Urban Public Libraries Do Not Yet Meet Benchmarks for Web Accessibility by Individuals with Disabilities
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of: Maatta Smith, S. L. (2014). Web Accessibility Assessment of Urban Public Library Websites. Public Library Quarterly, 33(3), 187-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2014.937207 Abstract Objective – To determine the extent to which urban public libraries in the United States of America provide web sites which are readily accessible to individuals with disabilities with reference to the Urban Library Council’s EDGE initiative (specifically Benchmark 11, “Technology Inclusiveness”). Design – Web site evaluation. Setting – Urban public libraries in the United States of America. Subjects – The 127 library systems, which were both members of the Urban Libraries Council at the time of the study and located in the United States of America. Methods – Using the “everyday life information seeking” conceptual framework, an assessment of each of the web sites of the purposive sample of public library systems was performed by an online evaluation tool as well as visually and physically to determine web accessibility and, by extension, technology inclusiveness. Main Results – The results of the online accessibility evaluation tool revealed that not one of the sites surveyed was free of errors or alerts. Contrast errors (related to color combinations), missing alternative text (providing text alternatives for visual elements), and missing form labels (thereby preventing screen readers from performing searches and navigating to results) were the most common problems. Results of visual and physical scans revealed that many sites lacked specific links and/or resources for persons with disabilities, as well as noting that the resources available used oblique language and required many clicks to access. In addition, the vast majority neglected to feature links to national resources such as the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped. Conclusions – The web sites of urban public libraries are not yet completely accessible for persons with disabilities. At the very least they need coding fixes and ongoing maintenance to address the kinds of issues found by the online web evaluation tool used. In addition, resources for disabled persons should be prominently and clearly linked and promoted. Further research is called for, both in non-urban library systems and in testing a wider range of access technologies. Improvement efforts should acknowledge that web design that improves access for persons with disabilities serves the broader community as well.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,538 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle