Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 935 – 940

Future Academy®’s Multidisciplinary Conference

Digital Barriers In Educating Students With Visual Impairment

Regec Vojtecha,*
a
Palacký University Olomouc, Faculty of Education, Žižkovo nám. 5, 77140 Olomouc, Czech republic

Abstract

Successful inclusion of the visually impaired students is significantly influenced by digital barriers in their educational
environment. For students with visual impairment, the occurrence of digital barriers reflects negatively in the quality of their
university studies. Provision of sighted person assistance or other support measures may help to overcome the impacts of digital
barriers, however it does not comply with the inclusive approach requirements. The aim of the paper is to examine the
development of digital barriers in the university environment in 2007 - 2015. Selected conclusions of the research carried out
have been subsequently compared while monitoring individual specifics and differences between the occurrence of digital
barriers in the Czech and Slovak Republic. We have found out that the trend in development of digital barriers is gradually
deteriorating. At the same time, we ascertained that there are no statistically significant differences in the e-Accessibility level in
the countries monitored.

©
© 2016
2016Published by Elsevier
The Authors. Ltd. by
Published This is an open
Elsevier Ltd.access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Future Academy® Cognitive Trading.
Peer-review under responsibility of Future Academy® Cognitive Trading
Keywords: e-Accessibility; digital barriers; university; visual impairment.

1. Problem Statement

In the educational environment, digital barriers have a significant impact on success of the visually impaired
students' inclusion process (Jašková, 2008; Regec & Pastieriková, 2013). In this process, the task of the university
system shall be to eliminate the electronic obstacles in the access to information for all students indiscriminately.
Accessible electronic environment of the educational platform (Hersh & Johnson, 2008) means that a student with
severe visual impairment is able to use the academic information system, e-learning, electronic library and the like
independently and without a sighted person's assistance. At the same time, implementation and provision of access

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +420 774 239 737; fax: + 420 585 635 339.
E-mail address: vojtech.regec@upol.cz

1877-0428 © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Future Academy® Cognitive Trading
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.058
936 Regec Vojtech / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 935 – 940

to the electronic systems used by the visually impaired student for administrating the related agenda such as the
accommodation system and digital catering system is no less important. The aim of the paper is to examine the
development of digital barriers in the university environment in 2007 - 2015. Selected conclusions of the research
carried out have been subsequently compared while monitoring individual specifics and differences between the
occurrence of digital barriers in the Czech and Slovak Republic.

2. Research Methods

Qualitative and quantitative analysis was chosen as the key research method, applied to 114 websites of public,
state and private universities and colleges. In total, 76 universities in the Czech Republic and 38 universities in the
Slovak Republic have been evaluated considering the accessibility and digital barriers. In terms of e-Accessibility,
we have evaluated 29 areas based on the international rules compiled under the title WCAG 2.0. These rules also
represent a part of the legal standards for the area of website accessibility in the countries monitored.
The accessibility rating methodology used in our research represents a specific method of calculating the
accessibility rating of a website quantifying the individual conclusions from the manual control form. The manual
control is defined as specialized evaluation by an experienced website accessibility expert (Regec, 2015). In addition
to theoretical mastering of the rules, the expert also needs to have practical knowledge of the principles of the
assistance technologies for persons with visual impairment. In our research, we used the speech synthesizers (screen
readers) NVDA (NonVisual Desktop Access) and JAWS (Job Access With Speech). On the basis of individual
assessment, we have evaluated the conclusion for each individual area of accessibility, determining whether or not
the status detected is in compliance with the rule. In case of an exact detection of contradiction between the actual
status of the website and the methodological wording of the rule, we have considered the severity of the breach
detected. In this respect, our methodology differentiates the following types of evaluation results (Regec, 2014):
• Significant breach shall mean the breach which fails to enable access to information for the visually impaired
users in the same extent and quality as for the intact users. The practical and user accessibility is demonstrably
disturbed and apparent.
• Moderate breach shall mean the type of breach not having a significant impact on the practical and user
accessibility. These are usually technical deficiencies breaching the standard without significantly disrupting the
access to important information values or functionality of the website.
• Conclusion reading "No breach" or "Satisfactory" represents fulfilment of the monitored point and no
contradiction with its diction found.
Sensitive differentiation of the rules by their severity is the key one because the impact of digital barriers on the
user accessibility may be variable. Therefore, it depends significantly on the quality and the particular type of digital
barrier.
In case of detecting digital barriers, our methodology of website accessibility rating defines a system of penalty
points awarding. The number of penalty points is awarded based on the severity of the breach. In total, there are the
following 3 priorities detected for the 29 rules evaluated in total:
• basic (23 rules);
• higher (3 rules);
• highest (3 rules).
The value of penalty points is awarded based on the severity of the breach. For the penalty point calculation
system based on priority of the rule see Table 1.
 Regec Vojtech / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 935 – 940 937

Table 1 Awarding penalty points based on priority of the digital accessibility rule
Number of penalty Number of Number of
points penalty points penalty points
Evaluation conclusion Basic priority Higher priority Highest priority
Significant breach 2 6 12
Moderate breach 1 3 6
No breach/satisfactory 0 0 0

According to the occurrence of the cases of breach, the formula for calculating the summary of penalty points has
the form as follows:

bm = moderate breach
bs = significant breach

Rating of accessibility represents conformity of the website expressed in percentage with wording of the rated
rules. Highest rating of accessibility is marked with the value of 100% which represents fulfilment of all valued
aspects of individual rules in full extent and complex provision of the website environment accessibility (Regec,
2008).
Basic formula for accessibility rating calculation in %:

r = rating of website accessibility

s = summary of assessed penalty points

The numerical value of 100 listed in the denominator represents the summary of penalty points in case of severe
breach of all rules.
Based on the percentage of accessibility rating, an innovative range has been prepared, determining the individual
accessibility levels (accessibility rating values are provided in brackets):
• Highest accessibility level (100% - 96%);
• High accessibility level (95.5% - 91%);
• Medium accessibility level (90.5% - 84%);
• Lower accessibility level (83.5% - 75%);
• Low accessibility level (74.5% - 70%);
• Very low accessibility level (69.5% and less).

3. Findings

In the context of the WCAG 2.0 rule requirements, we have evaluated the accessibility status of the websites in
2015 as unsatisfactory. The rating value of an averate website of a university or college in the Czech and Slovak
Republic was 77.9% which means a lower e-accessibility level. In mutual comparison of results from the monitored
countries we have found out that in the Slovak Republic, the average value of e-accessibility rating of universities is
higher than in the Czech Republic by 0.4% (Fig. 1).
938 Regec Vojtech / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 935 – 940

Fig. 1. Comparison of arithmetic average of e-accessibility of universities in the Czech and Slovak Republic (n = 114)

We have found out that in the Slovak Republic, the development of digital barriers has had a stagnant trend since
2007. Compared to 2007, the average value of e-accessibility rating in 2015, was lower by 1.2%.Within the
monitored period, the e-accessibility rating only had a downward trend until 2014. For more details, see Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Development of overall accessibility rating of universities and colleges in the Slovak Republic in 2007 – 2015

Compared to 2014, the e-accessibility rating in the Czech Republic in 2005 was higher by 0.6%. At the same
time, we ascertained that there are no statistically significant differences in the e-Accessibility level between the
Czech and Slovak Republic.
When comparing the selected digital barriers, higher variations were recorded in the field of graphic elements
accessibility. Higher breach of the rule with highest priority referring to the accessibility of non-text (graphic)
elements was reported in the Czech Republic more frequently by 10.6%. On the contrary, the occurrence of barriers
 Regec Vojtech / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 935 – 940 939

in the field of electronic forms was higher in the Slovak Republic. We have also found extremely high differences
between the countries in the area of accessibility of headings and lists (higher priority rule). The No breach
assessment result was as much as twice more frequent in the Czech Republic than in Slovakia.

Table 2 Comparison of findings of selected digital barriers in the Czech and Slovak Republic

CZECH REPUBLIC SLOVAK REPUBLIC

DIGITAL BARRIER AREA No Moderate Significant No Moderate Significant
breach breach breach breach breach breach
5.3% 23.7% 71.1% 2.6% 36.8% 60.5%
GRAPHIC ELEMENTS
(4) (18) (54) (1) (14) (23)
19.7% 52.6% 27.6% 13.2% 55.3% 31.6%
ELECTRONIC FORMS
(15) (40) (21) (5) (21) (12)
KEYBOARD 36.8% 38.2% 25.0% 34.2% 39.5% 26.3%
ACCESSSIBILITY (28) (29) (19) (13) (15) (10)
CONTENT STRUCTURE 27.6% 56.6% 15.8% 13.2% 63.2% 23.7%
(HEADINGS AND LISTS) (21) (43) (12) (5) (24) (9)
NAMING THE WEBSITE 40.8% 38.2% 21.1% 34.2% 36.8% 28.9%
TITLES (31) (29) (16) (13) (14) (11)
FORMATTING AND 32.9% 35.5% 31.6% 21.1% 52.6% 26.3%
ARRANGEMENT OF TABLES (25) (27) (24) (8) (20) (10)
MULTIMEDIA (AUDIO, 42.1% 48.7% 9.2% 55.3% 36.8% 7.9%
VIDEO) (32) (37) (7) (21) (14) (3)
13.2% 61.8% 25.0% 15.8% 55.3% 28.9%
HYPERTEXT LINKS
(19) (47) (19) (6) (21) (11)
CONTRASTS FOR TEXT 23.7% 55.3% 15.8% 13.2% 50.0% 36.8%
INFORMATION (18) (42) (12) (5) (19) (14)
19.7% 57.9% 22.4% 10.5% 65.8% 23.7%
FONT SETTINGS
(15) (44) (17) (4) (25) (9)

In both countries alike, the highest number of cases of compliance with rules was recorded in the field of
multimedia element accessibility, website titles and keyboard accessibility.

4. Conclusions

The area of digital barriers and e-Accessibility belongs among the urgent issues in today’s practice. Based on our
findings we may state that accessibility at universities in the monitored countries considering the specific needs of
students with visual impairment is not satisfactory. For students with visual impairment, the occurrence of digital
barriers reflects negatively in the quality of their university studies (Mendelová & Lecký, 2008). Provision of
sighted person assistance or other support measures may help to overcome the impacts of digital barriers, however it
does not comply with the inclusive approach requirements. A good practice would be to build the electronic
environment in compliance with the universal design requirements, adjusted to the specific needs of all students,
indiscriminately. In this respect, university electronic systems should be mandatory and regularly tested for
accessibility (Regec, 2014). Gradual and systemic elimination of electronic obstacles should include implementation
of tools aimed at evaluating the compliance with individual e-Accessibility rules. In the event of deficiencies it is
essential that these findings were not only evaluated statistically but at the same time served as a platform for
elimination thereof in practice.

Acknowledgements

This paper was written with the support of the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic, the registration number: 14-
33854P (e-Accessibility for Students with Visual Impairment at Universities in Czech and Slovak Republic).
940 Regec Vojtech / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 935 – 940

References

Brajnik, G., Yesilada, Y. & Harper, S. (2010). Testability and validity of WCAG 2.0: the expertise effect. In: Proceedings of the
12th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility; New York, NY, USA. pp. 43-50.
Bühler, C. et al. (2006). Interpreting Results from Large Scale Automatic Evaluation of Web Accessibility. In Miesenberger, K.,
Klaus, J., Zagler, W.L., Karshmer, A.I. (Eds.) International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs.
Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 184-191.
Hersh M. A. & Johnson M. S. (2008). Accessible Information: An Overview. In: Hersh, M. A., Johnson, M. S. (Eds.) Technology
for Visually Impaired and Blind People. First Edition. London: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-1-84628-866-1. pp. 385 - 448.
Jašková, Ľ. (2008). Digital technologies in education of visually impaired. Dissertation Paper. Bratislava: Comenius University.
158p.
Mendelová, E. & Lecký, P. (2008). Accessible Learning Resources for Blind Students. In: Niektoré technologické inovácie v
špeciálnej pedagogike. Levoča: Matej Hrebenda Slovak Library for the Blind in Levoča, Volume 38, Number 7. ISSN 1335-
6100. pp. 54-65.
Peňáz, P. (2002). Literacy of the Blind and Perspectives of Tactile Information Coding [Gramotnost nevidomých a perspektivy
hmatového kódování informací]. In Jesenský, J. Edukace a rehabilitace zrakově postižených na prahu nového milénia.
Hradec Králové: Gaudeamus, ISBN 80-7041-041-8. pp. 256-268.
Regec, V. (2014) Visual Impairment and Digital Barriers at University and College Web Portals In 7th International Conference
of Education, Research and Innovation. ISBN: 978-84-617-2484-0. pp. 3533 - 3539.
Regec, V. (2015). Comparison of Automatic, Manual and Real User Experience Based Testing of Accessibility of Web Sites for
Persons with Visual Impairment. In: Journal of Exceptional People. Palacký University Olomouc, 2015. Volume 1, Number
6. ISSN 1805-4978. pp. 117-123
Regec, V. & Pastieriková, L. (2013) E-Accessibility for Students with Visual Impairment at Universities in Czech and Slovak
Republic In 4th International Conference on New Horizons in Education. Volume 1/3. ISSN: 2146-7358. pp. 1282-1289.
Regec, V. & Regec, M. (2014) Digital Barriers for Students with Visual Impairments at Universities in the Slovak Republic. In:
Proceedings of INTCESS14 - International Conference on Education & Social Sciences. ISBN: 978-605-64453-0-9. pp.
1450-1458.
Varney, E. (2013) Disability and Information Technology. A Comparative Study in Media Regulation. First Edition. New York:
Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-0-521-19161-6.