OMB Watch Home Page

Introduction Acknowledgements Executive Summary Scope and Purpose of Report Background Methodology Legislator Information Explanations of Legislative Process Legislative Tracking and Monitoring Legislative Administration State Resources Statements Addressing User Expectations Site Design Site Navigation Conclusion Overview of State Legislatures State Legislative Resource Websites Federal Territories Practices of Note

Plugged In, Tuning Up (March 2001) SITE DESIGN Background Knowing what a state legislative website can guarantee, in terms of overall safeguards, creates a minimum level of trust. It also allows the user to know whether they have located a potentially useful resource. A well-designed site takes into account a myriad of elements. While it is difficult to determine which of those matters most for each individual user, there is a commonly accepted set of principles that inform basic site design. Sites must load fast, not only for the benefit of users with high-speed Internet connections, but for the majority of users who access the Internet over dialup connections. This means finding a balance with respect to colors schemes, multimedia elements— especially graphics, and layout of pages. Web pages will appear differently not only in different web browsers, but in different versions of web browsers on different operating systems. This means that consideration must be paid to what the user sees when using not only Microsoft Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator, but also increasingly popular browsers (such as Opera) and text-based browsers (such as Lynx)— used not only by blind and visually impaired users but also on personal data assistants. Advanced design elements— such as tables, frames, and "pop-up" windows— especially those powered by scripting languages other than basic HTML, may not function properly under all browsers, due to faulty code; proprietary design properties; or simply because those features are not enabled by the user's browser, either by choice or by capacity. Items Examined Because the use of design elements sets a tone and expectation for users, and lets them know what is expected of them in order to use the site, the following items were assessed: BOBBY Certification: Whether a site has run a check on its compliance with the World Wide Web Consortium's guidelines on accessibility through the use of a verification tool called BOBBY.10 Graphics Tagged on Home Page: Whether graphics are accompanies by short, descriptive alternative tags (or "alt tags") that are consistent with the content of the page. These tags not only help users who may never see the graphics, but they help provide functionality to sites that are loading information more slowly for older browsers or slower Internet connections. Text-Only Version: a plain text version with no-graphics, but HTML functionality Frames: bordered areas displayed in a browser window that operated are independent browser windows. Their use can cause older browsers to access information more slowly. No-Frames Version: Whether a full-screen HTML version of a site is available Browser Preference: If site is optimized to work with a particular browser. Links to New Window: If links that are followed (including links to other sections of a site) open new windows. Streaming Media: Whether live or archived audio/video content is provided on the site Summary of Findings Table 1 State BOBBY Certified Tagged Graphics Text Only Streaming Media Content Alabama No No No No Alaska No No No No Arizona No Yes No Audio, video Arkansas No Yes No No California No Yes No No Colorado No No No No Connecticut No Yes No No Delaware No Yes No No Florida No Partial No No Georgia No Partial No Audio, video Hawaii No Yes No Audio, video Idaho No Yes No No Illinois No No No No Indiana No Yes No No Iowa No Yes No Audio Kansas No Yes No Audio Kentucky No Partial No No Louisiana No Yes No Audio, video Maine No Yes No No Maryland No Yes No Audio Massachusetts No Yes No No Michigan No Yes No Audio, video Minnesota No Yes No No Mississippi No No No No Missouri No Yes No Audio Montana No Yes No No Nebraska No Yes No Audio, video Nevada No Yes No Audio New Hampshire No No No No New Jersey No Yes No No New Mexico No No No No New York (Senate) No No No Audio New York (Assembly) No No No Audio North Carolina No Yes No No North Dakota No Yes No No Ohio No Yes No No Oklahoma No Yes No No Oregon No No No No Pennsylvania No Yes No No Rhode Island No Yes No No South Carolina No No No Audio South Dakota No Yes No No Tennessee No No No No Texas No Yes No No Utah No Yes No No Vermont No Yes No No Virginia No Yes No No Washington No Yes No No West Virginia No No No No Wisconsin No Yes No Audio Wyoming No Yes No No Table 2 State Frames No-Frames Option Browser Preference New Window Alabama No N/A Yes No Alaska No N/A No No Arizona No N/A No No Arkansas No N/A No No California No N/A No No Colorado No N/A No No Connecticut No N/A Yes No Delaware Yes No No No Florida No N/A No No Georgia No N/A No No Hawaii No N/A No No Idaho No N/A No No Illinois No N/A No No Indiana No N/A No No Iowa No N/A No Yes Kansas No N/A No No Kentucky No N/A Yes No Louisiana No N/A No Yes Maine No N/A No No Maryland No N/A No No Massachusetts No N/A No No Michigan No N/A No No Minnesota Yes No No No Mississippi No N/A No No Missouri No N/A No No Montana Yes No No No Nebraska No N/A Yes No Nevada No N/A No No New Hampshire No N/A No No New Jersey Yes Yes No No New Mexico Yes No No No New York (Senate) Yes No No No New York (Assembly) No N/A No No North Carolina No N/A No No North Dakota Yes Yes No No Ohio No N/A No No Oklahoma Yes Yes Yes No Oregon Yes Yes No No Pennsylvania No N/A No No Rhode Island No N/A No No South Carolina Yes Yes No No South Dakota Yes Yes No No Tennessee Yes Yes Yes Yes Texas No N/A No No Utah No N/A No No Vermont No N/A No No Virginia Yes Yes No No Washington No N/A Yes No West Virginia Yes Yes No No Wisconsin Yes No No No Wyoming No N/A Yes No No state signified a BOBBY certification on their site. A handful of states, such as Hawaii and Pennsylvania, however, did state their efforts to comply with guidelines under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. 69% of sites used graphics that were accompanied by descriptive text tags 29% of sites used frames to a significant extent 53% of sites that rely on frames do provide a clearly designated non-frames version of key information 16% of sites stated a preference for a particular browser 6% opened links in new windows 29% of sites contained some form of streaming media or multimedia content Considerations It is telling that no site provided either proof of BOBBY Certification or a text-only version of their site. While neither one guarantees complete accessibility, they do provide a level of guarantee that sites will be usable by a wider audience than those sites that rely heavily upon graphics and higher-end functions to enhance or emphasize content. While a number of sites were not graphics-intensive, those sites did not qualify as text-only sites, either because some graphics were used, or because the site was not designated as a text-only alternative. It is encouraging that no site was intentionally designed for access at a particular Internet connection speed, and that a relatively small percentage of state sites relied on a particular browser. Such requirements signal a greater emphasis on site designer preference, rather than end-user needs. It is also a sign that a site may be designed with a number of advanced-scripting tools that may not be widely supported. Some 13% of sites that used graphics were only partially consistent with tagging them. Use of graphics tended to vary according to new pages that were added: a state seal, for example, might be consistently tagged, while other graphics, like navigational buttons, may not be tagged, or were instead labeled by their filename instead of their function. State legislative resource sites that used multimedia content, or specific document formats for content (like Adobe Acrobat PDF documents) were generally consistent about notifying users that specific browser accessories were necessary to access content. Most sites did provide links to those tools needed to access content. Of the state sites containing multimedia content, Louisiana was the only state that provided an actual archive of streamed content for later use; South Carolina, in its Senate, was the only state to provide close captioning; and Wisconsin was the only state to support more than one media format for access to content. The legislative sites, however, often did not provide instructions on how those tools might be used, or how they should be configured, to work in conjunction with the site. Moreover, content requiring specific tools were not always labeled as such. While multimedia content can convey information not easily rendered in other formats, it presents a unique enough set of challenges such that states appear reluctant to incorporate such content on a widespread basis. The size of different media files can place varying demands on end-user systems. Audio and video content can present challenges for hearing- and visually- impaired users, unless text transcripts of the content are also present. Sites that rely upon animation can also pose barriers for individuals with attention-deficit disorder or limited motor functions. Recommendations Advanced features and design elements should not be allowed to create barriers that limit government's responsiveness to the public's information needs. Sites should be designed to present content to the widest range of users with the least amount of barriers.11 This will help give the users a sense of consistency with respect to the sites they visit, and a confidence that the site will meet their needs with a few demands on them as possible. Advanced should only be used to present content in an alternative form, not to the exclusion of a wider base of users. If these features require additional browser functionality, or any tools that need to be downloaded, clear non-technical instruction needs to be provided at the point on the site where those tools are downloaded. At the very least, the transcripts or summary of content contained in a multimedia format should be included and labeled for users not capable— or interested— in accessing multimedia content. Websites should take advantage of a number of free online assessments to see what potential design elements may pose barriers for different categories of users, including: BOBBY (http://www.cast.org/Bobby), which adds a level of credibility to sites attempting to comply with ADA standards and practices that will be incorporated into federal websites under the Access Board's Section 508 guidelines.12 AnyBrowser.com (http://www.anybrowser.com), which can test different pages with respect to a number of HTML standards, and can show people how different individual web pages will look in different browsers. This includes displaying pages in text-only formats, verifying HTML coding integrity, and verifying active versus dead links. Ziff-Davis HTML Toolbox (http://www.zdnet.com/devhead/static/toolbox/index.html) which can test either individual pages or the first 20 pages under a specific web directory, for compliance with standards for both HTML and a range of browser standards to point out potential errors, coding issues, and conflicts among screen resolution and multimedia content. Both end-users and site developers can take advantage of these resources to test individual web pages for both accessibility and compliance with design standards for graphics, multimedia, and HTML/browser specifications. While not examined fully in this assessment, few sites featured any consistent version of their resources in a language other than English. While each state may have different sets of policies with respect to multi-language services, such support should be considered, especially for those states with significant numbers of residents who do not speak English. State legislatures should consider taking advantage of opportunities to engage citizens and public interest groups in assessments of online resources. Such activity provides input that can help raise import access issues from a variety of perspectives, can help inform a process to design and development future web pages that meet the greatest set of needs. NOTES (10) BOBBY <http://www.cast.org/Bobby> is not a guarantee that all site web pages will be accessible to all users. It does not, for example, check the functionality of Perl or Javascripts, multimedia content, of related features. For these elements, web designers must perform manual assessments to check that such content is accessible or provided in alternative formats to end-users. It does, however, represent a widely accepted seal of approval that a site has made an attempt to comply with best practices for accessibility. (11) States should also look at their designs to see if there is heavy use of tables as design elements. If content is loaded into table cells, it may not be readable by some browsers until the full contents of a table are loaded. This can be especially frustrating for users on slower Internet connections and people with disabilities. Additionally, if new windows are loaded with each link, it may not be noticeable by users, particularly if the new windows are not predefined to open as a particular size. It is best to give notice to the users that a new window will open upon clicking links, or to simply notify users that links can be opened as new windows, utilizing features already built into their browser. (12) http://www.access-board.gov/news/508-final.htm