Website Accessibility: a Comparative Analysis of Australian National and State/Territory Library Websites
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper assesses the accessibility of the websites of the National Library of Australia, and those of each of the State/Territory Libraries. The analysis has been conducted using expert manual evaluation, automated tools and users with disabilities to identify both the Web Content Accessibility Guideline (WCAG) Version 2 compliance as well as the chief accessibility barriers identified by users with disabilities. While the results from the different aspects of the hybrid testing methods differ considerably in their ranking, the quantitative data suggest that at the time of writing, none of the libraries assessed meet WCAG 2.0 Level A compliance. Unfortunately, it follows that people with disabilities would have problems accessing materials from the websites of all of the nine libraries tested. In view of the fact that one in five people have a disability that places restrictions on their mobility, employment and/or education, this is understandably significant. Despite the issue of non-compliance, however, many libraries had clearly considered and implemented elements of WCAG 2.0 and would only require minimal improvements to reach the web standard, while others have considerable work to do before they meet the required inclusive website design advocated by both Australian and international standards.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it