Comparative Evaluation of Website Usability and Accessiblity

CHAPTER ONE COMPARATIVE EVALUATION INTRODUCTION OF THE USABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF 1.1 Background of the Study SELECTED UNIVERSITY WEBSITES. The Internet is a massive infrastructure consisting of both hardware and software that BY OHAJU Lauretta Obiageri enables computers to interrelate. On the other hand, the Web is a vast hypermedia database, an uncountable gathering of documents and additional resources interconnected via hyperlinks. The World Wide Web is seen as the platform which enables one to traverse the Internet using various browsers such as Google Chrome, internet explorer or Mozilla Firefox. OCTOBER, 2018 Universities are progressively contending for brilliant students. Students depend on the ABSTRACT information on college websites in assessing the institution. Now that competition for brilliant University Websites delivers a comfortable and students is intense and the web is the most cost-effective way of retrieving students’ essential channel for enrolling students, it is of information, a more flexible way of essence that a university should develop a communicating with students and staff and is suitable website with high accessibility and presently the fundamental point of contact along usability. the entire student life cycle. Website design is often driven by its usability and accessibility Usability simply means how easy it is to learn from the perspective of students in a university and use a human-made object (software but unfortunately, website designers end up application, tool, device, Website). Usability is developing websites that are not usable, a part of accessibility and utility. It comprises accessible and do not meet the needs of the satisfaction, learnability, efficiency and students. This study comparatively evaluated the memorability and minimization of errors usability and accessibility of University (Nielsen, 2012). websites in Europe with the best University website in Africa. A total of seventeen websites The user interface is defined as the features of a were compared using six automated tools computer system or program that can be seen, namely Checkmycolours, TAW, WAVE, heard or perceived by the human user, and the AChecker, W3C HTML validator and CSS various mechanisms and commands the user validator to obtain accessibility reports of the exploits to handle its input data and operations. websites. Results from the study show that none (Sceviour & Demetry, 2010) of the websites conforms to WCAG 2.0 standard. The overall performance shows that Web accessibility simply means that people most of the evaluated websites are above especially those with disabilities can use the average. From the analysis, the University of web. Specifically, Web accessibility means that Szczecin, Poland in Europe has the best website people with disabilities can perceive, amongst the evaluated universities’ websites. understand, navigate, and interact with and Based on the results of the analysis, this study contribute to the Web (Web Accessibility proposes the necessary steps which should be Initiative, 2006). taken to further enhance the accessibility of The WCAG (Web Content Accessibility African University websites. Guidelines) presented the Web Accessibility Initiative Guideline were introduced by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) to make certain that the World Wide Web provided an infrastructure that permits technologies through 1

which all users can gain access to its content. Majority of websites are badly placed-out, Adhering to these web accessibility guidelines causing the navigation to contradict instincts makes sure that web-based resources are and common sense; applications most times globally accessible. This chosen set of have feebly labelled buttons or ambiguous guidelines was created with the notion of prompts, new users often become perplexed by looking out for universal design, combining vague layouts, and revisiting users often get various levels of the main concerns of irritated by difficult or cumbersome means of accessibility and several stages of conformance. inserting data. The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) is accountable for making web formats To avoid these problems, it is of necessity that compatible with technologies that provide aid or interfaces be designed for usability and assistance to disabled persons, without accessibility, this has therefore activated the forfeiting visual interests or high-level features need to look in on the design and development and functionality. of University’s websites, focusing on the usability and accessibility of these websites to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ensure that the various essentials and guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 provides a set of guidelines that of design are being followed and to guarantee explain how to make Web content accessible to that the websites are capable of reaching their people with disabilities. The guidelines are envisioned target. intended for all Web content developers (page authors and site designers). The primary goal of 1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Study these guidelines is to promote accessibility and though following these guidelines will also This study aims to comparatively evaluate the make Web content more available to all users usability and accessibility of selected university regardless of the user agent (desktop browser, websites from the students’ perspective. This is voice browser, mobile phone, automobile-based to be achieved by the following objectives: personal computer and others) they are using or constraints (noisy surroundings, under-or over- i. To evaluate the usability and illuminated rooms and in a hands-free accessibility of selected university environment) they may be operating under, websites in Europe using automated Following these guidelines will also help people tools. find information on the Web more quickly. These guidelines do not discourage content ii. To analyse the performance of the developers from using images and videos, but websites using automated tools. rather explain how to make multimedia content more accessible to a wide audience. iii. To compare the result with the best university website in Africa. There are various campuses in the world at large. This study is on the comparative iv. To suggest possible ways with which evaluation of usability and accessibility of Africa universities can improve their sixteen tertiary institution websites in Europe websites to meet up with the standards and the best tertiary institution website in of Web Content Accessibility Africa. Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. 1.2 Statement of the Problem 1.4 Scope and Limitation of the Study Several university websites do not completely This project work will cover the comparative evaluation of usability and accessibility of measure up to the Web Content Accessibility university websites of the four cardinal zones of Europe and the best university website in Africa Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. The web contents of as obtained from a previous study on usability and accessibility of universities websites in such websites are less accessible and less usable Africa by Okwum (2017). Four universities were selected from the United Kingdom in West to users most especially those with disabilities Europe, Poland in East Europe, Denmark in northern Europe and Italy in South Europe including eyesight defects, deafness, learning respectively. incapacity, mental weakness, restrained movement, speech imperfection, photosensitivity, and a mixture of these. 2

This study is limited to the use of six automated CHAPTER TWO tools in carrying out the evaluation. 1.5. Significance of the Study LITERATURE REVIEW This project work will enhance the development 2.1. Related Studies of high-quality websites and web tools for better usability. It will lead to the development of Olaleye, Temitayo, Ukpabi, & Okunoye (2018), accessible websites that are effortlessly performed a comparative analysis on the navigable, simpler to understand and flexible. It Evaluation of Nigeria University Websites’ will improve the usability of websites which Quality. The basis upon which one university implies that the site would assist users to reach website performs better than another in regards their targets cost-effectively, resourcefully and to the quality and accessibility is the aim of this satisfactorily. It will improve the accessibility study and this led to the evaluation of 141 of websites bringing about web pages that are Universities in Nigeria all through Federal, accessed by search engines without difficulties, State, and Private ownership. making the webpages more operative for both the University’s internal search and in the Iseri, Uyar, & Ilhan (2018), evaluated the broader World Wide Web, thus redoubling the accessibility of the 38 higher education number of users that can access the webpages. institution websites of Cyprus Island. The It will highlight the importance of the accessibility evaluation was performed using a accessibility and usability of campus websites few automated evaluation tools namely TAW, in terms of fulfilling the necessities and EIII Page Checker and WAVE to verify expectancies of universities communities. conformity with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0) established by the 1.6. Organization of the Study World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The major focus of this study was to find out if the Chapter one contains the Background of the websites of Cyprus Island Higher education Study, Statement of Problem, Aim and institutions were accessible and usable to Objectives, Scope and Limitation of the Study, persons with disabilities and to promote the and Significance of the Study. Chapter two knowledge and acquaintance of web contains Historical Development of Website, accessibility. The outcome of the study showed Website Development Tools, Website that none of the websites that were evaluated Accessibility, Usability Methods, Usability was error-free and a majority of them do not Testing, Usability Evaluation, Related Studies reach a satisfactory web accessibility and Summary of Review. Chapter three compliance level. contains Web Accessibility Tools, Classification of Tools, Tools Selected to Carry Okwum (2017), evaluated the usability and out Analysis, Reasons for Choosing the accessibility of universities websites in Africa. Selected Tools, Steps Taken When Using Each Twelve universities were evaluated using four Tool and Reasons for Choosing Europe for this automated tools namely WAVE, TAW, Study. Chapter four contains Automated Tool AChecker and colour contrast check. This study Based Results, Results Analysis and aimed to assess the compliance of the selected Comparative Analysis. Chapter five contains universities’ websites with the Web Content Summary, Conclusion, Findings and Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). The result Recommendations. of the study showed that not one of the evaluated websites completely complied with WCAG 2.0 standard. Gawade & Khandare (2017), carried out a Usability Evaluation of Engineering Colleges of Mumbai University. The essential attribute that decides the evaluation of any website is Usability. This study evaluated the Engineering 3

Colleges of Mumbai and submitted their ranks Size Tester, Screen Resolution Checker, based on the evaluation criteria. BrowserShots, BrowserCam, WAVE 3.0, TAW3 Online, Watch Fire, Cynthia, Section Ahmi & Mohamad (2016), Evaluated the 508, Truwex, Web Accessibility Checker, Run Accessibility of Malaysian Public Universities FAE, Site Check, Operational Control and Websites using Achecker and Wave. This study Analysis for Web Accessibility(OCAWA), conveys the web accessibility of 20 Malaysian W3C Mark-up Validation Service, W3C CSS public universities based on AChecker and Validation Service, HTML Validator (based on WAVE. The outcome indicated a reasonably Tidy and OpenSP), W3C Link Checker, low level of conformity to the guidelines given Relaxed HTML Validator, Link Vendor, in WCAG 2.0 and Section 508. Website Speed Test, Web Page Speed Report, Website Speed Test , Web Page Speed Report, 2.5 Summary of Review GTMetrix, Pingdom, Spur, Website Speed Test, Website Speed Test, Loading time checker, In summary, most universities in the world at Load time check and internet speed test. large have websites, even though the presented reviews like that of Iseri, Uyar, & Ilhan (2018), 3.2. Tools Selected to Carry Out Analysis on evaluating the accessibility of the 38 higher education institution websites of Cyprus Island, To carry out the analysis of the usability and Okwum (2017), on the evaluation of the accessibility of the selected University usability and accessibility of universities Websites, the following tools were exploited: websites in Africa and Ismail & Kuppusamy (2018), on investigating the accessibility of i. CheckMyColours Indian university website homepages reveals ii. TAW that these websites are confronted with usability iii. WAVE and accessibility issues. The proposed research iv. AChecker. aims at comparatively evaluating the usability v. W3C HTML validator and accessibility of selected university websites vi. CSS validator in Europe with the best university website in Africa as derived from a previous study carried 3.3. Reasons for Choosing the Set of Tools out by Okwum (2017) on the usability and accessibility evaluation of universities websites The major reason for selecting these tools is that in Africa, to recommend feasible ways to each of these tools is from the various classes of enhance the universities’ websites in Africa and tools listed and the anticipated outcomes can be particularly Nigeria. translated and explained in the context of the websites evaluated. CHAPTER THREE The countries and universities’ websites that RESEARCH METHODOLOGY will be evaluated are: 3.1 Web Usability and Accessibility Tools United Kingdom The tools used to evaluate websites usability i. University of Oxford – Website and accessibility are as follows: Colour Contrast Analyser, Access Colour, Colour Address (http://www.ox.ac.uk/) Check, Colour Blindness Simulator, Vischeck, ii. The University of Cambridge – Colour Blind Web Page Filter, Accessibility Colour Wheel, Readability Test, Content Size, Website Address Tests Document Readability, Readability Index Calculator, Readability Check, Image Analyser, (http://www.cam.ac.uk) Spell Checker, Flickering and Photosensitive iii. Imperial College London – Epilepsy Analysis Tool, W3C Spell Checker Spell Check Tool, Orangoo Spell, Web Website Address Accessibility Toolbar, Firefox Accessibility Extension, Web Developer, T.A.W, Screen (http://www.imperial.ac.uk) iv. Loughborough University - Website Address (http://www.lboro.ac.uk) Poland 4

i. The University of Warsaw – ii. European Disability Forum (EDF) campaigns for Accessible educational Website Address content and accessible Information and Communication Technologies to allow (http://www.en.uw.edu.the pl) individuals with various disabilities to ii. The University of Wrocław - access education and to select the system of education that appeals to Website Adthe dress them. (https://international.uni.wroc.pl iii. In some European Union member states, young individuals with /en) disabilities can profit from a typical educational system as the right to iii. The University of Szczecin - education is considered and protected by the EU, as a part of its fundamental Website Address (http://www.go- values, principles and a universal human right, unlike some developing poland.pl/university-szczecin) countries where individuals with iv. Jagiellonian University – Website disabilities lly excluded from schools and universities. Address iv. In Europe, the European Union (EU) (http://www.en.uj.edu.pl/en_GB/ has undertaken a series of actions, both at a policy and a legislative level, to start) make European websites accessible to people with disabilities. Denmark Aarhus University – Website i. v. Evaluation of accessibility and ii. Address (http://www.au.dk/en/) usability can be easily carried out as Aalborg University – Website universities in most European countries iii. have a lot in common. Address (http://www.en.aau.the iv. CHAPTER FOUR dk) Technical University of Denmark – RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Wethe website Address 4.1. Automated Tool Based Results (http://www.dtu.dk/englishthe ) The evaluation of the usability and accessibility of selected university websites in Europe was The University of Southern carried out with Checkmycolours, TAW, Denmark – Website Address WAVE, AChecker, W3C HTML validator and CSS validator web accessibility tools and the (https://www.sdu.dk/en) generated results obtained from the various tools for each evaluated website are presented Italy Sapienza University of Rome – in tables and figures. i. ii. Website Address iii. (https://www.uniroma1.it/en) iv. The University of Bologna – Website Address (http://www.unibo.it/the en) The University of Milano-Bicocca – Website Addrthe ess (https://www.unimib.it/go/102/H ome/English) The University of Turin – Website Address(http://en.Unito.it/) Africa University of Nigeria, Nsukka i. – Website Address (http://www.unn.edu.ng) 3.5. Reasons for Choosing Europe for this 4.1.1 Checkmycolours Results Study This tool is a colour web accessibility i. Europe is a developed continent with evaluation tool which dethatd failures or some of the worlds’ top universities defiance of the websites in terms of luminosity such as the University of Oxford, the contrast ratio, brightness difference and contrast errors concerning the Web Content University of Cambridge and Imperial Accessibility Guidelines WCAG 2.0. College London. 5

From the analysis For the United Kingdom, The Figure 4.1 CheckMyColours result showing website of the University of Oxford is the only the violation percentage for each of the website that passed the Checkmycolours tool countries under study. evaluation with zero number of failures. The From the analysis in figure 4.2, the University rate of Colour difference errors is high in the websites of Denmark generated the highest United Kingdom. percentage of failures 36% and the University websites of Poland generated the least From the analysis of the University websites in percentage of failures 11%. Poland, the websites of two Universities namely the University of Warsaw and the University of 4.1.2 TAW Results Szczecin passed the Checkmycolours tool The results generated by TAW is categorized evaluation with no errors. The highest rate of into Problems, Warnings and not reviewed. errors was obtained from the Website of Each category is further divided into Jagiellonian University and the rate of all perceivable, operable, understandable and categories of errors is the same for each of the robust. evaluated university websites. Problem percentage From this analysis in Denmark, the number of errors generated concerning Luminosity 5% 7% Contrast ratio, Brightness difference and Colour 14% difference is the same for each of the University websites evaluated. Aarhus University 74% delivered the best website with the least generated average error of 246 and Aalborg United Kingdom Poland Denmark Italy University generated the highest rate of errors. From this analysis for Italy, the University of Milano-Bicocca was not accessed due to a reported server error. The University of Turin delivered the best website with the least average error and the website of the University of Bologna generated the highest average error. The rate of all categories of errors is the same for each of the evaluated websites. Percentage of violation Figure 4.2 TAW results of the percentage of problems generated for each of the selected 28.00% 25.00% countries under evaluation. 11.00% From figure 4.4, University websites of Italy 36.00% had the highest percentage of problems 74% and the University websites of the United United Kingdom Poland Denmark Italy Kingdom had the least percentage of problems 5%. TAW tool revealed accessibility problems and warnings. TAW suggests that the discovered problems be corrected, warnings are checked and not reviewed be humanly assessed. Perceivable, operable and understandable are core accessibility benchmarks that should be either rectified or studied centred on TAW 6

results for all the sixteen selected university vii. Blinking content causes distraction and websites in Europe. sometimes confusion. Perceivable – is categorised into: Alerts: i. Use of colour i. Unreliable alt text, that is the alternative ii. Contrast text does not present the same information communicated by the iii. Audio control image. iv. Non-text content ii. Duplicate alt text and links (several links connecting to the same Operable – is categorized into: i. Page title Percentage rate of errors ii. Headings and labels 17.14% iii. Navigable 29.34% iv. Seizures v. Enough time 17.36% Understandable – is categorised into: 36.15% i. Readability ii. Consistent navigation United Kingdom Poland iii. Error suggestion Denmark Italy iv. Error identification v. Error prevention Figure 4.3 WAVE result of the percentage of violations generated by each of the countries Robust – the content should be dynamic under evaluation. enough such that it can be reliably and consistently interpreted by a varied range of From the analysis in Figure 4.6, the university user agents as well as assistive technologies. websites in Denmark have the highest percentage rate of errors 36.15% and United 4.1.3 Web Accessibility Versatile Evaluator Kingdom university websites produced the least WAVE results percentage rate of errors 17.14%. The result generated by the WAVE tool were in 4.1.4 AChecker Results five (5) categories namely Errors, Alerts, Features, Structural elements, ARIA and The accessibility violations or defiance of the Contrast errors. Since this study is concerned evaluated websites are categorised into Known with the accessibility violations of the evaluated problems, Likely problems and Potential websites to Web Content Accessibility problems. Guidelines WCAG 2.0, the results will be presented in terms of Errors, Alerts and Contrast Known Problems: errors. i. Empty Label text ii. The use of italic elements Errors: iii. Input element of type text contains no text in the label i. Features such as linked image and iv. Image elements having no alt image maps have missing alternative attribute text which makes the functions of these v. Image used as input has no alt text features unavailable to screen readers vi. Anchor contains no text. (or when images are not available). ii. Form controls devoid of the correctly related text label iii. Missing or vague page title iv. Empty heading v. Empty link vi. Empty button 7

Percentage rate of Known Percentage of generated Problems errors 7.17% 19.1% 26.1% 24.66% 30.49% 37.67% 40.1% 14.7% United Kingdom Poland Denmark Italy United Kingdom Poland Denmark Italy Figure 4.4 AChecker result showing the rate Figure 4.5 W3C HTML validator result of generated known problems by the showing the rate of generated known universities in each of the countries under problems by the universities in each of the evaluation. countries under evaluation. From Figure 4.5, the University websites of From Figure 4.4, Denmark university websites Denmark generated the highest rate of errors have the highest rate of known problems and and the University websites of Italy generated United Kingdom university websites have the the lowest rate of errors. least rate of Known problems. 4.1.6 CSS validator results: The generated 4.1.5. W3C HTML validator results results were in categories of errors and warnings. The result generated by this tool was in terms of the errors identified in the HTML codes of the Percentage of generated webpage. errors HTML validator errors: 15.7% 19.3% i. Bad value for attribute srcset on 13.9% element img ii. Bad value opening for attribute rel on 51.2% element link United Kingdom Poland Denmark Italy iii. Bad start tag in img in head iv. Element head is missing a required Figure 4.6 CSS validator result showing the rate of generated known problems by the instance of child element title universities in each of the countries under v. An img element must have an alt evaluation. From Figure 4.6, the University websites of attribute, except under certain Poland generated the highest rate of errors and conditions the University websites of Denmark generated vi. Element Meta is missing one or more of the lowest rate of errors. the following attributes: itemprop, property. vii. Element title not allowed as child of the element body viii. The profile attribute on the head element is obsolete. ix. The profile attribute on the head element is obsolete. x. Bogus comment. 8

CSS validator errors: The generated results from the comparative i. optimize-contrast is not an image- analysis of the two best University websites rendering value each from Europe and Africa respectively were ii. Value Error: cursor hand is not a cursor obtained from the six exploited automated tools. value The result reveals that none of the University websites completely conform to the Web iii. Value Error: text-decoration uppercase Content Accessibility Guidelines WCAG 2.0 is not a colour value but the University of Szczecin, Poland in Europe delivered the best website in terms of a iv. Property text-underline-width doesn't minimum number of errors compared to the exist website of the University of Nsukka, Nigeria in Africa. v. Value Error: margin-bottom only 0 can be a unit. You must put a unit after your CHAPTER FIVE number SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND vi. Value Error: padding-right only 0 can RECOMMENDATION be a unit. You must put a unit after your number 5.1 Summary vii. Value Error : padding-right -24px, This study is a comparative evaluation of the negative values are not allowed usability and accessibility of selected university websites and was performed by evaluating viii. Unknown pseudo-element or pseudo- university websites using online automated class hoverh4 tools. Chapter one presents an introduction for succeeding chapters. It entails the Background ix. Unknown pseudo-element or pseudo- of the study, Statement of the problem, Aim and class focush4 objectives, Scope and limitations, and Significance of the study. Chapter two contains Based on the results obtained from the exploited the Historical development of the website, tools namely CheckMyColours, TAW, WAVE, Website development tools, Website AChecker, W3C HTML validator and CSS accessibility, Usability methods, Usability validator, the best university website from the testing, Usability evaluation, Related studies four regions of Europe are as follows: were reviewed to obtain different perspectives on the usability and accessibility of websites UNITED KINGDOM – Loughborough and reviews were summarised. Chapter three University delivered the best website that contains Web Accessibility tools, classification conforms to WCAG 2.0. For the six used tools, of tools, selected tools for the analysis, reasons Loughborough University delivered the best for choosing the selected tools, steps taken website in four of the tools when using each tool and reasons for choosing Europe for this study. Chapter four entails the POLAND – the University of Szczecin evaluation of 16 European universities’ delivered the best website that conforms to websites with CheckMyColours, TAW, WCAG 2.0. The University of Szczecin W.A.V.E, Achecker, W3C HTML validator and delivered the best website in all six tools. CSS validator tools and comparative analysis of the best university website in Europe with the DENMARK – Aarhus University delivered the best university website in Africa. Finally, best website that conforms to WCAG 2.0. chapter five contains the summary of all Aarhus University delivered the best websites preceding chapters, conclusion and in four out of six tools. recommendation. ITALY – the University of Turin delivered the 5.2 Conclusion best website that conforms to WCAG 2.0. This study comparatively evaluated the 4.2. Comparative Analysis usability and accessibility of university The Comparison of the best Universities from the four cardinal zones of Europe is based on the generated number of errors obtained from the results of the six utilised automated tools. 9

websites of some selected universities. This ii. The performance of the evaluated assessment was from the students’ perspective websites for each of the automated and was achieved by the following objectives: tools varies. To evaluate the usability and accessibility of selected university websites in Europe using iii. Automated tools cannot evaluate all automated tools, To analyse the performance of accessibility features automatically as the websites using automated tools, To compare there were some aspects not reviewed the result with the best university website in by the tools that require human Africa and to suggest possible ways with which evaluation. Africa universities can improve their websites to meet up with the standards of Web Content 5.4 Recommendation Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Centred on the result obtained from the six tools The website of sixteen universities was used for the evaluation of the universities’ separately evaluated for usability and websites, the following recommendations were accessibility using six automated tools namely made: Checkmycolours, TAW, WAVE, AChecker, W3C HTML validator and CSS validator. Four i. The images and graphics, in general, universities were selected from four countries should be created with precaution picked respectively from the four cardinal zones concerning their sizes to minimize the of Europe; North, South, East and West. The loading time. countries include Denmark from Northern Europe, Poland in Eastern Europe, the United ii. Website developers should endeavour Kingdom from Western Europe and Italy from to include text alternatives for all non- southern Europe. text web content. The performance of all the evaluated websites iii. Each page, section and table should be was analysed based on the results generated provided with appropriate and from the automated tools and the best consistent headers. University Website was ascertained. iv. There should be specifications to be The best university website in Europe was followed for adjusting colour contrast. further evaluated with the best university website in Africa with the six exploited v. All the forms on a webpage should be automated tools. The result analysis reveals that structured correctly and its features the University of Szczecin, Poland in Europe should be interactive. has the best website with a minimum number of identified errors compared to the website of the vi. Awareness programs concerning Web University of Nsukka, Nigeria. Content Accessibility Guidelines and their implementations should be carried Based on the Analysis, possible ways with out among website developers and which African University websites can improve designers to guide them on how to their websites to meet up with the standards of build, maintain and evolve websites Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 were about the accessibility guidelines. recommended. vii. The usability and accessibility level of 5.3 Findings a website can be subjective. Since this study is limited to the use of six During this study, the following are my automated tools in carrying out the findings: evaluation, further research can be carried out using more automated tools i. For all the exploited automated tools, and questionnaire methods to boost the no one website passed all the used accessibility results. automated tools evaluations. REFERENCES Ahmet, M., & Aykut, H. T. (2012). Assessing the Usability of University Website. Ahmi, A., & Mohamad, R. (2016). Evaluating Accessibility of Malaysian Public 10

Universities Websites using Achecker and Wave. Alam, N. H. (2014). Web Accessibility of the Higher Education Institute Websites Based on the World Wide Web Consortium and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Alexander, R., & Andres, B. (2011). Automated Usability Testing : Analysing Asia Web Sites, 1–13. Balci, A. (2010). Spreading Website Usability and Accessibility into Society, 2(1), 19– 29. Bigby, G. (2018). How to Perform a Usability Evaluation. Caglar, E., & Ahmet, M. (2012). The usability of university websites - A study on the European University of Lefke. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIS.2012.04834 0 Celinus, K., & Aminat, B. Y. (2014). Usability Evaluation of Some Selected Nigerian Universities ’ Websites, 104(3), 6–11. Churm, T. (2012). An Introduction To Website Usability Testing - Usability Geek. Della, V., & Cera, R. (2015). Protecting the Rights of People with Autism in the Field of Education. Gawade, S., & Khandare, S. S. (2017). Usability Evaluation of Engineering Colleges of Mumbai. Greenfield, M. (2015). Why the Web Matters to Higher Education. Henry, S. L. (2006). Understanding Web Accessibility. Inclusion, S. (2018). Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities in the European Union : Paving the Road to Social Inclusion, 549. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc8020040 11