Table 6 Accessibility assessment results
Papers | Accessibility attributes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Perceivable | Operable | Understandable | Robust | |
Caruso & Ferlino, 2009 | Open software programmes complied with most requirements related to perceivable, such as ‘meaning of graphic symbols’, ‘presence of visual or textural equivalents with sound items’ and ‘accessibility of documents’. | ‘Flashinglight features’ and ‘recognition and operation within focus’, which are related to ‘operable’, are complemented by open software. | Few open software programmes complied with ‘reading of interface objects by the assistive technologies’. | About two-thirds of the open software was compatible with the operative system’s accessibility features. |
Iniesto & Rodrigo, 2014 | None of the three MOOC platforms, including UNED COMA, COLMENIA and Miriada X, included alternative text for audio content, and none supported images with text alternatives. | UNED COMA and COLMENIA provided no navigation function . | Link errors, which are related to the ‘understandable’ attribute’, exist on the three platforms, meaning that the same content on the three platforms leads to different pages. | Not mentioned. |
Rodriguez et al., 2017 | 31.81% of errors were associated with the ‘perceivable’ attribute. | 20% of errors were associated with the ‘operable’ attribute. | 17.64% of errors were associated with the ‘understandable’ attribute. | 50% of errors were associated with the ‘robust’ attribute. |
Navarrete & Luján-Mora, 2015a | Images had alternative text. | Neither OER Commons and MERLOT offered retrieval function through their interface for disabled students. | Users employ 43% of the assistive technology for enlarging text size (setting button), 14% of screen readers and 7% of screen magnifiers. | Not mentioned. |
Navarrete & Luján-Mora, 2015b | Based on the accessibility evaluation results obtained using TAW, eXamination, AChecker and Validator on three OER websites — namely MERLOT, OER COMMONS and OCW UPM — MERLOT achieved the highest score, followed by OER COMMONS. It was also found, however, that the MERLOT website had accessibility limitations on its home page for the person with blindness or limited mobility. | |||
Navarrete & Luján-Mora, 2014 | OER Websites — including MERLOT II, ARIADNE, OLI Carnegie Mellon and TILE (The Inclusive Learning Exchange) — had some accessibility barriers which affected disabled persons’ access to learning objects. | |||
Iniesto et al., 2014 | After evaluation of accessibility while surfing and the textual alternative functions for images were supported by MERLOT, OER COMMONS and OCW UPM. | The lowest results on OER platforms, which affected the usage of OER, were related to navigation. | Some negative results were also reported, including the fact that font size cannot be changed and that ‘title’ elements are missing. | Not mentioned. |
Navarrete & Luján-Mora, 2018 | Among seven OER websites (OER Commons, MERLOT, MIT OCW, OLI, AIRADNE, OpenStax, OERfAll), only one (OERfAll) provided adaptive interface functions. | Among seven OER websites, only one (OERfAll) provided accessibility options for the search function. | Disability profile and more semantic functions need to be improved to better comply with the understandable attributes. | Not mentioned. |
Avila Garzon, 2018 | After accessibility evaluation, the OER was 80.8% accessible in the ‘perceivable’ attributes. | The evaluation result showed that OER was 85.1% accessible in the ‘operable’ attribute. | The result showed that OER was 61.5% accessible in the ‘understandable’ attribute. | Not mentioned. |
Navarrete et al., 2019 | Most of the OER supported text alternative and adaptive display transformability function. | The access mode was also variable depending on the different types of disability. However, full keyboard accessible is only provided for motor skills disability. | Descriptions were provided for all OER elements which is helpful for users to understand. | Not mentioned. |
Mulwa et al., 2016 | Adaption functions, such as text enlargement, are provided. | In searching, finding and navigation functions, users showed positive experiences after using the EAGLE (EnhAnced Government Learning) platform. | The combination of content components and design components for textual material were easy for users to understand. | Not mentioned. |
Rosa & Motz, 2016 | For the level A requirements related to the ‘perceivable’ attribute, of the eight investigated websites, seven comply with ‘Use of Color’ and ‘Sensory Characteristics’, six were satisfied with ‘Meaningful Sequence’; two sites complied with ‘Info and Relationships’ and only one complied with ‘Non-text Context’. | For the level A requirements related to the ‘operable’ attribute, of the eight investigated websites, seven comply with ‘Focus Order’, ‘Page Titled’, ‘Three Flashes or Below Threshold’ and ‘No Keyboard Trap’, six were satisfied with ‘Keyboard’; three complied with ‘Link Purpose’ and only two complied with ‘Bypass Blocks’. | For the level A requirements related to the ‘understandable’ attribute, among the eight sites, seven comply with ‘Error Identification’ and ‘On Focus’, six were satisfied with ‘On Input’, four complied with ‘Labels or Instructions’ nad three complied with ‘Language of Page’. | Among the eight sites, only three had no errors for ‘Parsing’ guideline and only two had no errors for the ‘Name, Role, Value’ guideline, which is related to the ‘Robust’ principle. |
Navarrete & Luján-Mora, 2015c | According to the accessibility evaluation results with TAW on four websites — = MERLOT, OCW UPM, OER COMMONS and OLI — 26 errors and 187 warnings related to the ‘perceptible’ attribute were detected. Specifically, ten errors on OLI, nine errors on OCW UPM and five errors on OER COMMONS were detected. | According to the accessibility evaluation results with TAW on four websites — MERLOT, OCW UPM, OER COMMONS and OLI—19 errors and 149 warnings related to the ‘operable’ attribute were detected. Specifically, 17 errors were detected on OER COMMONS and 1 error each on OCW UPM and OLI. | According to the accessibility evaluation results with TAW on four websites — MERLOT, OCW UPM, OER COMMONS and OLI — 5 errors and 48 warnings related to the ‘understandable’ attribute were detected. Specifically, two errors each on OER COMMONS and OLI and one error on OCW UPM were detected. | According to the accessibility evaluation results with TAW on four websites — MERLOT, OCW UPM, OER COMMONS and OLI — 19 errors and 1441 warnings related to the ‘robust’ attribute were detected. Specifically, 14 errors on MERLOT, 2 errors each on OLI and OCW UPM and 1 error on OER COMMONS were detected. |
Iglesias et al., 2014 | After accessibility evaluation, the OER was 80.8% accessible in the ‘perceivable’ attribute. | The evaluation result showed that 85.1% was accessible in the ‘operable’ attribute. | The result showed that 61.5% accessible in the understandable attribute. | Not mentioned. |
Avila Garzon et al., 2016 | Accessible images contained an alternative text, which is related to the ‘perceivable’ attribute. | The results showed that the criteria related to the ‘understandable’ and ‘operable’ attributes are better complied with. | The results showed that criteria related to the understandable and operable attributes are better complied with. Abbreviations, however, which are related to the ‘understandable’ attribute, need to be enhanced; more functions are required. | Not mentioned. |
Sanchez-Gordon & Luján-Mora, 2016 | edX Studio cannot support authors adding fully accessible images or videos. | After accessibility evaluation, edX Studio did not comply with criteria related to the ‘operable’ attribute, such as keyboard navigation. | edX studio did not supply enough documentation for users to understand how to access and generate course content. | Not mentioned. |