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]. yskim11@chosun.ac.kr(1) , , ** : okseok@ghc.ac.kr()[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 : yskim11@chosun.ac.kr1993 ()1998 ()2001 ( )()2002 : , , etc.E-mail : okseok@ghc.ac.kr (113)103