International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management

UK and US hotel web content accessibility: Mandates for action

Russell Williams Rulzion Rattray
Article information:
To cite this document:
Russell Williams Rulzion Rattray, (2005),"UK and US hotel web content accessibility", International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 Iss 1 pp. 78 - 87
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110510577699
Downloaded by Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Bandung At 01:31 16 June 2016 (PT)

Downloaded on: 16 June 2016, At: 01:31 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 14 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 875 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2005),"Marketing education: A review of service quality perceptions among international students",
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 Iss 1 pp. 65-77 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110510577680
(2005),"Food and beverage management: A review of change", International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 Iss 1 pp. 88-93 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110510577707
(2004),"Web site accessibility of German and UK tourism information sites", European Business Review,
Vol. 16 Iss 6 pp. 577-589 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555340410565404

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:606732 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm

IJCHM
17,1 UK and US hotel web content
accessibility
Mandates for action
78
Russell Williams
Hull University Business School, Hull, UK, and
Rulzion Rattray
Centre for Business Education, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland
Downloaded by Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Bandung At 01:31 16 June 2016 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose Identifying the different user needs and capabilities of individuals online, the aim of this
research is to highlight the importance of web content accessibility in effective online
communication. In particular, identifying the statistical size of disabled and challenged
individuals in the marketplace, the paper identifies a competitive mandate for considering online
accessibility. In addition, a developing legal mandate, based on the idea that access to information also
involves access to opportunity and participation, is set out. Having identified the importance of the
accessibility issue, the second aim of the research is to provide an assessment of current levels of
online accessibility, as well as to compare these with the limited published research in this area.
Design/methodology/approach Following previous accessibility research, the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines, produced by the Web Accessibility Initiative, are adopted as the de facto
standards for accessibility. Against these standards, a sample of UK hotel web pages was then
assessed utilising the software assessment tool, Bobby. Given the limitations of the Bobby software
to assess web sites against all the de facto standards, additional manual checks were also made.
Findings The hotel web sites revealed very poor levels of accessibility in both absolute and relative
terms. Examining the data collected manually revealed that the poor level of accessibility is likely to
result from a lack of awareness of the critical issues and techniques required for providing access. If
organisations want to maximise their online reach, then an outside-in, user-centred approach is
therefore necessary.
Practical implications Provides a framework as to how organisations might usefully implement
a web content accessibility strategy.
Originality/value Enables web authors to evaluate their content from an accessibility perspective.
Keywords Internet, Worldwide web, Travel, Tourism
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
Vol. 17 No. 1, 2005
pp. 78-87
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/09596110510577699
Introduction
According to statistics of NUA internet surveys 605.60 million individuals were
estimated to be online as of September 2002 (NUA, 2002). Figures such as these
indicate how internet-based technologies (primarily the web and e-mail) have already
secured a critical role in information transfer and exchange, and are set to grow further.
Internet-based technologies offer benefits that make them a valuable asset for just
about all industries. First, they allow individuals and organisations to disseminate
large volumes of information quickly and efficiently. Indeed, the technologies allow
organisations to escape the richness-reach information trade-off whereby one of these
dimensions was often achieved at the expense of the other, or some compromise had to
be sought (Evans and Wurster, 2000). For example, a travel company may have sent
out brochures via a mailing database, in which case reach would be good, but richness
 of information disseminated would be relatively poor. Certainly, there would have been Hotel web
no interactive element; it would be limited to static pictures and text. Additionally, once content
brochures were printed (often at considerable expense) they were liable to be become
dated not allowing the publisher currency. Alternatively, a travel company could accessibility
represent its products and services via a retail outlet. Here, reach would be
compromised by customer travelling times, but there would be the possibility of
interaction between buyer and seller and the information would have currency. By way 79
of contrast, internet-based technologies (let us focus on the web) allow individuals and
organisations to escape the richness-reach trade-off. Rich information can, potentially,
be shared with a global audience. It allows richness and reach. Web pages may for
example contain text, images, video-clips, sound, and via database applications,
interaction. As they may also be updated easily they also offer currency. Regarding
Downloaded by Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Bandung At 01:31 16 June 2016 (PT)

reach, web pages may be accessed globally provided of course they are correctly
designed, registered appropriately in search engines and directories (that is, they have
network centrality), and are co-promoted at target audiences with more traditional
complementary promotion and marketing.
While internet-based technologies allow the efficient and expedient supply of
information by individuals and organisations, they also provide benefits for those who
demand information. Simply, they allow greater access to a greater volume of
product/service information. That is, they solve consumers navigational problems by
offering convenience in the search for information. While internet-based technologies
offer these benefits to all industries and consumers they are perhaps particularly
valuable to the travel/tourism industry because of industry specific characteristics.
Primarily, the industry comprises many independent, geographically dispersed actors,
offering a complex product to buyers who require some considerable pre-purchase
information.
The full benefit of information dissemination and, conversely, navigation offered by
internet-based technologies may not be fully realised however unless a few notable
issues are attended to. Indeed, simply being online is not enough. A web publisher, let
us say an independent hotelier, must make her web site visible. She must obtain web
traffic. This might in part come from successful search engine and directory
registration, which in turn requires an understanding of key design element as well as
and how the search engines and directories rank pages. For example, the publisher
should be aware of the importance of key words and an understanding of key word
density. Additionally, she should understand how a web sites popularity depends on
the number of links to and from the pages (Dholakia and Rego, 1998). While making a
web site visible obtaining traffic and making it popular are easily the topic of a
single paper this is not the remit here. Indeed, assuming that the publisher has been
successful in obtaining traffic some of this effort is still in vein if the content of her
pages is not accessible.
Accessible web pages provide access for all, accommodating different user needs
and situational considerations[1]. Consider, for example, how some individuals using
the internet and web may:
. not be able to see, hear, move or process some types of information;
.
have difficulty reading or comprehending text;
.
not be able to use a keyboard or mouse;
 IJCHM .
have a text-only screen, a small screen, or a slow internet connection;
17,1 .
not be able to speak or understand fluently the language in which the document
is written;
.
be in a situation where their eyes or hands are busy; and
.
have an early version of a browser, a different browser, a voice browser or a
80 different operating system.

Four mandates for web content accessibility

There are at least four credible reasons why differing user needs and situational
contexts (accessibility) are something more than a topic at the margin. First, accessible
Downloaded by Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Bandung At 01:31 16 June 2016 (PT)

web pages maximize reach. This is important for a number of reasons. In pure
marketing terms individuals with some form of disability (and therefore differing
needs) make up a significant proportion of the marketplace. Indeed, 54 million US
citizens live with some form of disability (US Census Bureau cited in Jackson-Sanborn
et al., 2002); a figure matched in proportion by the 8.5 million UK citizens thought to be
covered by disability legislation (disability.gov.uk, http://194.202.202.185/news/index.
html#equaldioversity). While not all of these individuals are using internet-based
technologies yet, 8 per cent of users have reported themselves as having a disability
(GVU, 1998). With an aging population, and the level of disability increasing with age
(Myhill, 2002), the significance of the disabled as a proportion of the online marketplace
with particular capabilities and needs is set to increase, as it also will simply because of
late adopters of the technology.
Allied to a clear economic/competitive mandate for accessibility is a developing
legal mandate for accessibility (at least in certain countries). Simply put; Access to
information has increasingly become a necessary tool for success and the source of
opportunity in education and employment. Under this definition, access to
information involves the civil rights of people with and without disabilities (Yu,
2002, p. 406-7). While an exact interpretation of the law on web content accessibility is
yet to be established, the scope of discrimination legislation into cyberspace has
already been seen with one notable Australian case. In Maguire v. Sydney Organising
Committee for the Olympic Games (Socog) (www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/
decisions/comdec/2000/DD000120.htm) the complainant, Maguire, brought an action
under the Commonwealth Discrimination Act, 1992, alleging that the Socogs web site
was inaccessible and therefore discriminatory in contradiction of the Act. Finding that
discrimination had taken place, the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities
Commission awarded compensation to the complainant. This case is perhaps
particularly relevant to the UK as the provisions of the UKs Disability Discrimination
Act 1995 and the Commonwealth Discrimination Act are very similar (Sloan, 2001).
Moreover, the revised Code of Practice Rights of Access, Goods, Facilities, Services
and Premises of the Disability Discrimination Act Part III (due to come fully into force
in 2004) advises that it is the provision of the service, not the nature of the service that
is important. Here an airline booking/reservation service is also provided as an
example of a service subject to the act, meaning then that reasonable accommodation
must be made (http://www.disability.gov.uk/dda/#part3). Outside of the UK, Section
508 Amendments of the US Rehabilitations Act 1973 already requires all Federal
agencies (as well as those receiving funds from them) to make their pages accessible. It
 also offers some guidelines as to how to achieve this Hotel web
(www.section508.gov/docs/508law.html). There are also clear lessons from the content
requirements of public accommodation for those with disabilities in physical spaces:
Here, first government was required to provide public accommodation, with the private accessibility
sector following shortly after.
Beyond the competitive and developing legal imperatives to accommodate those
with disabilities, there is another very good reason for addressing the accessibility 81
issue. Beyond an organizations economic (marketing) and legal responsibilities,
organizations are increasingly being held to account in terms of their social
responsibilities. These responsibilities often fall outside their economic and/or legal
responsibilities and entail being moral, doing what is right, and fair. Corporate
citizenship requires organizations not to pursue profit without regard to morality; there
Downloaded by Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Bandung At 01:31 16 June 2016 (PT)

is a corporate social contract whereby society places expectations on

business/government, just as business/government places expectations on society.
As internet-based technologies come to play an ever-increasing role in society
organizations have increasing responsibilities here too, both in terms of minimizing
harms and promoting the benefits that stem from its use. Of course, as in most things,
there is a balancing act to perform. Organizations must balance economic performance
with ethical/social performance, and among its various stakeholders. However, if it
ignores the ethical/social requirement it faces a potential backlash. Indeed, the fact that
internet-based technologies make it extremely easy to communicate any point of view
(including a perceived injustice) to a very large audience only serves to reinforce the
need for organizations to take on-board and action their social responsibilities. There is
therefore a corporate social responsibility (mandate) in terms of ensuring the use of
internet-based technologies minimizes harm and promotes benefits, one that includes
web content accessibility.
The discussion as to why the accessibility issue is important has focused thus far on
meeting the needs of the disabled. However, there are groups who may not be
recognized as officially disabled but nevertheless have special needs. For example,
while dyslexia is a cognitive impairment not covered by legislation individuals with
dyslexia may have particular needs if they are to access information effectively.
Incidentally, the figures for those with dyslexia are not insignificant: 4 per cent of the
population is severely dyslexic and a further 6 per cent have mild to moderate
problems (British Dyslexic Association, 2004). Yet, accessibility is not just about
meeting the needs of the disabled and those with special needs. The legacy of over a
decade of software and hardware development means that individuals browse the web
using many different platforms. Publishers/designers therefore need to consider
interoperability. For example, at a basic level, user may not all have the same screen
size to view web content. Alternatively, they may be using early or different versions of
internet browsers. They may not have all the plug-ins, for example, FLASH. All of
these mean what they see may be different from what the publisher/designer intends.
There is therefore a technology mandate for considering web content accessibility.

Assessing web content accessibility

Determining whether a site provides satisfactory accessibility requires standards to
judge it against. One of the factors used in determining the legal standard for
accessibility in the Maguire case was the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
 IJCHM (WCAG) provided by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). As the nominal
17,1 standards setting body for the web the W3C has been active in addressing the
accessibility of web content through the work of the Web Accessibility Initiative
(WAI). In its work the WAI has developed a set of guidelines setting out three levels of
accessibility: Priority 1, 2 and 3. Satisfying Priority 1 checkpoints (aka Single A
Conformance) provides a basic standard of content accessibility for individuals with
82 disabilities. Priority 2 provides checkpoints that go further than providing minimum
requirements of Priority 1, by removing significant barriers to access. Priority 3
checkpoints go further still, to improve access (www.w3.org).
Satisfying Priority 3 checkpoints would of course be the optimal position for an
organisation in terms of maximising reach. However, Priority 1 would appear to be a
reasonable initial adjustment. Indeed, reasonableness (reasonable accommodation;
Downloaded by Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Bandung At 01:31 16 June 2016 (PT)

taking into account both the benefits of access for the user as well as the cost to the
organisation) featured as another factor in the Macguire case. This is in line then with
the balancing act required between having satisfactory economic performance and
social/moral performance under the corporate social responsibility mandate.
Given the relative newness of the internet and web, and the still developing legal
and social/moral mandates, little research as yet reports statistically on web content
accessibility. Moreover, what is there has tended to report on library and university
access to information. In these areas, where one might expect there to be higher than
average levels of accessibility given their long held agenda for social inclusion, the
results are pretty disappointing. For example, Schmetzhe (2001) found the average
accessibility of US campus library sites to be 59 per cent, while Kelly (2002) accessing
UK university homepages found only 41 per cent Priority 1 accessible. Beyond library
and university pages, Jackson-Sanborn et al. (2001) making a much broader assessment
of accessibility across six genres found 33.9 per cent accessible: Government 60 per
cent; Colleges (43 per cent); Clothing 40 per cent; International 29 per cent; Jobs 19 per
cent; and most popular 15 per cent. No work was to be found reporting directly on the
travel-tourism industry.
Consistently, the most frequently cited barriers in the research conducted to date are
a failure to provide alternative text for all images, followed by a failure to provide
alternative images for all image hot-spots. The significance of these failures can be
gauged if one considers that not everyone can see the image. For example, an
individual may have a visual impairment and/or be using a speaking browser.
Alternatively, an individual may be using a text-based browser for some reason
possibly for speed of download. If the image contains important information, or is used
for navigational purposes within the site, then without appropriate alternative text this
presents a potential barrier to the user.
Much of the research reporting on accessibility has tended to use the Bobby Web
accessibility software developed at the Centre for Applied Special Technology (CAST,
1998). In checking for accessibility Bobby reports against checkpoints in line with the
WAI WCAG. But, significantly, Bobby cannot check all aspects of access in line with
the checkpoints. For a complete assessment some additional (qualitative) manual
checks are required. For example, even if there is alternative text for images a manual
check is required to check its appropriateness and usefulness. If the alternative text for
an image simply says picture Bobby can only records its presence, not its usefulness.
 As the internet and web are important communication mediums for all industries, Hotel web
and the research to date on accessibility tending to focus on library and university web content
pages (and have a US focus), this work sets out to:
.
Ascertain the current state of web accessibility provided by the hotel industry so
accessibility
that it might benchmark itself against other sectors.
.
Propose how industry providers might address web content accessibility to meet
the existing competitive mandate as well as developing legal and moral/social 83
mandates.

Assessing UK and US-based hotel web content accessibility

Downloaded by Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Bandung At 01:31 16 June 2016 (PT)

A total of 100 US and 100 UK-based hotel sites were selected for the study using search
strings that comprised a city name (selected on the basis of a weighted average
constructed from each countries seven largest cities) and the word hotel. These
search strings were entered into the search engine google. The returns generated
from the search engine in each case were filtered to remove duplicates; notably index
sites for hotels where a standard design template was used.
In line with previous research the Bobby Web Accessibility Checker software was
run on the sample of hotel web sites, recording for the entry (home) pages those that
passed and failed at the Priority 1 equivalent checkpoints it could assess for. To check
for the most frequent sources of failure (barriers) the types of failures were also noted.
Testing only the entry pages of the web sites, rather than the whole site, follows
previous studies where the entry pages were assumed to be indicative of the whole web
sites accessibility (for example, Kelly, 2002). This is also in line with research findings
reporting comparable accessibility rates between first and second layer pages
(Williams and Rattray, 2003).
Noting how Bobby as a piece of software can only perform quantitative checks, an
additional manual (qualitative) check was performed. For those sites that had provided
alternative text for images an assessment was made for its usefulness. Here, an
assessment was made as to whether the alternative text communicated the same
information as its associated element. This test was performed independently by two
assessors. A third individual was then used to arbitrate over any discrepancies
between the two assessors.
Both the Bobby software and manual alternative text assessments were conducted
in January 2004.

Survey results and analysis

For technical reasons only 85 of the 100 UK and 88 of the 100 US sites were able to be
run through the Bobby software. Of these sites only 13 per cent of the UK and 6 per
cent of the US sites passed those Priority 1 checkpoints Bobby is able to assess. The
most frequently reported errors were for the UK sites: A failure to provide alternative
text for all images (81 per cent); A failure to provide alternative text for all image map
hot-spots [AREAs] (16 per cent)); A failure to provide alternative text for images-type
buttons (12 per cent); Failing to give each title a frame (9 per cent). The US revealed
similar error rates at 88 per cent, 14 per cent, 19 per cent and 11 per cent respectively.
Incidentally, while 13 per cent of the UK sites passed Bobby Priority 1 checkpoints
 IJCHM none of these sites passed at Priority Levels 2 or 3. Of the US sites, 1 site passed at
17,1 Priority Level 2 and no sites passed at Priority Level 3.
These results are disappointing. They indicate that an overwhelming majority of
sites fail to meet basic accessibility standards. In addition they show the sector
performing poorly relative to the previous research in the area. This is in spite of the
fact that much of this research was conducted earlier and one might have expected
84 some further dissemination of accessibility issues to web publishers. One surprising
aspect of the survey results is that more UK sites passed Bobby Priority 1 than did US
sites. One might have expected that the US as a more litigious society and as an earlier
adopter of the technology might have provided greater accessibility. Some further
research might be needed here, however. It may be the case that the US sites are more
prone to fail the accessibility standards by virtue of the fact that they exhibit more
Downloaded by Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Bandung At 01:31 16 June 2016 (PT)

advanced design. This does not mitigate the fact though that the vast majority of sites
are failing to meet the competitive, developing legal, social-moral and technological
imperatives for accessibility.
The manual qualitative assessment of the usefulness of the alternative text where it
was supplied on the UK sites ranked the alternative text as follows:
(1) Poor. The alternative test is no help in the navigational process. Moreover, the
handicapped user would not be able to make any use of the image where the
image forms an important part of the site.
(2) Moderate. The alternative text provided is useful in the majority of cases but is
inadequate for some images of peripheral importance to the operation of the
site.
(3) Good. All alternative text is useful and enhances the accessibility and usability
of the site.
On this ranking basis nine of the UK sites that provide alternative text were scored as
Good while one was ranked as Moderate and one as Poor. Overall then, the small
majority providing alternative text did provide text that improved navigability helping
those who might be using a text-based browser or screen reading software. However, it
has to be remembered that these sites providing useful alternative text represented a
minority of the surveyed sites. Those that did provide text did it well. Most did not,
however, provide this text.

Addressing web content accessibility in the travel-tourism industry

The relatively poor results revealed for web content accessibility here indicate that
organisations are either unaware of the significance of the issue, or that they are
choosing to ignore it, perhaps because of misperceptions about either or both of the
benefits and costs of addressing it. Assuming that this paper has tackled some of these
misperceptions, and/or that the issue has now been brought to the fore, the question
that follows is how should organisations go about addressing the issue? To address
this question an implementation plan for web content accessibility is proposed
(Figure 1).
The starting point for addressing web content accessibility involves promoting and
selling its benefits to key organisational stakeholders. Key influencers and
decision-makers need to be on-side. Making a business case for accessibility
utilising the four mandates, illustrating both the benefits from addressing the issue as
 Hotel web
content
accessibility

85
Downloaded by Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Bandung At 01:31 16 June 2016 (PT)

Figure 1.
Implementation plan for
addressing web content
accessibility

well as the potential costs (direct business, litigation, negative publicity, etc) from
ignoring it, adds weight to the argument. Making the case is rarely enough to secure
change though. Securing commitment to the possibility for change makes adoption
much more likely. Discussion, agreement and commitment in public arena is one
possible strategy that may be utilised, as having agreed and made commitment among
peers individuals are more likely to follow through.
Having secured the commitment of key influencers and decision-makers to
accessibility the next logical step is to establish the organisations policy. Individuals
will need to know and share more specifically what they are trying to achieve what
the objectives are and more precisely what standards of accessibility they are
seeking to meet. Having objectives and standards now means responsibilities can be
allocated (few will agree to take on something without boundaries). This complete, the
organisation can now conduct its initial accessibility assessment. The initial
assessment should cover a representative sample of the organisations web site, for
while the entry page is likely to be indicative of the whole sites accessibility against
the WCAG it will not highlight all accessibility barriers.
Measuring the sample against the standard of provision established in the
organisations policy represents an absolute measure, one which may be obtained from
automated validators such as Bobby as well as from qualitative manual user checks.
For example, assessing the quality of alternative text, and how a page reads when
run through a text-based browser represent two of the possible qualitative manual
user checks that may be performed. Such absolute measures will identify the gaps that
exist between current levels of provision and the standards adopted. They will not
however identify competitive gaps. For example, rivals may provide higher levels of
accessibility. This insight will only come from a comparative benchmarking exercise.
Thus, rival organisational sites should be assessed for accessibility to identify the
totality of gaps in provision.
The initial assessment will identify gaps in provision, which will of course feedback
into organisational policy making decisions. For example, if a large competitor gap is
 IJCHM identified the organisation may need to review the standards previously chosen so as
17,1 to bring it in line with rivals. However, any gap between current implementation status
and whatever standard chosen will need to be analysed to develop an effective
development and implementation strategy to close it. Various factors will need to be
considered here. Notably, the size of the gap may allow the site be tweaked to reach
the required level of provision. Tweaking may alternatively be ruled out if the gap is
86 considerable, the site is near the end of its lifespan, and/or will not usefully allow future
development. Simultaneously, additional factors such as the state of in-house expertise
and the software currently used will also need to be considered. There may also be a
need to recognise that standards (quality of provision) may rise beyond the scope of a
tweaked current site. All of these factors need to be weighed up in a cost-benefit
framework in the decision as to what to do.
Downloaded by Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Bandung At 01:31 16 June 2016 (PT)

Having weighed up the factors and chosen what to do to close any gap the
organisation will need to work on implementing the necessary changes. Two parts of
implementation requiring perhaps particular attention are enabling the staff to deliver
the change, i.e. providing requisite training either to manage the work in-house or to
contract it out, and monitoring and control of the development and implementation.
Reaching the chosen standard is not the end of the process though! Standards
change, guidelines are reviewed, hardware and software usage changes . . . meaning
that the experiences and requirements of users change. All of this means that the
organisation needs to continually review its provision both internally, using in-house
expertise, and externally using relevant expertise. Crucially, perhaps the most
important external expert is the user of the organisations pages. Collecting, reviewing
and responding to feedback are a must!

Conclusion
For competitive, legal, moral and technological reasons web content accessibility is
already an important issue for organisations as they seek to communicate efficiently
and effectively with stakeholder groups. Indeed, while important now it is an issue
likely to increase in significance further as demographics change and along with it the
capabilities and needs of individuals. Additionally, if the experiences of public
accommodation in physical spaces are anything to go on, organisations are likely to see
the law and its interpretation catch up with the development of internet-based
technologies and their application. Where the law does not apply organisations are
increasingly being held to account by what is perceived to be their corporate social
responsibility. As accessibility involves access to information organisations will
increasingly find themselves held to account here. Notably, though not featuring as a
central part of this piece, accessibility also needs to be addressed simply to
accommodate the plethora of hardware and software that are utilised by individuals to
access information in cyberspace.
As the sample of hotel web sites from both the UK and US revealed pretty
disappointing results regarding web content accessibility it suggests that the
travel-tourism industry had some considerable way to go to achieve efficiency and
effectiveness in its dealings with stakeholders. To improve on this position an
implementation plan sequenced around promotion and selling, establishing
organizational policy, initial assessment, gap analysis, development and
implementation, and review is proposed.
 Note Hotel web
1. From the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C, 2002) content
References accessibility
BDA (2004), What Is Dyslexia?, British Dyslexia Association, Reading available at: www.
bda-dyslexia.org.uk/main/information/adults/a01what.asp (accessed 12 January).
CAST (1998), Bobby, Centre for Applied Special Technology, Wakefield, MA, available at: 87
www.cast.org/bobby
Dholakia, U.M. and Rego, L.L. (1998), What makes commercial web pages popular?, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 7/8, pp. 724-36.
Evans, R. and Wurster, T.S. (2000), Blown to Bits: How the New Economics of Information
Transforms Strategy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Downloaded by Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Bandung At 01:31 16 June 2016 (PT)

GVU (1998), GVUs 10th User Survey, Georgia Institute of Technology, Graphic Visualization,
and Usability Center, available at: www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_surveys/survey-1998-10/
(accessed 25 November 2001).
Jackson-Sanborn, E., Odess-Harnish, K. and Warren, N. (2002), Web site accessibility: a study of
six genres, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 308-17.
Kelly, B. (2002), Web watch: an accessibility analysis of UK university entry points, Ariadne,
No. 33, available at: www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue33/web-watch/ (accessed 13 November).
Myhill, C.E. (2002), ICT for access to information services for disabled people: an overview of
projects and services at Gateshead Library Service, Program, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 470-6.
NUA (2002), How Many Online?, NUA Internet Surveys, available at: www.nua.ie/surveys/
how_many_online/ (accessed 13 January 2004).
Schmetzke, A. (2001), Web accessibility at university libraries and library schools, Library Hi
Tech, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 35-49.
Sloan, M. (2001), Web accessibility and the DDA, The Journal of Information, Law and
Technology, Vol. 2, available at: http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/01-02/sloan.htm (accessed 25
November 2002).
W3C (2002), Web Accessibility Initiative Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, 1.0, available at
w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ (accessed 22 November).
Williams, R. and Rattray, R. (2003), An assessment of web accessibility of UK accountancy
firms, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 710-16.
Yu, H. (2002), Web accessibility and the law: recommendations for implementation, Internet
Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 406-19.