reported that emerging awareness about the need for accessible website design had not yet manifested itself in the actual design of library websites. For example, at the fourteen four-year campuses within the University of Wisconsin system, only 13 percent of the libraries’ top-level pages (homepages plus the next layer of library pages linked to them) were free of accessibility problems.4 Has this situation changed in the last twenty years? To answer this question, a number of authors have suggested various methods for evaluating software/hardware for accessibility and usability.5 Included in the process of compiling data is “involving the user at each step of the design process. Involvement typically takes the form of an interview and observation of the user engaged with the software/hardware.”6 Providenti & Zai conducted a study in 2007 focused on providing an update on the implementation of website accessibility guidelines of Kentucky academic library websites. They tested the academic library homepages of bachelor-degree granting institutions in Kentucky for accessibility compliance using Watchfire’s WebXACT accessibility tester and the W3C’s HTML validator. The results showed that from 2003 to 2007, the number of library homepages complying with basic accessibility guidelines was increasing.7 Billingham conducted research on Edith Cowan University (ECU) Library websites. The websites were tested twice, in October 2012 and June 2013, using automated testing tools such as code validators and color analysis programs, resulting in findings that 11 percent of the guidelines for WCAG 2.0 Level A to Level AA were passed in their first test. Additionally, there was a small increase in the percentage of WCAG 2.0 guidelines passed by all pages tested in the second test. 8 While quite a few research studies focus on library website accessibility rather than the university websites, the conclusions diverge. Tatiana & Jeremy (2014) tested 509 webpages at a large public university in the northeastern United States using WAVE (http://wave.webaim.org) and Cynthia Says (http://www.cynthiasays.com). The results indicated that 51 percent of those webpages http://wave.webaim.org/ http://www.cynthiasays.com/ INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES JUNE 2020 ARE IVY LEAGUE LIBRARY WEBSITE HOMEPAGES ACCESSIBLE? | LIU 3 passed automated website accessibility tests for Section 508 compliance with Cynthia Says. However, when using WAVE for WCAG Priority 1 compliance, which is a more rigorous evaluation level, only 35 percent passed the test.9 Maatta Smith reported that not one of the websites of 127 US members of the Urban Library Council (ULC) was without Errors or Alerts, with the average number of Errors being 27.10 Such results were similar with Liu.11 12They also found that about half (58 of 127) of the urban public libraries provided no information specifically for individuals with disabilities. Of the 127 websites, some were confusing by using the variety of verbiage to suggest services for individuals with disabilities. Sixty-six of them provide some information about services within the library for individuals with disabilities. The depth of the information varied, but in all instances contact information was included for additional assistance. Liu, Bielefield, and McKay examined 122 library homepages of ULC members and reported on three main aspects. First, only seven of them presented as Error free when tested for compliance with the 508 standards. The highest percentage of Errors occurred in accessibility Sections 508(a) and 508(n). Second, the number of issues was dependent on the population served. That means libraries serving larger populations tend to have more issues with accessibility than those serving smaller ones. Third, the most common Errors were Missing Label and Contrast Errors, while the highest number of Alerts was related to the device-dependent event handler, which means that a keyboard or mouse is a necessary piece of equipment to initiate a desired transaction.12 Although they were interested in overall website accessibility, Theofanos and Redish focused their research on the visually impaired website user. The authors investigated and revealed six reasons to bridge the gap between accessibility and usability. The six reasons were: 1. Disabilities affect more people than you may think worldwide. 750 million people have a disability, and three of every ten families are touched by a disability. In the United States, one in five have some kind of disability, and one in ten have a severe disability. That’s approximately 54 million Americans. 2. It is a good business. According to the President’s Committee on the employment of People with Disabilities, the discretionary income of people with disabilities is $175 billion. 3. The number of people with disabilities and income to spend is likely to increase. The likelihood of having a disability increases with age, and the overall population is aging. 4. The website plays an important role and has significant benefits for people with disabilities. 5. Improving accessibility enhances usability for all users. 6. It is morally the right thing to do.13 Lazar, Dudley-Sponaugle, and Greenidge validated that most blind users were just as impatient as most sighted users. They want to get the information they need as quickly as possible. They don’t want to listen to every word on the page just as sighted users do not read every word.14 Similarly, Foley found that using automated validation tools did not ensure complete accessibility. Students with low vision found many of the pages hard to use even though they were validated.15 Outcomes of all the research revealed that most university library websites have developed a policy on website accessibility, but the policies of most universities had deficiencies.16 Library staff INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES JUNE 2020 ARE IVY LEAGUE LIBRARY WEBSITE HOMEPAGES ACCESSIBLE? | LIU 4 must be better informed and trained to understand the tools available to users, and when reviewing web pages, the audiences of all kinds must be considered.17 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This study, as a continuing effort from an earlier study on urban library websites, made use of content analysis methodology to examine the website accessibility of the university libraries against the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), with a focus on those with visual or cognitive disabilities.18 Under the ADA, people with disabilities are guaranteed access to all postsecondary programs and services. The evaluation of accessibility focuses on the main pages of these university library websites, as shown in table 1, because these homepages considerably demonstrate the institution’s best effort or, at least, most recent redesigns. It was the intent of the authors of this research to reveal the current status of the Ivy League library homepages’ accessibility and the importance that Ivy League universities attach to the accessibility of their websites. Commonly recognized website evaluators (WAVE, AChecker, and Cynthia Says), along with other online tools, evaluate a website's accessibility by checking its HTML and XML code. WAVE and AChecker were selected for this study for the robustness of their evaluation based on W3C guidelines, comprehensiveness of evaluation reporting, and ready availability to any institution or individual conducting website evaluations. WAVE is a web evaluation tool that was utilized to check websites against Section 508 standards and WCAG 2.0 guidelines. This assessment was conducted by entering a uniform research locator, URL, or website address in the search box. The evaluation tool provided a summary of Errors, Alerts, Features, Structural Elements, HTML5 and ARIA. AChecker is a tool to check single HTML page content for conformance with accessibility standards to ensure the content can be accessed by everyone. It produces a report of all accessibility problems for the selected guidelines by three types of problems: Known Problems, Likely Problems and Potential Problems. Both WAVE and AChecker help website developers make their website content more accessible. Data from different periods were compared to show statistically whether enough attention was paid to accessibility issues by the Ivy League university systems. The study team collected the first data set in February 2014, using WAVE for Section 508. In 2018, AChecker accessibility checker was used for both Section 508 and WCAG 2.0 AA. The Access Board published new requirements for information and communication technology covered by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and- standards/communications-and-it/about-the-ict-refresh) on January 18, 2017. The latest WCAG 2.0 guidelines were updated on September 5, 2013 (https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/). While the WAVE development team indicated that they have updated the indicators in WAVE regarding WCAG 2.0, the current indicators regarding Section 508 refer to the previous technical standards for Section 508, not the updated 2017 ones. According to AChecker.ca, the versions of the Section 508 standards and WCAG 2.0 AA guidelines used were published on March 12, 2004 and June 19, 2006, respectively, with neither being the latest versions. This study centered on three research questions: https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-ict-refresh https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-ict-refresh https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES JUNE 2020 ARE IVY LEAGUE LIBRARY WEBSITE HOMEPAGES ACCESSIBLE? | LIU 5 1. Are the library websites of the eight Ivy League universities ADA compliant? 2. Are there easily identified issues that present barriers to access for the visually impaired on the IVY League university library homepages? 3. What should Ivy League libraries do to achieve ADA compliance and to maintain it? Table 1. Investigated Websites of Ivy League University Libraries. Library Website Address Brown University Library https://library.brown.edu Columbia University Libraries http://library.columbia.edu Cornell University Library https://www.library.cornell.edu Dartmouth Library https://www.library.dartmouth.edu Harvard Library http://library.harvard.edu Princeton University Library http://library.princeton.edu Penn Libraries http://www.library.upenn.edu Yale University Library https://web.library.yale.edu RESULTS & DISCUSSION All five evaluation categories employed by WAVE for Section 508 standards, as shown in figure 1, were examined, with a more in-depth review of the homepage of the University of Pennsylvania library. Similar results in numbers of the five categories are presented in the library homepages of Brown University, Columbia University, and Cornell University. Interestingly, WAVE indicates more Errors and Alerts on the homepage of Yale University. Figure 1. WAVE Results for Section 508 Standards. In order to determine the accuracy of the results, the team also used AChecker to reevaluate these homepages in the year 2018. Known Problems as the category in AChecker are as serious as Errors in WAVE. They have been identified with certainty as accessibility barriers by the website INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES JUNE 2020 ARE IVY LEAGUE LIBRARY WEBSITE HOMEPAGES ACCESSIBLE? | LIU 6 evaluators and need to be fixed. Likely Problems are problems that could be barriers which require a human to decide whether there is a need to fix them. AChecker cannot identify Potential Problems and requires a human to confirm if identified problems need remediation. Figure 2 shows the numbers for each category as detected by AChecker on June 18, 2018, on the eig ht Ivy League university libraries’ homepages. The library homepage of the University of Pennsylvania was found to contain the most, which was the same as the result from WAVE. However, among the seven remaining libraries’ homepages, the homepage of Harvard University library displayed the same number of problems as the University of Pennsylvania detected by AChecker. Figure 2. AChecker Results for Section 508 Standards. There was significant improvement between 2014 and 2018 The results of this research from WAVE for Section 508 standards signify a significant shift in the accessibility of these websites between the years of 2014 and 2018. Among the five WAVE detection categories in the eight library homepages, the total of Errors and Alerts decreased during this period. For instance, the total number of Errors was 36 in 2014 decreasing to 11 in 2018, and the number of Alerts decreased from 141 to 14. Figure 3 shows the number of Errors in each library homepage, and figure 4 shows the number of Alerts. They all show a downward trend from 2014 to 2018. But Features, Structural Elements and HTML/ARIA were all on the rise when comparing the two years’ data sets. The green sections in table 2 indicate a decrease of the numbers in three categories from 2014 to 2018, and the yellow sections indicate an increase in numbers. These data results revealed that Errors and Alerts, the most common problems related to access, had been better controlled during these years, while others might still remain unchanged. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES JUNE 2020 ARE IVY LEAGUE LIBRARY WEBSITE HOMEPAGES ACCESSIBLE? | LIU 7 Figure 3. Change of Errors from 2014 to 2018. Figure 4. Change of Alerts from 2014 to 2018. Table 2. Changes of Features, Structural Elements, and HTML/ARIA between 2014 and 2018. Categories Features Structural Elements HTML/ARIA Year of Data Collection 2014 2018 2014 2018 2014 2018 Total 108 191 184 233 24 89 Brown University Library 13 15 6 13 0 1 Columbia University Libraries 12 13 23 14 17 0 Cornell University Library 5 6 20 18 0 4 Dartmouth Library 10 8 15 27 0 23 Harvard Library 20 20 14 24 0 4 Princeton University Library 15 31 45 24 0 3 Penn Libraries 12 90 29 104 7 50 Yale University Library 21 8 32 9 0 4 Missing Form Labels were the Top Error Against the ADA The data used in the analysis below were all the test data collected in 2018. All Errors appearing in data results were collected and analyzed. Figure 5 shows the number of Errors that were identified based on the specific requirements contained in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act as evaluated by WAVE. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES JUNE 2020 ARE IVY LEAGUE LIBRARY WEBSITE HOMEPAGES ACCESSIBLE? | LIU 8 Figure 5. Occurrences of Specific Error per Specific 508 Standards. The term Error refers to accessibility errors that need to be fixed. Missing Form Label was the highest frequency Error type shown. Only two types of Errors occurred in Ivy League university libraries’ homepages. But these Errors didn’t appear on every homepage. There are several Errors in some homepages while others had no Errors. For example, Linked Image Missing Alternative Text occurred on the library homepage of Harvard University twice. Table 3 shows the distribution of Errors in eight homepages. Table 3. Distribution of Errors in Eight Homepages. Missing Form Label Linked Image Missing Alternative Text Brown University Library Columbia University Libraries 1 Cornell University Library Dartmouth Library 3 Harvard Library 2 Princeton University Library Penn Libraries 1 Yale University Library 4 Missing Form Label is listed in Section 508 (n) and means there is a form control without a corresponding label. This is important because if a form control does not have a properly associated text label, the function or purpose of that form control may not be presented to sc reen reader users. Linked Image Missing Alternative Text occurred only in the Harvard library homepage among the eight Ivy League university libraries’ homepages. It indicated that an image without alternative text results in an empty link. If an image is within a link that does not provide alternative text, a screen reader has no content to present to the user regarding the function of the link. These website accessibility issues may be easy fixes and considered minor to some; however, if they are not detected, they are major barriers for persons living with low vision or blindness. As a result, users are left at a disadvantage because they are lacking critical information to successfully fulfill their needs. Examples of such Error icons in WAVE are displayed in figures 6 and 7. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES JUNE 2020 ARE IVY LEAGUE LIBRARY WEBSITE HOMEPAGES ACCESSIBLE? | LIU 9 Figure 6. Missing Form Label Icon from Yale University Library Homepage. Figure 7. Linked Image Missing Alternative Text Icon from Harvard Library Homepage. A total of eleven Errors, as shown in figure 8, were located on the homepages of the eight Ivy League libraries and illustrated the number of Errors that occurred in each library homepage. The average number of Errors for each homepage was 1.375. Yale University library homepage had the most Errors with a total of four. Library homepages of Brown University, Cornell University and Princeton University performed best with zero Errors. Figure 8. The Total of Errors in Ivy League Libraries’ Homepages. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES JUNE 2020 ARE IVY LEAGUE LIBRARY WEBSITE HOMEPAGES ACCESSIBLE? | LIU 10 Six Alerts appear among ADA requirements The issues that Alerts identify are also significant for website accessibility. Figure 9 shows there are six different kinds of Alerts that were identified based on the specific requirements contained in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Figure 9. Occurrences of Specific Alert per Specific 508 Standards. The Noscript Element was the most encountered Alert issue. Alerts that WAVE reports need close scrutiny, because they likely represent an end-user accessibility issue. The Noscript Element is related to the 508 (l) requirement and means a Noscript Element is present when JavaScript is disabled. For users of screen readers and other assistive technologies, almost all have JavaScript enabled, so Noscript cannot be used to provide an accessible version of inaccessible scripted content. Skipped Heading Level ranked was second in number. The importance of Headings is in their provision of document structure and facilitation of keyboard navigation for users of assistive technology. These users may be confused or they may experience difficulty navigating when heading levels are skipped. Examples of icons of these Alerts, evaluated by WAVE, indicated these Noscript Elements as being to accessibility, as shown in figures 10 and 11. Figure 10. Noscript Element Icon from Cornell University Library Homepage. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES JUNE 2020 ARE IVY LEAGUE LIBRARY WEBSITE HOMEPAGES ACCESSIBLE? | LIU 11 Figure 11. Skipped Heading Level Icon from Dartmouth Library Homepage. A total of fourteen Alert problems were detected. Figure twelve illustrates the number of Alerts that occurred on each library homepage. On average, there were 1.75 Alerts present on the eight websites. The library homepages of Yale University and the University of Pennsylvania had the most Alerts with 4 on each site. Only the Brown University library’s homepage had zero Alerts. Figure 12. The Total of Alerts in Ivy League Libraries’ Homepages. Linked Image with Alternative Text was the most frequently found Feature issue Features as a category of issues indicates conditions of accessibility that probably need to be improved and usually require further verification and manual fixing. For example, if a Feature is detected on a website, it means that further manual verification is required to confirm its accessibility. Figure 13 shows the number of Features that were identified, based on the specific requirement contained in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES JUNE 2020 ARE IVY LEAGUE LIBRARY WEBSITE HOMEPAGES ACCESSIBLE? | LIU 12 Figure 13. Occurrences of Specific Features per Specific 508 Standards. Linked Image with Alternative Text, which is a 508 (a) requirement, was shown to be the most encountered Features issue. This means that an alternative text should be presented for an image that is within a link. By including appropriate alternative text on an image within a link, the function and purpose of the link and the content of the image are available to screen reader users even when images are unavailable. Another high occurring Feature was Form Label, which means a form label is present and associated with a form control. A properly associated form label is presented to a screen reader user when the form control is accessed. These evaluation steps were the same ones used for Errors and Alerts. Example icons of Features evaluated by WAVE are displayed as figures 14 and 15. Figure 14. Linked Image with Alternative Text Icon from Brown University Library Homepage. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES JUNE 2020 ARE IVY LEAGUE LIBRARY WEBSITE HOMEPAGES ACCESSIBLE? | LIU 13 Figure 15. Form Label Icon from Penn Libraries Homepage. This study also ranked the number of Features that were detected by WAVE in the eight Ivy League library homepages. Figure 16 displays the number of Features that occurred on each library homepage. In total there were 191 Features detected by WAVE in the eight Ivy League university libraries’ homepages. The homepage of the University of Pennsylvania library was found to have 90 Features, by far the most of all the libraries. No library was entirely free of Features according to the WAVE measurement using Section 508 standards. Figure 16. The Total of Features in Ivy League Libraries’ Homepages. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES JUNE 2020 ARE IVY LEAGUE LIBRARY WEBSITE HOMEPAGES ACCESSIBLE? | LIU 14 Table 4A. Comparison between WAVE & AChecker Section 508 Standards on Brown and Columbia’s library homepages. Section 508 Standards Brown University Columbia University WAVE AChecker WAVE AChecker April June April June April June April June Total 33 29 47 47 28 29 79 83 A 9 9 9 9 12 13 12 14 B C 14 14 26 28 D 8 8 14 14 E F G H I J 8 8 14 14 K L 6 6 12 12 M N 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 23 19 1 1 15 15 1 1 P Table 4B. Comparison between WAVE & AChecker Section 508 Standards on Cornell and Dartmouth’s library homepages. Section 508 Standards Cornell University Dartmouth College WAVE AChecker WAVE AChecker April June April June April June April June Total 30 29 107 106 59 68 65 67 A 2 2 2 2 8 8 10 11 B C 36 36 22 23 D 32 32 9 9 E F G H I J 33 32 9 9 K L 3 3 7 7 M N 7 7 23 29 8 8 O 21 20 1 1 28 31 P INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES JUNE 2020 ARE IVY LEAGUE LIBRARY WEBSITE HOMEPAGES ACCESSIBLE? | LIU 15 Table 4C. Comparison between WAVE & AChecker Section 508 Standards on Harvard and Princeton’s library homepages. Section 508 Standards Harvard University Princeton University WAVE AChecker WAVE AChecker April June April June April June April June Total 51 51 139 139 57 61 74 74 A 20 20 29 29 25 25 20 20 B C 43 43 32 32 D 32 32 10 10 E F G H I J 34 34 10 10 K L 1 1 M N 5 5 3 7 O 26 26 1 1 29 29 1 1 P Table 4D. Comparison between WAVE & AChecker Section 508 Standards on Pennsylvania and Yale’s library homepages. Section 508 Standards University of Pennsylvania Yale University WAVE AChecker WAVE AChecker April June April June April June April June Total 253 249 129 139 28 29 84 85 A 40 37 14 19 6 7 4 5 B C 82 87 28 28 D 11 11 21 21 E F G 1 1 H I J 11 11 21 21 K L 1 1 9 9 3 3 4 4 M 3 2 N 103 104 1 1 8 8 4 4 O 106 105 1 1 11 11 1 1 P INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES JUNE 2020 ARE IVY LEAGUE LIBRARY WEBSITE HOMEPAGES ACCESSIBLE? | LIU 16 A Few 508 Standards Deviate from Comparison between two Evaluators To determine whether the WAVE tool missed some specific requirements in Section 508, the authors comparatively examined these eight university homepages using both WAVE and AChecker from one site to another synchronously in April and again in June 2019. There are sixteen principles in Section 508. They are arranged from A to P. Tables 4A–4D indicate issues for these Section 508’s requirements in the eight universities’ homepages respectively. Except the requirement G for Yale library homepage which shows one issue in AChecker, in neither WAVE nor AChecker during the time we conducted our examination, there was no issue found for the seven requirements (B, E, F, H, I, K, and P) below: B. Equivalent alternatives for any multimedia presentation shall be synchronized with the presentation; E. Redundant text links shall be provided for each active region of a server-side image map; F. Client-side image maps shall be provided instead of server-side image maps except where the regions cannot be defined with an available geometric shape; H. Markup shall be used to associate data cells and header cells for data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers; I. Frames shall be titled with text that facilitates frame identification and navigation; K. A text-only page, with equivalent information or functionality, shall be provided to make a website comply with the provisions of this part, when compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way. The content of the text-only page shall be updated whenever the primary page changes; P. When a timed response is required, the user shall be alerted and given sufficient time to indicate more time is required. The results tabulated in tables 4A–4D indicate that these seven Section 508 requirements perhaps are not problematic to the websites. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results, this study determined that the eight Ivy League universities’ homepages exhibited some issues with accessibility for people with disabilities. Considerable effort is necessary to ensure their websites ready to meet the challenges and future needs of web accessibility. Users with visual impairments can navigate a website only when it is designed to be accessible with other assistive technology. While each institution presented both general and comprehensive coverage of services for users with disabilities, it would have been more practical and efficient if specific links were posted on the homepage. According to the American Foundation for the Blind (https://www.afb.org), “usability” is a way of describing how easy a website is to understand and use. Accessibility refers to how easily a website can be used, understood, and accessed by people with disabilities. https://www.afb.org/ INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES JUNE 2020 ARE IVY LEAGUE LIBRARY WEBSITE HOMEPAGES ACCESSIBLE? | LIU 17 This study has concluded that expertise and specialized training and skill are still needed in th is area. Principles of accessible website design must be introduced and taught, underscoring that design matters for people with disabilities just as it does in the physical environment. As highlighted earlier through the evaluation tool WAVE, most of the problems detected can be fixed with provided solutions. A frequent review is critical and websites should be assessed at a minimum on a yearly basis for accessibility compliance. There is much to be done if accessibility is to be realized for everyone. LIMITATIONS The authors recognize that this study, using free website accessibility testing tools, has certain limitations. As WAVE remarked in their HELP page, the aim of website developers is not to get rid of all identified problem categories except Errors that need to be fixed, but to determine whether a website is accessible. At the time of writing neither WAVE nor AChecker were updated with the latest general WCAG 2.1 AA rules. While the version of WCAG 2.1 is expected to provide new guidelines for making websites even more accessible, more careful and comprehensive studies against the WCAG 2.1 AA rules could further assist university library professionals and their website developers to provide those with disabilities with accessible websites. Moreover, while it is effective to conduct these machine-generated evaluations, it is equally important that researchers check the issues manually to impose human analysis in determining the major issues with content. ENDNOTES 1 Joan M. Reitz, ODLIS: Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science. (Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2004), 1–2. 2 Darlene Fichter, “Making your Website Accessible,” Online Searcher 37, no. 4 (2013): 73–76. 3 Fichter, “Making your Website Accessible,” 74. 4 Axel Schmetzke, Web Page Accessibility on University of Wisconsin Campuses: A Comparative Study (Stevens Point, WI, 2019). 5 Jeffrey Rubin and Dana Chisnell, Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests (Idaho: Wiley, 2008), 6–11. 6 Alan Foley, “Exploring the Design, Development and Use of Websites through Accessibility and Usability Studies,” Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 20, no. 4 (2011), 361–85, http://www.editlib.org/p/37621/. 7 Michael Providenti and Robert Zai III, “Web Accessibility at Kentucky's Academic Libraries,” Library Hi Tech 25, no. 4 (2007): 478–93, https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830710840446. 8 Lisa Billingham, “Improving Academic Library Website Accessibility for People with Disabilities,” Library Management 35, no. 8/9 (2014): 565–81, https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-11-2013-0107. 9 Tatiana I Solovieva and Jeremy M Bock, “Monitoring for Accessibility and University Websites: Meeting the Needs of People with Disabilities,” Journal of Postsecondary Education and http://www.editlib.org/p/37621/ https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830710840446 https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-11-2013-0107 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND LIBRARIES JUNE 2020 ARE IVY LEAGUE LIBRARY WEBSITE HOMEPAGES ACCESSIBLE? | LIU 18 Disability 27, no. 2 (2014): 113–27, http://search.proquest.com/docview/1651856804?accountid=9744. 10 Stephanie L. Maatta Smith, “Web Accessibility Assessment of Urban Public Library Websites,” Public Library Quarterly 33, no. 3 (2014): 187–204, https://doi.org/187- 204.10.1080/01616846.2014.937207. 11 Yan Quan Liu, Arlene Bielefeld, and Peter McKay, “Are Urban Public Libraries’ Websites Accessible to Americans with Disabilities?,” Universal Access in the Information Society, 18, no. 1 (2019): 191–206, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0571-7. 12 Liu, Bielefeld, and McKay, “Are Urban Public Library Websites Accessible.” 13 Mary Frances Theofanos and J. Redish, “Bridging the Gap: Between Accessibility and Usability,” Interactions 10, no. 6 (2003): 36–51, https://doi.org/10.1145/947226.947227. 14 Jonathan Lazar, A. Dudley-Sponaugle, and K. D. Greenidge, “Improving Web Accessibility: A Study of Webmaster Perceptions,” Computers in Human Behavior 20, no. 2 (2004): 269–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.018. 15 Foley, “Exploring the Design,” 365. 16 David A. Bradbard, Cara Peters, and Yoana Caneva, “Web Accessibility Policies at Land-grant Universities,” Internet & Higher Education 13, no. 4 (2010): 258–66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.05.007. 17 Mary Cassner, Charlene Maxey-Harris, and Toni Anaya, “Differently Able: A Review of Academic Library Websites for People With Disabilities," Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian 30, no. 1 (2011): 33–51, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2011.548722. 18 Liu, Bielefeld, and McKay, “Are Urban Public Library Websites Accessible,” 195. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1651856804?accountid=9744 https://doi.org/187-204.10.1080/01616846.2014.937207 https://doi.org/187-204.10.1080/01616846.2014.937207 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0571-7 https://doi.org/10.1145/947226.947227 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.05.007 https://doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2011.548722 ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Literature Review Research Design and Methods Results & Discussion There was significant improvement between 2014 and 2018 Missing Form Labels were the Top Error Against the ADA Six Alerts appear among ADA requirements Linked Image with Alternative Text was the most frequently found Feature issue A Few 508 Standards Deviate from Comparison between two Evaluators ConclusionS Limitations ENDNOTES