The accessibility of municipal government websites

Journal of E-Government

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 75-90

  Evans Cowley, Jennifer ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Accessibility; Cities; E government; Municipalities; Section 508; Websites

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745076938     PISSN: 15424049     EISSN: 15424057     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J399v02n02_05     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Alt Tags. 2004. The Invisible Web: Why your constituents can't use your city website. Accessed April 4, 2005: http://www.alttags.org/reports/ alttags-section508.pdf
2. Barnicle, K. (2000). Usability testing with screen reading technology in a Windows environment. In Proceedings on the conference on universal usability, 2000 on Conference on Universal Usability (pp. 102-109), New York: ACM Press.
3. Boyer, C. (2000). Libraries and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, Library Hi Tech News, 17(5), 27-29.
4. Brewer, J. (2003). United States: State policies relating to Web accessibility. Accessed April 1, 2005: http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/ USA-States.html
5. Britt, J. and T. L. Orr (2001). GSA releases final FAR rules on section 508, Government Computer News, 20(9), Accessed April 1, 2005: http://www.gcn.com/vol20_no9/news/4076-1.html
6. Center for Disease Control. 2001. Prevalence of Disabilities and Associated Health Conditions Among Adults. Accessed July 6, 2005: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5007a3.htm February 23.
7. Choudrie, J., G. Ghinea and V. Weerakkody. (2004). Evaluating Global e-Government Sites: A View using Web Diagnostic Tools. Electronic Journal of E-government, 2(3), Accessed April 14, 2005: http://www.ejeg.com
8. City of Chicago, Illinois. (2005). Web Standards. Accessed April 4, 2005: http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/ portalGeneralMessageAction.do?BV_SessionID= @@@@2091622445.1112633792@@@@&BV_EngineID= ccccaddeffmlifkcefecelldffhdfhg.0&oid=536912292
9. City of San Jose, California. (2005). Access Instructions. Accessed April 4, 2005: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/access.html
10. Ellison, J. (2004). Assessing the accessibility of fifty United States government Web pages: Using Bobby to check on Uncle Sam. First Monday, 9(7), Accessed April 8, 2005: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_7/ ellison/index.html
11. Emery, G. R. (2002). Section 508 'not as hard as people thought,' Washington Technology, 17(4), Accessed April 1, 2005: http://www.washingtontechnology. com/news/17_4/federal/18272-5.html
12. Flowers, C., M. Bray, and R. F. Algozzine. (1999). Accessibility of special education program home pages. Journal of Special Education Technology, 14(2), 21-26.
13. Flowers, C. P., M. Bray, and R. F. Algozzine. (2001). Content accessibility of community college Websites. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25, 475-485.
14. Graves, S. (2000). What Bobby found this year: Commerce had no errors. Government Computer News, 20(23), Accessed April 1, 2005: http://www.gcn.com/20_23/reviews/16783-2.html
15. Jaeger, P. T. (2002). Benchmarking the egovernmentrevolution: Year 2000 report on citizen and business demand, Washington DC: National Information Center.
16. Jaeger, P. T. (2004). Beyond Section 508: The spectrum of legal requirements for accessible e-government Websites in the United States. Journal of Government Technology, 30, 518-533.
17. Kayor, C. (2005). The Municipality eGovernment Assessment Project (MeGAP) Accessed July 5, 2005: http://www.psigroup.biz/megap/
18. Lazar, J., P. Beere, K. Greenridge, and Y. Nagappa. (2003). Web accessibility in the rnid-Atlantic United States: A study of 50 homepages. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2, 331-441.
19. Lilly E. and C. Van Fleet. (1999). Wired But Not Connected: Accessibility of Academic Library Home Pages, Reference Librarian, 67/ 68, pp. 5-28.
20. Loiacono, E. T. (2004). Cyberaccess: Web accessibility and corporate America, Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 83-87.
21. Mates, B. (1999). Adaptive Technology for the Internet: Making Electronic Resources Accessible to All. Chicago: American Library Association, and at Accessed April 1, 2005: http://www.ala.org/ala/ products/books/editions/adaptivetechnology.htm
22. Muir, A. and C. Oppenheim. (2002). National information policy developments worldwide I: Electronic government, Journal of Information Science, 28(3), 173-186.
23. Nadler, D. M. and V. M. Furman. (2001). Access board issues final standards for disabled access under Section 508 of Rehabilitation Act, Government Contral Litigation Reporter, 14(19), 14.
24. Noble, S. (2002). Web Access and the Law: A Public Policy Framework. Library Hi Tech, 20(4), 399-405.
25. Paciello, M. G. (2000). Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities. Lawrence, Kans.: CMP Books.
26. Patterson, D. (2002). Along the disability divide. Government Technology's Electronic Government, 3(1), 8-13.
27. Potter, A. (2002). Accessibility of Alabama government Websites. Journal of Government Technology, 29(2002), 303-317.
28. Rich, R. F., C. T. Erb, and R. A. Rich. (2002). Critical legal and policy issues for people with disabilities. DePaul Journal of Health Care Law, 6, 1-53.
29. Romano, N. C. (2002). Customer relationship management for the Web-access challenged: Inaccessibility of the Fortune 100 Websites, Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 35.
30. Schmetzke, A. (2001). Web accessibility at university libraries and library schools. Library Hi Tech, 19(1), 35-49.
31. Stoddard, S., L. Jans, J. M. Ripple, and L. Kraus. (1998). Chartbook on work and disability. Accessed March 31, 2005: http://www.infouse.com/ disabilitydata/workdisability.html
32. Stowers, G. (2002). The State of federal Websites: The pursuit of excellence. Accessed March 31, 2005, http://endowment.pwcglobal.com/pdfs/ StowersReport0802.pdf
33. U.S. Access Board. (2001). Standards for electronic and information technology: An overview. AccesseH March 30, 2005: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/summary.htm
34. U.S. Administration on Aging. (2001). Profile of older Americans: 2000. Accessed March 31, 2005: http://www.aoa.gov/prof/Statistics/ disabilities_data/disabilities_data.asp
35. U.S. Department of Commerce. (2002). A nation online: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/ index.html
36. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Survey on distance education at higher education institutions, 2000-2001, National Center for Education Statistics.
37. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Q&A Title IV-Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 Section 508: Electronic and Information Technology, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/archive/deptofed.html
38. U.S. Department of Justice. (2000). Information technology andpeople with disabilities: The current state of federal accessibility. Accessed March 31, 2005: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/report/content.htm
39. Waddell, C. and M. Urban. (2000). An Overview of Law and Policy for IT Accessibility, Accessed April 2, 2005: http://www.icdri.org/CynthiaW/ SL508overview.html.
40. Watchfire, Bobby Worldwide. (2005). Accessed March and April, 2005: http://bobb.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp
41. West, D. M. (2000). Assessing e-government: The Internet, democracy and service delivery by state and federal governments. Accessed March 31, 2005: http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Taubman_Center/polreports/ egovtreport00.html
42. West D. M. (2004) State and Federal e-government in the United States, 2004, Accessed April 1, 2005: http://www.InsidePolitics.org/ egovtdata.html
43. World Wide Web Consortium, (2004). Getting started: Making a web site accessible, http://www.w3.org/WAI/gettingstarted/ (2002, February).
44. World Wide Web Consortium, (2004). How people with disabilities access the web http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/