Universal Access in the Information Society· 2026Q2
Examining the digital divide for persons with aphasia: an evaluation of the accessibility of Australian health and government websites
- 0citations
- Q2SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
64% of Australian health/government homepages and 73% internal pages failed WCAG 2.2 Level AA accessibility standards, with 91% and 100% failing Level AAA respectively, indicating significant barriers for persons with aphasia.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- 64% of Australian health/government homepages failed WCAG 2.2 Level AA.
- 73% of internal pages failed WCAG 2.2 Level AA.
- 91% of homepages failed WCAG 2.2 Level AAA.
- 100% of internal pages failed WCAG 2.2 Level AAA.
- Novel accessibility criteria for persons with aphasia also showed widespread non-conformance.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Abstract Purpose The Internet has transformed the way we access healthcare and information, yet barriers to digital inclusion remain for persons with disabilities. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) promote equitable digital access for persons with disabilities, however, guideline adherence is inconsistent, and standards do not fully address the needs of individuals with communication disabilities. This study aimed to investigate whether high-use Australian health and government websites meet: (1) minimum (WCAG 2.2 Level AA) and comprehensive (WCAG 2.2 Level AAA) web accessibility standards, and (2) Novel Level of Success Criteria for persons with aphasia (communication disability). Methods Eleven Australian healthcare and government websites were selected based on usage. The homepage and one internal webpage of each website were evaluated using Accessible Web RAMP™. Each website was assessed for: (1) compliance with WCAG 2.2 Level AA and Level AAA standards, and (2) performance against Novel Level of Success Criteria for persons with aphasia. Results At WCAG 2.2 Level AA, 7 (64%) homepages and 8 (73%) internal webpages were not fully compliant. At Level AAA, 10 (91%) homepages and 11 (100%) internal webpages demonstrated violations, presenting potential accessibility challenges for persons with aphasia. Performance on the Novel Criteria demonstrated a similar trend in non-conformance. However, some websites demonstrated a reduced total number of violations. The majority of issues were concentrated within the perceivable principle. Conclusion A high proportion of selected high-use Australian health and government websites presented accessibility non-compliances across all levels of criteria, including the Novel Criteria. Despite some websites demonstrating fewer violations against the Novel Criteria, accessibility barriers remain prevalent. This highlights the importance of improving inclusive practices, strengthening regulatory compliances, and integrating cognitive and communication disabilities into digital accessibility standards.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Human Factors and Ergonomics
Human Factors and ErgonomicsSocial Sciences