4.2 Article

Accessibility, usability, quality performance, and readability evaluation of university websites of Turkey: a comparative study of state and private universities

Journal

UNIVERSAL ACCESS IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 157-170

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10209-020-00715-w

Keywords

University websites; Web accessibility; Turkish universities; Turkey; Web usability; Readability indices; Readability assessment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study evaluated the accessibility, usability, quality performance, and readability of all Turkish state and private university websites, finding that most websites did not meet WCAG 2.0 accessibility criteria. Turkish universities need to allocate more resources to make their websites more accessible, usable, high-quality performance, and readable.
Today, the web constitutes an essential segment of higher education institutions. Using their websites, universities can effectively, efficiently, and satisfactorily provide information and services to their target groups, regardless of disabilities. As the number of disabled students in higher education rises, universities have to make the necessary design modifications to ensure web content accessibility. This paper presents an evaluation of accessibility, usability, quality performance, and readability aspects of all Turkish state and private university websites. The majority did not meet WCAG 2.0 accessibility criteria. Out of 110 state university websites and 69 private university websites, only 10 state and four private university websites attained conformance Level A. These results indicate low usability, quality performance, and readability that highlights the need for Turkish universities to devote more resources for making their websites more accessible, usable, high-quality performance, and readable for all their potential users.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available