Website Accessibility: a Comparative Analysis of Australian National and State/Territory Library Websites
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".