Accessibility Evaluation

Project:                               Evaluating Accessibility

URL of site Evaluated:

Intended Audience:        Anyone especially from outside the                                                               country of Kiribati seeking information                                                       on climate change and it’s impact on                                                              Kiribati.

Set of Tools Used for the Evaluation

To do the evaluation, after reading up on the many accessibility evaluation tools, I decided to use WAVE, a site/tool that runs the evaluation process for you and spits out results that include the breakdown of the code errors, missing links, contrast errors, and other issues found on the site. All you have to do is plug in the url of the site you want to evaluate in the query box and it will do the rest for you. The image below has more details about WAVE:

WAVE Accessibility Eval tool
WAVE Accessibility Eval tool



I used a combination of manual evaluation and the use of one evaluation tool, WAVE. The usage of these 2 methodologies satisfies the Web Content Accessibilities Guidlines(WCAG) that requires, at a minimum, using a manual and evaluation tool when conducting website accessibility.

Evaluation of Accessibility

The site is an official governmental site of the islands of Kiribati. This issue is one that the inhabitants of its islands are grabbling with as we speak, from tidal waves eating away their lands, depletion of their drinking water supplies as a result of fresh water subsiding into rising sea water levels under water aquifers, and many other effects of climate change.

And so, the site is a resource depot for the outside world. It documents their struggles, efforts to combat their situations, links to similar topics, and everything having to do with climate change.

The goal for this project is to evaluate accessibility, specifically web accessibility for the site Web accessibility “refers to the inclusive practice of removing barriers that prevent interaction with, or access to websites, by people with disabilities. When sites are correctly designed, developed and edited, all users have equal access to information and functionality”, as defined by Wikipedia. Below is a homepage screenshot of site homepage homepage


WAVE is free, with simple terms for usage, and has proven to be a reliable tool as evidenced by the millions of web pages it helped evaluate. You can check it here

My Accessibility Eval Results

Summary of issues

After running the evaluation tool on the site, as indicated in the above image, there are quite a few issues, ranging from code, contrast, styles, missing “alt” elements, and a few others. Below is the summary of evaluation the WAVE tool came up with:

  • 6 Errors
  • 16 Alerts
  • 14 Features
  • 28 Structural Elements
  • 4 HTML5 and ARIA
  • 3 Contrast Errors

To help better illustrate this, take a look at the screenshots above and below:

Contrast Errors

Before running the evaluation tool, I could even tell color scheming is not strong. And as the test results show below, just on the home page itself , there are 2 contrast issues. Browsing throughout the pages, there are other contrast issues, as the pages are mostly white backgrounds with black text, and no consistent color palette is being used effectively on the content.

Issues details

Below is the closer image of the errors/issues.



Mobile Usability Test

Project:  Mobile Usability Test

URL of tested site:

Inmobile_phone_bw this usability test, I chose to test mobile version, a website for the company American Capitol Group based out of Bellevue(it’s my wife’s work). Up until now, I’ve never seen their site’s mobile version, and thankfully, it happened to be a good choice to test.

I asked 3 family members to be in my test, answering a set of 6 questions regarding the mobile site’s usability. The site proves to provide quite consistent results from my testing subjects. They all seem to come to the same consensus, that the mobile site needs a total makeover.

The home page does not quite open up to the full width of the mobile browser, instead it’s only half the screen size (see below). mobile site. mobile site.

Attached here is my questions and answers I gathered after I conducted my test with 3 family members.


Usability Test


In this usability test, I asked coworkers a series of questions I prepared and recorded their answers based on their experiences on my chosen website. The main goal of the test here is the effectiveness of the website, in conveying it’s intended purpose to it’s targeted audience.

In choosing my site, I picked one that my coworkers aren’t familiar with, so as to try and capture their first impressions and rather unbiased answers to my questions. I figure, the site I picked is a tourism company’s site in Kiribati(see map here), a country that’s one of the least known, and least traveled-to destinations in the world, and so chances are they have never heard of or come across the site.

In summary, their answers were all consistent in that while the site is simple and clean, it lacks modern web elements that modern websites have. Things like applications, image sliders, videos, big bold colors and backgrounds would really make the experience more engaging and pleasurable. Especially for a site that is trying to sell it’s product(tourism in this case) to the outside world. Interestingly, they all agree that those things would have helped make them return to the site. Now, would they return to the site in the future? I didn’t ask them that question, but their answers can be good indications they may not!

copy-of-kiribatiholidays_site vs.


Here below is my set of questions with the answers from the test I conducted:

  • 1.What do you think the purpose of this site is? (i.e.                 selling, informing, entertainment, etc)


User 1. Advertising to the public.

User 2. Selling and advertising to the general public tourism                 in Kiribati.

User 3. Informing and selling tourism.

  • 2. Who do you think this site is for(audience)?

User 1. Probably people outside of the country.

User 2. Anyone interested in going to remote places.

User 3. Hard to tell by the lack of description on home page.

  •       3. Is the site adequate for its supposed purpose?

User 1. The site could make more use of interactive web                        technology. So no!

User 2. Not really, it’s pretty bland!

User 3. The site looks dated, and needs eye-catching content,                pics, videos, etc.


  •         4. Is there a coherent use of a color scheme?

  User 1. Somewhat, mostly the orange and maybe blue                           colors.

  User 2. Yeah, simple orange, and prevalent off-white                               background.

  User 3. Site could use more of the orange, in text headings.



  •        5. How did you find the layout of the site?

User 1. While content is tidy, it’s rather not modern enough                  like today’s sites.

User 2. Limited content, makes it look uninteresting.

User 3. Easy to follow layout, looks like it’s made for mobile                 or smaller screens.


  •      What would you change to make you return to this site in         the future?

User 1. More use of interactive content, like image slider,                      videos, etc.

User 2. Make the text bigger so I can read it easily.

User 3. Enlarge the pages so big, colorful pictures from the                    country can help sell tourism to the outside world.