- 1. A Study on Current State of Web Content Accessibility on
General Hospital Websites in Korea *1) **2)Yong-Seob KimKun-Seok Oh
. 80 . 1 , 2 , 3 , , , , 4 . KADO-WAH2.0 . , . . . , , ,
.ABSTRACTIn the study, we introduce the trend in domestic and
foreign web accessibility, as well as the legal system that ensures
webaccessibility. Based on Korean Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (KWCAG)1.0, we investigated the web content
accessibilityof 80 tertiary health-care hospitals and general
hospitals in Korea. We evaluated accessibility by combining
accessibility-basedcriteria (ABC) with usability-based criteria
(UBC). ABC was limited to an alternative text for Guideline 1,
using a small numberof frames and keyboard accessibility for
Guideline 2. UBC checked the voice service (TTS), resizing text,
providing multi-lingualwebsites, and disclosing web accessibility
policy. KADO-WAH2.0 was used for representing the compliance rate.
The evaluationresult was a considerable improvement from previous
results, even though the rate of compliance with web accessibility
wasgenerally insufficient. There was a significant difference
between those medical centers which did and did not comply with
webaccessibility. Incidentally, many hospitals were found to have
attempted to confront and come to terms with web accessibility.In
future, the following factors are advisable for medical centers
with publicity or public interest: they must employ active
andaggressive promotion of establishment of independent
accessibility guidelines to secure web accessibility, they should
effect animprovement of the realization of web accessibility, there
can be constant education and promotion, and there can be
aninstitutional supplementation, as well as others. KeyWords : , ,
, , , Web Accessibility,Web Accessibility Guideline, Medical
Center, Accessibility-based Criteria, Usability-based Criteria1. *
: , [1]. [email protected](1) , , ** :
[email protected]()[2010/03/07 - 2010/03/16 - 2010/04/12 ] , , 2008
200 , 100 (113)87
2. . . , , , [2]. [5]. , (accessibility) . [6].
(technology-oriented) (culture-oriented) . [7]. . , . . 2007 6 6
75.5% 3,443 , 12 56.7% . / [3], [4] .84.4% . . . 2. . 4 / 20042.1
4929, 2005 5,110, 2006 9,555 [5]. (Tim Berners-Lee) (Universality)
, 88 2010. 6 3. [9]. 2.2 , , 1) . ., 1994 , , . 1 W3C (World Wide.
WebConsortium).1997(, ), EC(European Commission) , W3C WAI(Web
Accessibility Initiative) WCAG(Web Content [8][33].Accessibility
Guideline)1.0 , 2008 12 WCAG2.0 . WCAG 2.0 , ( 1) , (2002.1
)ISO(International , , , Standards Organization) (ISO 13497, 1997)
(Physical access to equipment) Benyon[42] (Operational suitability)
, W3C WAI[9] , , &Thatcher, et.al.[8] (User Agent)Wikipedia[44]
Microsoft[43] , , . , Fujitsu[45] . Hitachi[46] (, ), [33] .
(113)89 4. , , 4 WCAG 1.0 12 , (J-WAS) 2001 4 61 . WCAG2.0 . .
(Japanese Industrial 1996 9 (American Standards, JIS) with
Disabilities Act, ADA) - , () 2) . (2004 6) 3). 1998 508 (undue
burden) , . JIS, , , X8341-3:2004 . JIS X8341-3 2000 8 7 2009
WCAG2.0 , [44]. , [10] . 2005 10 , , . . .1) , 1999 6 Mcguire , .
2.3 (Disability Discrimination Act, DDA) (Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission, HREOC) . , , . 2002 1 DDA . () Oracle
(2002), B. Sexton Target (2006), 3) ISO/IEC Guide71 2003 JIS Z 8071
JIS. (2007), () , JIS X8341-1:2004 (2007) . , (JIS2) ADA , ,
X8341-2:2004), (JIS X8341-3:2004), (JIS X8341-4:2005), . , , (JIS
X8341-5:2005) . , Universal Design, . , JIS Z8071:2003 ISO/IEC
Guide71 . KS A ISO/IEC Guide71 .90 2010. 6 5. . 2009 2.4 , , , ,
[19]. ( 31). Loiacono[20] Bobby WCAG2.0 100 1.0 20% 2.0(Korean Web
Content Accessibility . Sullivan & Matson[21] Guideline2.0,
KWCAG2.0, ) 50 WCAG 1.0 . 2008 4 1 ( ) . , LIFT ( 4. , 20), , , (
46) , , . . Mankoff et al.[19] 2009 . , , , 2011 2015 (screen
reader) ( 14 1). , , . Lchtenberg et al.[22] [11]. 2005 139 WCAG1.0
[12]-[15]. . 18%(15 sites) Level A Level AA , Level . 2006AAA . 82%
. Zeng et al.[23] 108 [13]. 2008 () ., 503 Web Accessibility
[15].Barriers(WAB) Score . (113) 91 6. , 70% , . . WCAG
1.0OGrady[24] WCAG1.0 Bobby . [30] Bobby WCAG1.0 1 40% , . Mancini
et . , al.[25] Italy 170 WCAG1.0 1 . 70% . WCAG1.0 [31] 10 , . [26]
A-prompt 2005, 2006 2 . , . 54.2, 56.6 . , 75.7%, 78.7% . . 2005
60.8%, 2006 63.2% . HTML . . [32] [27] 16 . . KADO-WAH 2.0 WCAG1.0
, Fujitsu1 2 . WebInspector5.0 JIS X8341-3:2004( ) . 64.39 . [33]
40 . KADO-WAH 2.0 [28] . . , . [29] . 3.5 . , 2.2 , WCAG 1.0 50% .
[34] 3 922010. 6 7. KWCAG1.0 . KADO-WAH2.0 2007 . , [35]. 4 . 2005
2007-2009 2 . .3.2 3. (2. ). 3.1 . KADO-WAH2.0(Web Accessibility
Helper2.0) 2005 . 2008 (IWCAG)1.0 13 ., 26 51 . 5 1.0, W3C WCAG1.0,
508 3 1194.22( ) . . () , 503 . , , , , . , , (,
(http://www.wah.or.kr) ) [15]. 2008 4 11 2009 . WAMS(Web
Accessibility Managemenrt System,4) 40, 40 80 (),
http://www.cakesoft.net) , 4) 3 3 6 2 . 2010 1 , 40 . 2, 8 1 .
(113)93 8. . Validator (2 ).Validator . Validator (IWCAG1.0,
WCAG1.0 ) . , , . , URL URL . . , . , Validator , CSS, HTLM . , , .
, , ( . , ) . 3.3 . (Accessibility-based Criteria, ABC)
(Usability-based Criteria, UBC) . . KADO-WAH2.0 KWCAG1.0 14 1 , , ,
(non-text content, ), 2 , . ( 1 Tab , tabindex) ( . , accesskey)
(priority)-1 . . HTML , , . , .942010. 6 9. , 27 2) . , . .
One-stop [39]. 2012 10 , . . , . . , , . . , . , , 100 , , , , , ,
.[37][38]. 2010 15 120 . ( 27, , KADO-WAH2.0 ( 2) alt longdesc
KWCAG 1.0 1. *) alt 1.1(priority1) alt WCAG1.0 1(priority1) (alt )
508 a. title KWCAG 1.0 2. title 2.2(priority1) title WCAG1.0
12(priority1) title 508 i. ()KWCAG1.0 2. 2.4(priority1) WCAG1.0
9.2(priority2) *)(, , , ,, , GIF, , , ASCII, ) . (113) 95 10. .
64%, 60%, 62% , Dell Precision PWS670(CPU 3.2GHz, , RAM 1GB),
Microsoft Window XP2002, Internet . Explore 6.0 . 90% 34 44% 4. 80%
39(51%) .4.1 2008 [41] 6 . 2008 KADO-WAH 14% 62% 4 . 90% . 2008 3
(, , ) 34 80 (44%) 100% 3 . 19(7 ). , , . . , ( 4) vs. 90% , 8980%
, 80% [15], (2161/3357, 64%) (1196/3357, 36%) . (1905/3175, 60%)
(1270/3175, 40%) (4066/6532, 62%)( 3) ( 5) 381837 (%) 391737(90 )
18(47%)16(41%)34(44%)773574(89-80)1(3%)3(8%)4(5%)(80 )
19(50%)20(51%)39(51%)4.2 38(100%)39(100%)77(100%)4.2.1 ( 6) W3C
WCAG, 2010.12008.8 508, IWCAG (2161/3357, 64%)(525/3303, 16%) .
(1905/3175, 60%)(340/2824, 12%) (4066/6532, 62%)(865/6127,
14%)962010. 6 11. ( 7) KWCAG1.0 2.2 1 1 (189/193, 98%) 2 (149/151,
99%) . 3(103/103, 100%) . 4 (61/62, 98%) 35 100% 5(79/87, 91%) 22
63% 6(87/87, 100%) 7 (42/42, 100%). 8 (78/78, 100%) 91%, 62%
9(113/113, 100%) 10 (84/84, 100%) . 11 (128/128, 100%) 12 (127/127,
100%)(100% ) (0% 13 (56/56, 100%)) . 14 (53/53, 100%)2008 15
(107/107, 100%) 1, 16 (115/115, 100%) 22 (11 ). 17 (138/139, 99%)
18 (121/126, 96%)( 8) vs. (1830/1851, 99%) (75/82, 91%) (7/82, 9%)
(50/80, 62%)(30/80, 38%) 1 (177/178, 99%) 2(166/171, 97%) (125/162,
77%) (37/162, 23%) 3 (41/41, 100%) 4(89/92, 97%) ( 9) 5 (47/47,
100%) (%) 6 (79/84, 94%) 7 (102/102, 100%)(90 )12(67%) 10(59%)
22(63%) 8 (170/170, 100%)(89-80) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 9 (175/177, 99%)
(80 )6(33%) 7(41%) 13(37%) 10 (86/90, 96%) 18(100%)17(100%)
35(100%) 11 (32/32, 100%) 12 (78/78, 100%)( 10) 13 (73/74, 99%) 14
(82/82, 100%) 15 (59/59, 92%) 2010.12008.8 16 (26/29, 90%) (75/82,
91%) (1/22, 5%) (1482/1511, 98%) (50/80, 62%) (0/29, 0%)
(3312/3362, 99%) (125/162, 77%)(1/51, 2%) (113) 97 12. ( 11) 77 10
(13%) . 1 (15/15, 100%) 17%, 30%, 23% 2 (15/15, 100%) . 3 (1/1,
100%) (62%) (77%) 4 (1/1, 100%) 5 (7/7, 100%) . 6 (3/3, 100%) 7
(1/1, 100%) . 8 (12/12, 100%) 9 (12/12, 100%) . 10(5/5, 100%) 2008
11(1/1, 100%) 12(2/2, 100%) 2, 10 (75/75, 100%) (15 ). 1 (15/15,
100%) 2 (1/1, 100%)( 12) vs. 3 (1/1, 100%) 4 (2/2, 100%) (290/1740,
17%) (1450/1740, 83%) 5 (1/1, 100%) (520/1735, 30%) (1215/1735,
70%) 6 (3/3, 100%) (810/3475, 23%) (2665/3475, 77%) 7 (5/5, 100%) 8
(4/4, 100%) 9 (15/15, 100%) ( 13) 10(3/3, 100%)(%) (50/50, 100%)(90
) 5(14%)5(14%)10(14%) (125/125, 100%)(89-80) 0(0%)0(0%) 0(0%)(80
)32(86%)32(86%) 64(86%) 37(100%) 37(100%)74(100%) KWCAG1.0 2.4 (
14) . 2010.1 2008.8 . (290/1740, 17%)(101/2122, 5%) onmousedown"
onkeydown" (520/1735, 30%) (56/1099, 5%) . (810/3475,
23%)(157/3221, 5%)982010. 6 13. ( 15) . 14 1 (30/30, 100%) 2
(76/76, 100%) . 3 (78/78, 100%) 4% 4 (13/13, 100%) 3 . 5 (7/7,
100%) (204/204, 100%) [36]. 1 (22/22, 100%) 2 (96/96, 100%) . 3
(263/263, 100%) 4 (20/20, 100%) ( 16) 5 (22/22, 100%) (423/423,
100%) (627/627, 100%)61222 3 (%)(8%) (16%) (29%)(4%) 4.2.2 ( , 9.5)
5. , , , 2008 4 4 . , 8% 6 . . . 1 , , , 3 , . 5 . 16% 12 3 , , , 4
80 . 29% 22 . . . 2 (113)99 14. , . . . [1] 28. [2] Eysenbach G.,
Consumer health informatics. .BMJ, vol.320(7251), pp.1713-1716,
2000. 2008 [3] , "2007 (503) (81 ", 2007.6.) [4] , , " , ", 97,
pp.71-87, , 2004.11. .[5] , , , , , , "2007 , , ", 2007-23, . 2008.
. [6] Chan B.L., Bakken S, Brown S.S., Houston T.K., Kreps G.L.,
Kukafta R, et al., "Bridging the digital divide:Reaching vulnerable
populations." J, Am Med Infom Assoc, vol.11, no.6, pp.448-457,
2004. . [7] , " 85% ", 30 2008-6, pp.25-37, , 2008.6. [8] Jim
Thatcher, Mark Urban, Michael Burks, . Cynthia Waddell, Shawn
Henry, et al., (e-Exclusion) "Constructing Accessible Web Sites".
Glasshaus, (e-Inclusion) 2002.(e-Accessibility) . [9] W3C,
http://www.w3.org/WAI.(:2010.2) [10] , " ",
http://www.med.or.jp/(2008. Less comfortable, more comfortable."
).(:2010.2) [11] , "2006 ", , 2006. [12] . "2005 ", , 2006.100
2010. 6 15. [13] . "2006 Cross Sectional Evaluation," Journal of
Medical ", , 2007. Internet Research, Vol.6, No.2, e19, 2004.[14] .
"2007 [24] Laura OGrady, "Accessibility compliance rates ", , 2008.
of consumer-oriented Canadian health care Web[15] . "2008 sites,
Informatics for Health and Social Care," ", , 2009. vol.30, Issue 4
, pp.287-295, December 2006.[16] , , " [25]Cristina Mancini, Monica
Zedda & Annarita ", KADO Barbaro, "Health information in
Italian public 31, vol.3 no.7, 2006. health websites: moving from
inaccessibility to[17] Darell M. West, "Improving Technology
accessibility," health information & libraries Utilization in
Electronic Government around the journal, vol.22 issue.4,
pp.276-285, Willy World," Governance Studies at
BROOKINGS,InterScience, 2005. 2008. [26] , , "[18] Darrell M. West.
"Globla E-Government 2007." Center for Public Policy, Brown
University,", 2007.(Jananese Journal of public health), vol.55,[19]
Mankoff, J., Fait, H., and Tran, T., "Is Yourno.2, pp.93-100, ,
2008. Web Page Accessible? A Comparative Study of [27] , , , "
Methods for Assessing Web Page Accessibility for the Blind",
Proceedings of the SIGCHI2005, ", (Japan journal of April 2005,
pp.41-50, 2005.medical informatics), vol.26, no.6, pp. 389-394,[20]
Loiacono, E.T., "Cyberaccess:Web Accessibility , 2006. and
Corporate America," Communications of [28] , " the ACM, Vol.47, No.
12, pp.83-87, December ", 06 2004., pp.89-94, [21] Sullivan, T. and
Matson, R., "Barriers to, 2006. use:Usability and Content
Accessibility on the[29] , , , , "Web Webs Most Popular Sites,"
Proceding s on theAccessibility for Elders and Physically or 2000
Conference on Universal Usability, pp.Cognitively Impaired
Citizens-A Descriptive 139-144, November 2000.longitudinal analysis
of government-related sites[22] Lchtenberg M, Kuhli-Hattenbach C,
Sinanginin the republic of Korea", Report, Apr 2004. Y, Ohrloff C,
Schalnus R., "Accessibility of[30] , " Health Information on the
Internet to the ", , Visually Impaired User," Ophthalmologica
vol.12, no.4, pp.33-44, 2005. vol.222, no.3, pp.187-193, 2008.[31]
, , " [23] Zeng, X., Parmanto, B., "Web Content ", Accessibility of
Consumer Health Information vol.7, no4, pp.224-233, 2007. Web Sites
for People with Disabilities : A[32] , , , " (113) 101 16. ", [39]
, 2 27 , 20(), 2008.3.7. pp.473-476, , 2007.[40] , [33] , , , "
2.0, , (accessibility) ",TTAK.OT-10.0003/R1, 2009.12.22. ,[41] , ,
pp.336-342, , 2006. , 2008 [34] , : , vol.9, no.2, pp.375-380, ,
Journal of digital , 2008.11.7. interaction design(DID), 6, pp.[42]
Benyon, D., A. Crerar & A. Wikinson. A., 87-94, ,
2007."Individual Difference and Inclusive Design."[35] . 2007 ,
pp.21-46 in Constantine Stephanidis (ed.). User 2007.5.23.
.Interfaces for All: Concept, Methods, and[36] Oh Kun-seok, Kim
Yong-seob, SurenderTools. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Kumar,
Evaluation of web accessibility for Associates, Inc., 2001. people
with disabilities in medical institute at [43] Microsoft
Corporation, "Accessible Technology domestic and foreign, The Asian
Journal of in Todays Business-case studies for success." Disable
Sociology, vol.8, pp.73-90, The Asian Microsoft Press, 2002.
Society of Disable Sociology, 2008.9.[44] Wikipedia."Web
Accessibility."[37]KTV ,
100http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_accessibility,, 6,
2009.8.5.2008. ( : 2010.2.)[38] , [45] Fujitsu. "FUJITSU :
",http://jp.fujitsu.com/accessibility/ [], , 09-44(373( : 2010.2.)
), , 2009.11.6.[46] Hitachi.
http://www.hitachijoho.com/policy/webaccessibil ity.html. ( :
2010.2.)102 2010. 6 17. 1991 ()1998 ()()1999 2000 2001 ()()2002 : ,
, , etc.E-mail : [email protected] ()1998 ()2001 ( )()2002 :
, , etc.E-mail : [email protected] (113)103