Table 2.
Accessibility studies
| Author (s) (year) | Country of study | Accessibility Guidelines | Sample Size | Tools used | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abanumy et al. (2005) | Saudi and Oman | WCAG 1.0 | 27 | Multiweb, LYNX, W3C validator service, Bobby | None of the e-government sites of Saudi and Oman conform to all priority 1 checkpoints of WCAG 1.0 |
| Shi (2007) | China | WCAG 1.0 | 324 | Bobby | None of the Chinese e-government sites passed priority 1 accessibility checkpoints of WCAG 1.0 |
| Kuzma et al. (2009) | European Union (EU), Asia, and Africa | WCAG 1.0 | 72 | TAW | Most of the e-government websites of developed and underdeveloped countries did not meet checkpoints of WCAG 1.0 |
| Isa et al. (2011) | Malaysia | WCAG 1.0 | 155 | EvalAccess 2.0 | Malaysian e-government sites did not meet accessibility standard |
| Al-Faries et al. (2013) | Saudi | WCAG 2.0 | 20 | Accessibility Evaluators | None of the Saudi e-government websites comply with WCAG 2.0 guidelines |
| Al Mourad & Kamoun (2013) | Dubai | WCAG 1.0 | 21 | TAW | Most of the e-government websites did not meet the lowest conformance level of WCAG 1.0 |
| Kamoun & Almourad (2014) | Dubai | WCAG 2.0 | 21 | WaaT | Not a single e-government website met the Level A conformance of WCAG 2.0 |
| Lujan-Mora et al. (2014) | South America and Spain | Section 508, WCAG 1.0, WCAG 2.0 | 6 | TAW, Total Validator, AChecker, eXaminator, and WAVE | E-government websites did not meet the accessibility guidelines |
| Adepoju et al. (2016) | Nigeria | WCAG 2.0 | 36 | TAW and site analyzer | None of the websites met WCAG 2.0 standard |
| Akgul & Vatansever (2016) | Turkey | WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 | 25 | eXaminator, AChecker, TAW 1.0, TAW 2.0, Total Validator, EvalAccess 2.0, HERA | The prevalent priority-1 accessibility problems related to text equivalents for non-text elements were identified |
| Ismailova (2017) | Kyrgyz | WCAG 1.0 | 55 | EvalAccess 2.0 | The results showed an accessibility error rate of 69.38% |
| Mtebe & Kondoro (2017) | Tanzania | WCAG 2.0 | 22 | SortSite | Most of websites had more than 100 accessibility issues |
| Paul & Das (2020) | India | WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 | 65 | EvalAccess 2.0 and AChecker | The outcomes highlighted accessibility error rate for priority 1 and priority 2 of 39.70% and 83.88%, respectively |
| Csontos & Heckl (2020) | Hungary | WCAG 2.0 | 25 | WAVE | None of the websites adhere to WCAG 2.0 |