WebCT results

Fall 2001 Version ** [no information yet] [skip to Spring 2001]
Spring 2001 Version 3.0

Fall 2001 Version ** [table of contents]

Modified SNOW method [table of contents]

Accessible browsing [table of contents]

Validation [table of contents]

What the company has to say [table of contents]

Company statement on accessiblity. As of November 15, 2001, the company stated they have been working on the W3C guidelines, and will now also implement the 508 guidelines. The indicate that an online resource about creating accessible courses is available to instructors. Information is also to be provided in their help system.They claim that current version of JAWS works with WebCT.

Is this LMS accessible0 [table of contents]

Spring 2001 Version ** [table of contents]

Modified SNOW method [table of contents]

Statistic	Designer Controlled Utilities	Inherent Features Student	Inherent Features Instructor	Combined
Access Support	86	191	191	468
Information	0	0	45	45
Courseware Components	8	40	N/A	48
Total Accessibility				561
Total Access Support	86	191	191	468
Total Functionality	80	192	192	464
Access Support: Functionality Ratio	1.075	0.995	0.995	1.022

Spring 2001 Excel spreadsheet with complete data for WebCT. All SNOW spring 2001 Excel files in zip file.

WebCT has the lowest Access Support: Functionality Ratio. WebCT would have also had the lowest Total Accessibility, except for the 45 points it received for the inclusion of accessibility information in the help site. No other program included such information. However, while the information provided was relevant to accessibility, WebCT violated some of the listed guidelines.

One of the features touted of WebCT is its wide base of tools and user control. This open programmability allows WebCT users to build stand-alone pages with common LMS functionality. That is, most of the instructor-entered information must be contained in web pages created outside of the program. The other LMSs evaluated give instructors a strict structure, forcing them to accept many settings common to all courses within the program. In these programs, most instructors enter their content through fill-in forms. The added flexibility of WebCT works to decrease the accessibility of the package. For example, points were lost because the program allows users to set low contrast colors for text and background. Other LMSs do not allow users to set these colors.

WebCT also lost points for its creation interface. Because it does not run its users through a set path, it misses opportunities to prompt those creating pages to add accessible elements. In other LMS packages, for example, when a user attempts to add an image to a page, the package prompts users to add an alt tag in the following screen. WebCT does not step users through this series, and so does not "know" to prompt the user to add an alt tag.

Accessible browsing [table of contents]

Few problems in any program were discovered while using JAWS. In fact, we had no problems at all navigating WebCT.

The biggest issue in WebCT appeared with HPR 2.5. The main page, which was within a frame set and implemented with JavaScript, was unreadable. The page redirected our browser to a page titled "Yahoo! Search Results for about:blank." Repeated attempts to access the page yielded the same results. The only solution we could find was to directly enter the URL of the main frame, which is very long and unwieldy. This would be impractical for a student. Many links within the program were JavaScript, which HPR 2.5 did not support.

No navigation problems discussed here were present with HPR 3.0.

WebCT could not be viewed with Lynx. Lynx generated the same error seen with HPR 2.5.

Validation [table of contents]

Our A-Prompt evaluation highlighted errors that were difficult to determine in the other parts of the review. It also confirmed some errors that we had already found.

It was difficult to evaluate a set of pages that were the same across all programs; instead, we reviewed a sample content page from each program. Content pages are the most important aspect of LMS packages, as these are most likely to contain vital course information.

A-Prompt revealed a number of similarities across the products. The same seven errors occurred in each course package. A-Prompt reported missing DOCTYPEs, fixed font sizes, missing descriptive text for images, link text that is not meaningful, missing captions, and missing summaries for tables.

The W3C/WAI guidelines checklist show high error numbers. WebCT had 31 failures, five of which are Priority 1 errors. We evaluated the checklist continuously throughout our testing, and failed a program for one error at any point on any page within the package.

Twelve errors were consistent across all four programs. This includes the lack of alternative content for script and applet pages, not using style sheets where they could, not avoiding pop-up windows, and not describing framesets. None of the programs identifies the primary language of the pages, provides keyboard shortcuts, provides non-link characters between links, or allows users to receive documents according to user preferences.

WebCT did not meet the following W3C/WAI checkpoints. (Text below is from the checkpoints page.) There were five priority one failures, 16 priority two failures, and 10 priority three failures, a total of 31 failures. Multiple occurences of the same checkpoint are considered as one failure.

Priority 1 (5 failures)

2.1 Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup.
5.1 For data tables, identify row and column headers.
5.2 For data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers, use markup to associate data cells and header cells.
6.3 Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible page.
11.4 If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page.

Priority 2 (16 failures)

2.2 Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen. [Priority 2 for images, Priority 3 for text].
3.1 When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images to convey information.
3.2 Create documents that validate to published formal grammars.
3.3 Use style sheets to control layout and presentation.
3.4 Use relative rather than absolute units in markup language attribute values and style sheet property values.
3.5 Use header elements to convey document structure and use them according to specification.
3.6 Mark up lists and list items properly.
3.7 Mark up quotations. Do not use quotation markup for formatting effects such as indentation.
10.1 Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window without informing the user.
11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when supported.
5.3 Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized. Otherwise, if the table does not make sense, provide an alternative equivalent (which may be a linearized version).
5.4 If a table is used for layout, do not use any structural markup for the purpose of visual formatting.
12.2 Describe the purpose of frames and how frames relate to each other if it is not obvious by frame titles alone.
8.1 Make programmatic elements such as scripts and applets directly accessible or compatible with assistive technologies [Priority 1 if functionality is important and not presented elsewhere, otherwise Priority 2.]
9.2 Ensure that any element that has its own interface can be operated in a device-independent manner.
9.3 For scripts, specify logical event handlers rather than device-dependent event handlers.

Priority 3 (10 failures)

4.3 Identify the primary natural language of a document.
9.5 Provide keyboard shortcuts to important links (including those in client-side image maps), form controls, and groups of form controls.
10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links.
11.3 Provide information so that users may receive documents according to their preferences (e.g., language, content type, etc.)
13.6 Group related links, identify the group (for user agents), and, until user agents do so, provide a way to bypass the group.
13.7 If search functions are provided, enable different types of searches for different skill levels and preferences.
5.5 Provide summaries for tables.
5.6 Provide abbreviations for header labels.
10.3 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render side-by-side text correctly, provide a linear text alternative (on the current page or some other) for all tables that lay out text in parallel, word-wrapped columns.
10.4 Until user agents handle empty controls correctly, include default, place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas.

Is this LMS accessible? [table of contents]

WebCT 3.0 is not accessible given W3C/WAI Priority 1 guidelines. It had five Priority 1 errors. Therefore, it is also not Section 508 compliant.