Disability and Rehabilitation

ISSN: 0963-8288 (Print) 1464-5165 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/idre20

Website accessibility in the tourism industry: an

analysis of official national tourism organization
websites around the world

Trinidad Domínguez Vila , Elisa Alén González & Simon Darcy

To cite this article: Trinidad Domínguez Vila , Elisa Alén González & Simon Darcy (2017): Website
accessibility in the tourism industry: an analysis of official national tourism organization websites
around the world, Disability and Rehabilitation, DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1362709

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1362709

View supplementary material

Published online: 09 Aug 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 16

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=idre20

Download by: [Mount Sinai Health System Libraries] Date: 14 August 2017, At: 01:10
 DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1362709

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Website accessibility in the tourism industry: an analysis of official national

tourism organization websites around the world
Trinidad Dom
ınguez Vilaa , Elisa Al
en Gonz
aleza and Simon Darcyb
a
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business Sciences and Tourism, University of Vigo, Ourense, Spain; bDepartment of Events, Sport and
Tourism, Faculty of Business, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Purpose: To analyze the accessibility of official national tourism organization websites of countries around Received 4 April 2017
the world, in order to establish possible common patterns and rankings of those with exemplary practice Revised 18 July 2017
Accepted 30 July 2017
Downloaded by [Mount Sinai Health System Libraries] at 01:10 14 August 2017

through to those with the highest number of issues. The purpose for undertaking such an analysis is to
provide a quasi-indicator of inclusive organizational practice for online accessibility for both destination
managers and their accessible tourism consumers – domestic and overseas people with disability visiting KEYWORDS
the websites. Accessible tourism; web
Method: The official tourism websites of 210 countries included in the latest World Tourism Organization accessibility; tourism
report were analyzed. A website accessibility evaluation tool (website accessible test) was used in the ana- management; WCAG 2.0.;
lysis, according to AA and AAA levels of conformance to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 travel planning
requirements.
Results: Different patterns compliance to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 were established for
the clusters, which were rather similar for both AA and AAA conformance levels. The main issues in the
least accessible websites were also identified, mainly focused on the following guidelines: navigable, com-
patible, adaptability, text alternatives and also referred to other assistive technologies.
Conclusions: Once the main issues were established several alternatives are suggested to address them,
such as implementing more prescriptive laws and regulations, complying with mandatory benchmark
standards and/or having external agencies audit website designs. However, in addition to using bench-
mark standards, efforts to improve this situation should also be made by programmers, who should also
rely on preexistent experiences and develop more dynamic knowledge. This knowledge may include text
alternatives for any nontext content; creation of content that can be presented in different ways without
losing information; provide ways to help users navigate, find content, determine where they are and navi-
gate websites to maximize compatibility with assistive technologies and user agents.

ä IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION

 Access to information – in this case, online information – is an important factor in the process of
rehabilitation for people with disability and those supporting them.
 Failure to apply homogeneous criteria for website accessibility around the world can hamper access
to information by people with disabilities.
 Travel planning requires access to mainstream tourist distribution networks where online inclusive
practice is a precursor to information searching.
 Documents for destination managers and programmers the main problems of accessibility to websites
and examples of models or solutions to follow and not.
 Establish the main inclusive website design criteria on which to focus on improving the access of peo-
ple with disabilities to websites (e.g., text alternatives, content presented in different ways, navigating
and improving compatibility with assistive technologies etc.).

Introduction services, compared to 6% in 2014 [1]. International tourist arrivals

The tourism industry is one of the main focuses of economic
activity around the world. Tourism ranks third in international
exports, only preceded by fuel and chemical products and fol-
lowed by the agricultural and automotive industries. In many
developing countries, it is the first sector in terms of generating
currency exchange [1]. Revenues from international tourism cur-
rently account for 7% of world’s total exports of products and
worldwide have gone from 25 million in 1950 to 278 million in
1980, 674 million in 2000 and 1186 million in 2015. This trend has
been reflected in the revenues from international tourism
obtained by destinations around the world, which have increased
from US$2000 million in 1950 to US$104,000 million in 1980,
US$495,000 million in 2000 and US$1,260,000 million in 2015.
Fifty million more tourists (overnight visitors) traveled to

CONTACT Trinidad Dom
ınguez trinidad@uvigo.es Vila Faculty of Business Sciences and Tourism, Campus As Lagoas s/n, 32004 Ourense, Spain
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
ß 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2 T. D. VILA ET AL.
international destinations around the world in 2015 than in 2014
[1]. France, the United States, Spain and China continued to top
the rankings in both international arrivals and receipts [2].
Once the significance of the tourism sector has been estab-
lished, it is essential to discuss those market segments with spe-
cific needs. This is the case for people with disabilities, who
require tourist products to be accessible at an architectural, urban,
transport, information communication technology and leisure and
tourism level. Approximately 15% of the world’s population are
estimated to live with some form of disability [3], and the trend is
that that this figure will increase from one billion people presently
to 1.2 billion in 2050 [4]. The aging of the population will com-
pound this effect even further [3]. This is significant for people
with disabilities since, according to the WHO, there is a clear rela-
tionship between disability and aging. Some 35% of elderly peo-
ple have some form of disability associated with the aging
process [5,6]: “with increasing age, disabilities or restricted capaci-
Downloaded by [Mount Sinai Health System Libraries] at 01:10 14 August 2017
ties also gradually increase” [7]. This means that 20% of the popu-
lation are direct beneficiary of improvements that enhance
accessible tourism benefits directly from accessible tourism [5,6,8],
while others argue that this figure is more like 31% [9]. In light of
this scenario, the European Commission [10] estimated that there
is a potential market for accessible tourism in Europe of US$127.5
million. Research conducted by Eurostat [11] indicated that there
could be over 260 million beneficiaries of accessible tourism, both
people with and without disabilities, who could generate revenues
from tourism ranging from US$105.2 to US$210.4 billion.
The significance of this segment has led to several studies
being conducted in recent years to show the importance that
tourism for people with disabilities has, as well as its representa-
tiveness, not only socially [5,9, 12–21], but from an economic
point of view [22–29]. Although current legislation recognizes the
right to full and effective participation and inclusion of people
with disabilities in society [30], specifically, to free and leisure time
[21,31–33], and studies have been conducted to show the signifi-
cant revenue figures that this social group could generate for the
tourism industry [23,24], the market opportunities that they could
provide continue to be ignored. Vogel [34] posited three main
explanations to account for why they are ignored: people are gen-
erally uncomfortable with people with disabilities, the special
needs of these groups are considered a “niche” market and com-
panies are afraid to “get it wrong.” However, offering accessible
tourism products, services and environments gives rise to a num-
ber of competitive advantages that they would otherwise miss
out on through fear. As accessibility is a quality indicator based
on compliance with a series of international standards that facili-
tate use and enjoyment by a wider range of consumers, increas-
ing the consumers’ satisfaction, and therefore, their loyalty [35].
One of the main barriers encountered by people with disabil-
ities when they travel is related to information. In particular, stud-
ies indicate that 30% of people identified one of the main barriers
as a lack of accuracy of information [14]. Whereas family, friends
and associations are the main sources of information, the Internet
has become significantly more important in recent years, mainly
for those people with a physical and hidden disability [36]. To
this, it can be added the fact that online tools such as websites
are crucial to promote a destination globally [37–40]; and that,
according to studies, the Internet is considered the most import-
ant channel of communication about a given destination [41–45].
As a result, research needs to be carried out into the accessibility
of official tourism websites.
The main objective of this study is to evaluate the level of
accessibility of official tourism websites of countries around the
world, identify their main accessibility patterns and provide a
ranking of those most lacking regarding accessibility. Based on
the results, some recommendations and improvements are pro-
vided regarding their accessibility.
Online accessibility: official tourism destination
websites
Official destination websites
There is no doubt that the Internet has become the main means
of consuming tourist information [39,46,47], as it is used to pro-
mote a destination’s products and services [48]. Websites have
become one of the major sources of information about a destin-
ation, since they provide details about activities, accommodation,
transport and other attractions that tourists may wish to access
[47]. The various websites for the different tourist destinations are
usually managed by destination marketing organizations (DMOs),
which promote the long-term development and marketing of a
destination, focusing on convention sales, tourism marketing and
service [49]. These play different roles, acting as developers, mar-
keters, advocates, researchers, partners and economic catalysts
[50]. The tendency has been for DMOs to have a continuous,
growing online presence [50,51]; consequently, websites need to
have an increasingly persuasive function, beyond their informa-
tional functionality [52].
In view of the above, it is clear that official destination web-
sites are important not only to persuade people to choose a par-
ticular destination, but also as a source of information to plan a
trip and help to create and strengthen the image and brand of a
destination [53]. According to the latest study performed by
Google Travel Study and Ipsos Media CT [54], friends, family or
colleagues and online sources are critical to travel inspiration,
with 56% of users, 74% of leisure travelers and 77% of business
travelers using the internet as a planning source.
Thanks to the growing use and development of the Internet,
users have become more independent in planning their holidays
[21,55], since they are able to obtain updated, detailed information
[25] to simplify search processes [56]. In recent years, the number
of studies on the needs and significance of tourist information for
people with disabilities has increased [5,14,15,20, 27,57–65],
although no further insight has been gained into the importance
of official tourist destination websites from the point of view of
their functionality, that is, analyzing the accessibility of the website
structure. There is no point in having information about the acces-
sibility of tourist products and services if it cannot be accessed by
users with disabilities. This is why it is essential to work on the
accessibility of official tourism websites, with a view to eliminating
barriers by making comprehensive information on the accessibility
of the different tourism elements readily available [60].
Accessibility and the Internet
Yet, “the drive for accessibility is not quite so simple and no defin-
ition of this term can be extrapolated to all fields, so different pro-
fessional and regulatory legislative bodies, not-for-profit, public
and private sectors, use the concept according to their own tradi-
tions and intentions, yielding varied uses and outcomes even
within the same group” [23]. The Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol will be used here to
define this term. It contemplates accessibility and notes that “to
enable persons with disabilities to live independently and partici-
pate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate
measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an

equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transpor-
tation, to information and communications, including information
and communications technologies and systems” [66]. Therefore,
lack of accessibility would entail discrimination against people
with disabilities, who would become marginalized and see their
quality of life diminished. The concept of accessibility also entails
social and technical dimensions. The social dimension involves a
person’s right to freedom from discrimination, which requires the
technical dimension, as reflected in an infrastructure that grants
the means to enjoy equal rights [67]. As a result, a component of
accessibility is the ability to access information and services by
minimizing the barriers of distance and cost, as well as the usabil-
ity of the interface [68]. In terms of website accessibility, website
design should allow people with disabilities to perceive, under-
stand, navigate and interact with the website, as well as to upload
content [69]. This would mean that other population groups
would also benefit, such as the elderly people whose abilities
Downloaded by [Mount Sinai Health System Libraries] at 01:10 14 August 2017
have a high correlation of being impaired as they age. The num-
ber of older people is increasing, as between 2000 and 2050 the
proportion of the world’s population over 60 will double, moving
from 11% to 22% [70].
In many countries, this has led to initiatives, laws and regula-
tions that aim to provide universal access to the Internet and to
telecommunication systems at reasonable cost to citizens [71].
The problem is that not all people with disabilities have the same
needs, as they are not a homogeneous group [72]. This needs to
be considered when developing and offering them products and
services. Different types of disability require a wide range of assist-
ive technologies, from voice recognition programs to Braille syn-
thesizers [73], and website design should be as flexible as possible
to enable people with disabilities to use these technologies [60]. It
is obvious that Internet access has helped tourists (and, in particu-
lar, tourists with disabilities) to make informed decisions more eas-
ily [25], due to the ease with which information can be obtained
from numerous and varied sources, as well as to its transparency
[74]. However, some people with disabilities still do not trust the
information about accessibility of destinations on websites
because they believe that it is either insufficient, not detailed
enough or unreliable, as it is not a priority for those offering tour-
ist products and services. Consequently, they use other comple-
mentary sources, such as specialist travel agencies but their
experiences with these services have been less than ideal [72].
Yet, taking into account the speed at which information and com-
munication technologies change, an increasing number of barriers
are in the process of being eliminated, since information can now
be adapted to or made more accessible for people with disabil-
ities more quickly and at a lower cost [75].
Systems need to be developed to implement the reliability and
ease of use of the internet by people with disabilities. The World
Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has established a series of guidelines
and resources to help websites become accessible. The W3C is an
international community that seeks to lead the web to its full
potential by developing web standards [76]. “Poorly designed
websites can create unnecessary barriers for people with dis-
abilities” [77], and regrettably, this scenario tends to be repro-
duced in the tourism industry, where online content both from
providers [78] and DMOs [79] has failed to adopt the principles
established by the W3C to the full extent as part of their main-
stream or specialized service offerings.
Online accessibility: WCAG
As mentioned above, the W3C provides various resources to help
make websites accessible. Several studies have used those
WEBSITE ACCESSIBILITY IN THE TOURISM INDUSTRY 3
resources to evaluate website online accessibility [57,59,80–92],
although most of them have focused on government websites.
There are various types of software, programs and online services
that can be used to analyze website accessibility. The W3C pro-
vides a list that includes a total of 88 tools [93]. In general, they
are mostly automated evaluation tools based on Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0). WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
cover a broad range of recommendations to create more access-
ible web content for a greater number of people with disabilities,
including blindness and poor vision, deafness and auditory impair-
ment, learning or cognitive, restricted mobility, speaking impair-
ments, photosensitivity or a combination of the above [94]. The
WCAG 2.0 take WCAG 1.0 guidelines (published in 1999) as a
benchmark. While WCAG 1.0 or WCAG 2.0 (or both) may be com-
plied with, the W3C recommends that new or updated contents
should abide by WCAG 2.0.
WCAG 2.0 establishes a number of layers of guidance [94]:
 Principles: At the top are four principles that provide the
foundation for web accessibility: perceivable, operable,
understandable and robust.
 Guidelines: Based on these core principles, there are 12
guidelines which provide the basic goals that authors
should work toward in order to make content more
accessible to users with different disabilities. Some of
these guidelines include providing text alternatives for any
non-text content and for time-based media or make text
content readable and understandable, among others.
 Success criteria: For each guideline, testable success crite-
ria are provided to allow WCAG 2.0 to be used where
requirements and conformance testing are necessary such
as in design specification, purchasing, regulation and con-
tractual agreements. In order to meet the needs of differ-
ent groups and different situations, three levels of
conformance are defined: A (lowest), AA and AAA
(highest).
 Sufficient and advisory techniques: For each of the guide-
lines and success criteria in the WCAG 2.0 document itself,
the working group has also documented a wide variety of
techniques. The techniques are informative and fall into
two categories: those that are sufficient for meeting the
success criteria and those that are advisory.
There are a wide range of tools for analyzing websites, each
with their respective advantages and disadvantages, including
AChecker, Amp, A-Prompt 1.0, Bobby, EvalAccess 2.0, eXaminato,
HERA, MAGENTA 2.0, TAW, WAVE, among others. Website
Accessible Test (specifically, TAW WCAG 2.0 online) was used in this
study, in line with the studies by Akgu €l and Vatansever [57], Kuzma
et al., [89] and Dom
ınguez and Fraiz [95]. TAW is a web tool to ana-
lyze and obtain information on the degree of accessibility of other
websites, based on WCAG guidelines. The results provided by it are
shown according to the following structure [96]:
 Markup view: similar to the TAW report in WCAG 1.0,
where the issues identified are highlighted on the website.
These issues are shown in three blocks: problems (correc-
tions are needed); warnings (which require human review);
and not reviewed (which require a thorough human
review). The four basic principles are applied to each of
them [97]:
 Perceivable: information and user interface compo-
nents must be presentable to users in ways they
can perceive. This means that users must be able
to perceive the information being presented (it
cannot be invisible to all of their senses).
 4 T. D. VILA ET AL.

Table 1. Countries analyzed.

Area Countries
Europe Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia &, Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, FYR Macedonia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Rep. Moldova, Romania,
Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taijkistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United
Kingdom, Uzbekistan
America Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Bolivia, Brazil, Brit. Virgin Islands, Canada, Cayman
Islands, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, CuraÇao, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, French Guiana, Grenada,
Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, Mexico, Montserrat, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto
Rico, Saint Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Maarten, St. Vincent & Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos, United
States, Uruguay, US Virgin Islands, Venezuela
Asia & The Pacific Afghanistan, American Samoa, Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Cook Is, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Hong Kong
(China), India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Kiribati, Korea (DPRK), Korea (ROK), Laos, Macao (China), Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Is, Micronesia
FSM, Mongolia, Myanmar, N. Mariana Is, Nepal, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines,
Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Is, Sri Lanka, Taiwan (People’s Republic of China), Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuata, Vietnam
Africa Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Central African Republic., Chad, Comoros, Congo, C^ote
d'lvore, Dem. Rep. Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guines, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia,
Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Reunion, Rwanda, Sao, Tom
e and
Pr
ıncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Downloaded by [Mount Sinai Health System Libraries] at 01:10 14 August 2017

Middle east Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Utd Arab Emirates, Yemen

 Operable: user interface components and naviga- Methodology

tion must be operable. This means that users must
be able to operate the interface (the interface can-
not require an interaction that a user cannot
perform).
 Understandable: information and the operation of
user interface must be understandable. This means
that users must be able to understand the infor-
mation as well as the operation of the user inter-
face (the content or operation cannot be beyond
their understanding).
 Robust: content must be robust enough that it can
be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user
agents, including assistive technologies. This
means that users must be able to access the con-
tent as technologies advance (as technologies and
user agents evolve, the content should remain
accessible).
 Detail: where atomic checks are shown, including the lines
of code where issues have been detected, grouped by
each of the basic principles [94]:
 Perceivable
 1.1 Text alternatives
 1.2 Time-based media
 1.3 Adaptable
 1.4 Distinguishable
 Operable
 2.1 Keyboard accessible
 2.2 Enough time
 2.3 Seizures
 2.4 Navigable
 Understandable
 3.1 Readable
 3.2 Predictable
 3.3 Input assistance
 Robust
 4.1 Compatible
 List: this is a summary in table format, grouped by each of
the basic principles, which indicates the result obtained in
the checks regarding the regulatory guidelines.
This tool was chosen because it is a free online resource and
provides a relatively thorough analysis of the accessibility of web-
sites, as well as being one of the pioneering instruments, and one
of the best known for its ease of use and speed of results [57],
with an average check per website between 2 and 8 s.
For this study, the official tourism websites of the countries listed
in the 2015 World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) annual report
[98], which compiled data from 216 countries, were analyzed
(Table 1). The official tourism websites for each of the countries
listed were searched (Supplementary Table S1). This resulted in a
total of 190 countries, since no official websites were found for
the following countries: the Republic of Moldova and
Turkmenistan in Europe; French Guiana in America; Afghanistan,
French Polynesia, Korea (DPRK), Nepal and Pakistan in Asia and
The Pacific; Angola, Benin, Central African Republic, Chad,
Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial
Guinea, Gabon, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Somalia, and Togo
in Africa; and Iraq, Kuwait and Libya in the Middle East.
TAW WCAG 2.0 online was then used to analyze the 190 offi-
cial tourism websites and the compliance criteria of each guide-
line and for each principle, for the AA and AAA conformance
levels. Level A was discarded, as it is the lowest and is complied
with by most websites. Failure to comply would mean that certain
groups of users would not be able to access the information on
the website, and therefore they would no longer be accessible. It
is important to note that, although a content may have the high-
est level of accessibility (AAA), it may not be accessible to individ-
uals with different types, degrees or combinations of disabilities,
particularly in the area of cognitive disabilities, including those
related to language and learning [94].
Once the TAW WCAG 2.0 online was applied, the official tour-
ism websites of Aruba and Canada in America were discarded,
because the tool was unable to analyze them and an error
occurred (the server encountered an unexpected condition, which
prevented it from fulfilling the request, server error 500). This
finally resulted in a sample of 188 official tourism websites from a
total of 216 countries, which was obtained between August and
October 2016. This equates to 87% of websites in the UNWTO
publication. It is very important to take this into account, since
part of the content of the websites is dynamic and is continuously
updated (as is the case with cultural programs), and this can influ-
ence the number of issues detected.
Results and discussion
Table 2 shows the issues detected for the AA and AAA conform-
ance levels. For Level AA, it can be seen that the most issues
were found to be in the number of warnings (8096), with a mean

Table 2. Issues according to conformance level.
Number of problems in Number of warnings in Number of not
success criteria from success criteria from reviewed in success
level AA level AA criteria from level AA
Sum 2051 8096
Minimum 0 1
Maximum 121 362
Mean 10.91 43.06
Median 8.10 22.32
Std. Deviation 12.371 54.770
of 43.06 per success criterion, a value almost double the median
of 22.32. A similar pattern, although less dispersed around the
mean (47.926), was identified for the level AAA conformance, with
a total of 6927 issues, with a mean of 36.85 and a median of
20.84. In the case of the number of problems, the data were not
as widely dispersed (Standard deviation (SD) 12.371) and showed
Downloaded by [Mount Sinai Health System Libraries] at 01:10 14 August 2017
a similar behavior for both the AA and AAA levels, as was the
case with the number of not reviewed.
The behavior of the different official tourism websites around
the world was analyzed as a whole, and a more detailed study
was carried out to identify their operation individually and to rec-
ognize possible common patterns. A cluster analysis was applied
to do so. The first step was to explore if there was a relationship
between the websites analyzed in relation to the level AA con-
formance for issues regarding problems, warnings and not
reviewed in success criteria. Using dendograms and their hierarch-
ical relationship, an analysis was made according to the clusters
formed using k-means clustering. The purpose was to establish
the exact number of clusters. However, since the k-means analysis
could not determine the exact number of clusters, the
Calinski–Harabasz Index (CH) was used. Different internal quality
indices have been proposed by various authors in order to deter-
mine an optimal clustering. CH evaluates the cluster validity based
on the average between and within cluster sum of squares [99],
for that reason it is better adapted to the type of data analyzed.
This index is based on the calculation of variance between cluster
centers, divided by the sum of within cluster variance [100]. The
dendogram and the k-means calculated for the level AA conform-
ance established between 2 and 5 clusters, and the highest CH
was for 4 clusters (372.577 for cluster 2; 479.472 for cluster 3;
511.629 for cluster 4 and 417.191 for cluster 5). In the case of
AAA, the dendogram and the k-means established between 2 and
6 clusters, and the highest CH was obtained for five clusters
(323.833 for cluster 2; 398.548 for cluster 3; 364.128 for cluster 4;
711.730 for cluster 5; and 441.847 for cluster 6).
The results of the cluster analysis are shown in Table 3,
together with the significance level of the different issues accord-
ing to compliance. The number of problems per criterion and the
number of warnings were significant for both level AA and level
AAA.
Figure 1 shows level AA conformance in a more detailed way
that the 188 analyzed websites were grouped into four clusters.
The first one was the second most numerous, with 39 cases, and
was characterized by having the highest number of problems,
with a final cluster center of 18, and 76 warnings for the success
criterion, is the case of websites such as Unites States or
Germany, which have large flows of tourists. Cluster 2 was the
largest with 134 cases, and it had the lowest number of problems
per criterion with 8, and the lowest number of warnings for the
success criterion, with a final cluster center of 17. This was the
opposite for cluster 3, with 14 cases, in which the number of
problems for the success criterion was quite high in relation to
WEBSITE ACCESSIBILITY IN THE TOURISM INDUSTRY 5
Number of problems in Number of warnings in Number of not
success criteria from success criteria from reviewed in success
level AAA level AAA criteria from level AAA
188 2038 6927 191
1 0 1 1
1 108 348 4
1.00 10.84 36.85 1.01
1.00 8.08 20.84 1.00
.000 12.391 47.926 .182
cluster 2 and 4, with 16, a tendency that also maintained the total
number of warnings in 180. Note that in this cluster is France, the
main host of tourists at the world level. Cluster 4 was particularly
remarkable, as it was the one with the least number of problems
for the success criterion, only 6, but the one with the highest
number of warnings, 362. Bangladesh is the only website of this
cluster, and it is a result to be carefully analyzed, given that it is a
country with very low tourism rates, as it has neither a tourist
tradition nor adequate infrastructure, which is reflected in the
design of its website.
The level AAA conformance showed some behaviors similar to
those of AA. This was the case of cluster 2, which consisted of the
official tourism websites of Bangladesh and Reunion, with 6 prob-
lems and 319 warnings for the success criterion, which have a
similar pattern to cluster 4 of the level AA conformance. The same
happened with cluster 1 (with 121 cases), which displayed a simi-
lar behavior to cluster 2 of the level AA of conformance. Although
it was not composed of the same cases, they had similar values,
with 8 problems for success criterion and 13 warnings. In the rest
of the clusters, the behaviors differed between level AA and level
AAA conformance. Cluster 3 was the second most numerous of
the level AAA conformance, with 38 cases, 17 problems and 47
warnings, composed of numerous websites from countries very
representative for the tourism industry, such as Malaysia, the
Netherlands, United States or Spain. This cluster is followed in
number of cases by cluster 4 with 21 cases, 14 problems and 93
warnings. Finally, cluster 5, with 29 problems and 168 warnings,
which covered a total of six cases, with websites from countries as
heterogeneous touristically as Norway, Ghana or Guadeloupe.
In general, the clusters with the best performance, that is,
those with the least number of issues, were cluster 2 for the level
AA conformance and cluster 1 for the level AAA conformance.
Both groups covered the majority of cases and had a very small
number of issues compared to the rest of the websites analyzed,
mainly regarding the warnings. In contrast, it was seen that the
clusters with the highest number of issues according to number
of warnings for the success criterion were cluster 3 and 4 for level
AA conformance and 2 and 5 for level AAA; and according to the
number of issues, 1 and 3 for Level AA and 3 and 5 for Level
AAA. It can be concluded, therefore, that the clusters with the
highest number of issues, taking into account the final cluster
centers of the problems and the warnings, were cluster 3 (197)
and cluster 4 (369) for AA and cluster 2 (326) and cluster 5 (198)
for AAA.
Based on these results, an analysis of the official tourism web-
sites that made up the clusters with the highest number of issues
was carried out. The purpose was to establish a ranking of the
least accessible, identify their main problems and make recom-
mendations to be followed. As can be seen in Table 4, the web-
site with the highest number of total issues was Bangladesh, both
for level AA and level AAA conformance. Its problems, like those
of the rest, are mainly focused on robust warnings. Under the
 6 T. D. VILA ET AL.

Table 3. Clusters by conformance level.

Level of conformance AA Level of conformance AAA
Cluster mean Error mean Cluster mean Error mean
square square Sig. square square Sig
Number of problems in success 1061.798 138.215 .000 Number of problems in success 1199.153 130.687 .000
criteria from level AA criteria from level AAA
Number of problems in success 166695.7 330.780 .000 Number of problems in success 100807.709 143.689 .000
criteria from level AA criteria from level AAA
Number of problems in success .000 .000 Number of problems in success .033 .033 .416
criteria from level AA criteria from level AAA
Cluster N cases Websites countries Cluster No. cases Websites countries
1 39 Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Germany, 5 6 Norway, Guadeloupe, Djibouti, Ghana, Sierra
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, Leone, Zimbabwe
Estonia, Slovakia, Portugal, Serbia, United 3 38 Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands,
States, Antigua and Barbuda, Curaçao, Switzerland, Estonia, Slovakia, Uzbekistan,
Dominican Rep., Haiti, Martinique, Puerto Rico, Croatia, Serbia, Spain, United States, Antigua
Turks and Caicos, El Salvador, Honduras, and Barbuda, Bahamas, Dominican Rep.,
Panama, Chile, Peru, Uruguay, Cambodia, Puerto Rico, Honduras, Brazile, Chile,
Myanmar, Singapore, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Cambodia, Malaysia
Downloaded by [Mount Sinai Health System Libraries] at 01:10 14 August 2017

2 134
3 14
4 1
Tuvalu, Bhutan, Maldives, Eritrea, Guinea,
South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia,
Syria
The rest of countries
Norway, United Kingdom, Austria, France,
Guadeloupe, Indonesia, Australia, Vanuata, Sri
Lanka, Djibouti, Ghana, Reunion, Sierra Leone,
Zimbabwe
Bangladesh
Singapore, Thailand, Cook Is, Palau, Papua
New Guinea, Solomon Is, Tonga, Bhutan,
Eritrea, Guinea, South Africa, Zambia, Syria
1 121 The rest of countries
4 21 United Kingdom, Austria, France, Germany,
Luxembourg, Portugal, Curaçao, Haiti,
Martinique, Turks and Caicos, El Salvador,
Panama, Uruguay, Indonesia, Myanmar,
Australia, Tuvalu, Vanuata, Maldives, Sir Lanka,
Uganda
2 2 Bangladesh, Reunion

Figure 1. Final cluster centers by level of conformance.

principle of robustness, the content needs to be sufficiently robust
to be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user applications,
including technical aids. In this ranking, an exception was found
in the pattern of behavior of the Norwegian and Australian web-
sites, in which numerous problems were detected in both perceiv-
able warnings and operable warnings; that is, in the principles
that refer to the fact that the information and the user interface
components (respectively) should be presented to users ensuring
that they can perceive them and that the user interface and navi-
gation components are operable. With these exceptions, the
issues detected most often were focused on the robustness prin-
ciple. This was related to the “4.1 compatible” guideline, which
seeks to “maximize compatibility with current and future user
agents, including assistive technologies” [94].
Since the issues identified as “problems”, warnings and not
reviewed did not have the same structure, a more detailed ana-
lysis of the websites was carried out, but focusing on the prob-
lems. The reason for this is that, according to the TAW
classification based on the WCAG 2.0 guidelines, the issues recog-
nized as “problems” showed that corrections were necessary,
 Downloaded by [Mount Sinai Health System Libraries] at 01:10 14 August 2017

Table 4. Ranking of accessibility; the worst website.

Perceivable Operable Understandable Robust
Perceivable Operable Understandable Robust Perceivable Operable Understandable Robust not not not
Pa
ıs problems problems problems problems warnings warnings warnings warnings not reviewed reviewed reviewed reviewed Total
Level of conformance AA
1 Bangladesh 9 14 2 11 75 7 12 4246 4 8 5 0 4393
2 Guadeloupe 60 39 3 33 81 26 18 2949 4 7 5 0 3225
3 Reunion 0 28 0 7 25 59 29 3028 7 12 9 1 3205
4 Sierra Leone 50 9 9 31 56 41 30 2296 4 6 4 0 2536

5 Zimbabwe 39 7 5 42 54 76 6 2196 4 6 4 0 2439
6 Norway 58 117 10 62 366 864 12 884 4 8 4 0 2389
7 Indonesia 68 28 7 12 169 116 24 1890 4 6 5 0 2329
8 France 73 6 3 9 3 38 6 1982 4 6 4 0 2134
9 Ghana 44 42 1 20 43 44 6 1925 4 8 5 0 2142

10 Vanuata 29 9 1 11 51 30 12 1924 4 6 4 1 2082
11 Austria 13 19 4 51 25 63 36 1466 4 7 4 0 1692
12 United Kingdom 27 9 1 9 37 144 6 1316 4 8 5 0 1566
13 Australia 22 137 2 62 345 139 6 815 4 9 4 1 1546

14 Sri Lanka 55 13 1 8 124 60 0 1172 4 6 5 0 1448
15 Djibouti 27 7 1 1 14 7 0 937 4 8 5 1 1012
Level of conformance AAA
1 Bangladesh 9 17 2 11 75 7 24 4246 7 12 9 0 4419
2 Guadeloupe 60 50 3 33 81 26 96 2949 7 11 9 0 3325
3 Norway 58 842 10 62 366 864 162 884 7 12 8 0 3275

4 Reunion 0 0 0 7 25 59 18 3028 4 8 5 1 3155
5 Sierra Leone 50 22 9 31 56 41 41 2296 7 10 8 0 2571
6 Zimbabwe 39 51 5 42 54 76 26 2196 7 10 8 0 2514
7 Ghana 44 46 1 20 43 44 8 1925 7 12 9 0 2159

8 Djibouti 27 7 1 1 14 7 0 937 7 12 9 1 1023
WEBSITE ACCESSIBILITY IN THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
7
 8 T. D. VILA ET AL.

Table 5. Ranking of the worst accessibility websites based on the problems encountered.
Perceivable Operable Understandable
Robust
Type of problem 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 Total
Level of conformance AA
Total results
Min. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max. 129 0 342 0 0 0 0 137 1 3 60 134
Mean 15.04 0 16.19 0 0 0 0 13.03 0.46 0.43 3.06 17.41
Country websites
1 Syria 129 0 216 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 1 13 374
2 Eritrea 0 0 342 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 21 364

3 Puerto Rico 87 0 80 0 0 0 0 10 1 2 60 72 312
4 Russian Fed. 9 0 201 0 0 0 0 40 1 0 4 9 264
5 Germany 16 0 165 0 0 0 0 27 1 3 6 44 262
6 Norway 15 0 43 0 0 0 0 117 0 2 8 62 247

7 Peru 91 0 25 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 8 52 195
8 Guinea 42 0 14 0 0 0 0 48 1 0 10 70 185
9 Thailand 40 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 131 174
10 Chile 64 0 5 0 0 0 0 64 1 0 4 31 169
11 Algeria 37 0 36 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 27 56 166
Downloaded by [Mount Sinai Health System Libraries] at 01:10 14 August 2017


12 Morocco 10 0 10 0 0 1 0 6 0 2 2 134 165
Level of conformance AAA
Total results
Min. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max. 129 0 342 0 97 2 18 842 1 3 60 134
Mean 14.41 0 16.20 0 3.19 0.05 0.1 30.68 0.45 0.45 3.05 17.46
Country websites
1 Norway 15 0 43 0 0 0 0 842 0 2 8 62 972
2 Syria 129 0 216 0 1 0 0 40 0 0 1 13 400
3 Eritrea 0 0 342 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 21 365

4 Puerto Rico 87 0 80 0 8 0 0 28 1 2 60 72 338
5 Russian Fed. 9 0 201 0 0 0 0 99 1 0 4 9 323
6 Australia 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 201 1 1 0 62 287
7 Cook Is 84 0 37 0 24 0 0 91 1 1 17 26 281

8 Germany 16 0 165 0 0 0 0 29 1 3 6 44 264
9 Liechtenstein 30 0 12 0 2 0 0 182 0 0 9 24 259
10 Peru 91 0 25 0 3 0 0 64 0 0 8 52 243
11 Morocco 10 0 10 0 1 1 0 80 0 2 2 134 240

12 Greece 42 0 15 0 39 0 0 52 1 0 1 83 233
1.1: Text alternatives; 1.2: Time-based media; 1.3: Adaptable; 1.4: Distinguishable; 2.1: Keyboard accessible; 2.2: Enough time; 2.3: Seizures; 2.4: Navigable; 3.1:
Readable; 3.2: Predictable; 3.3: Input assistance; 4.1: Compatible.

whereas in “warnings” issues should be manually reviewed, and in
“not reviewed” should be completely checked manually. As has
already been stated, an automated analysis was carried out for
this investigation, so manual checks were discarded.
Table 5 shows the main problems detected for level AA con-
formance, focused on websites being adaptable (1.3), in other
words, they should “create content that can be presented in dif-
ferent ways (e.g., simpler layout) without losing information or
structure” [94]. This includes information and relationships, signifi-
cant sequences and sensory characteristics. Generally, nearly, all of
the websites included in the ranking were well above the total
mean (16.19), with exceptions such as Thailand, Chile, Morocco
and Guinea. The following problems were similarly found in terms
of relevance, including “1.1 Text alternatives,” “2.4 Navigable” and
“4.1 Compatible.” The pattern varied when level AAA conformance
was analyzed, as the main issues were grouped in navigable, fol-
lowed by compatible, adaptable and text alternatives.
Comparing the previous rankings (Tables 4 and 5), it can be
seen that there are many websites that have a predominant role
in both. In the first one, Table 4, Bangladesh, Guadeloupe,
Reunion, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe and Norway, where Norway is
the only one that varies according to the level of conformance,
since for the level of conformance AAA is the one that most prob-
lems were found (Table 5). The main issues arise in terms of mak-
ing them compatible with assistive technologies, navigation and
the adaptability of contents and text alternatives, which are
essential for people with different types of disabilities and the
assistive technology solutions (e.g., screen readers, speech recog-
nition, etc.). However, although the way in which disability is
viewed has evolved from a purely medical approach to one that
adopts social approaches to disability as dated by the United
Nations Convention that seeks to ensure well-being and maximize
operability through assistive technologies, people with disabilities
have also changed and evolved with the times, demanding access
to sophisticated technologies that have become embedded in our
daily lives, such as ICTs, applications and the like [101]. As in other
studies, a major problem related to nontext elements (e.g., pic-
tures and flash videos) and constant changes in dynamic content
was detected [57,102]. This indicates that programmers are not
yet fully aware of incorporating inclusive web accessibility func-
tionality for the needs of people with disabilities and the elderly.
Some countries have opted to develop their own laws on
accessibility. While some studies have shown that countries with
stronger disability laws have a better positioning in the three pri-
ority levels of the WCAG (such as Europe as opposed to Asia and
Africa), the existence of laws is no assurance of accessibility, since
enforcement measures need to be put in place to ensure their
effectiveness [103]. Some authors have suggested that the accessi-
bility of State organization websites should be a mandatory
requirement [57]. In countries like Australia this has been tested
through to the High Court level with companies being held to
account as early as 2000 [104].

The need for website accessibility should be a reality, and their
improvement a goal to achieve [105]. However, organizations
linked to disability also have an important role to play, by moni-
toring and lobbying public bodies to improve their websites, and
where possible, through taking legal proceedings [57]. Similarly,
people with disabilities should also be part of this process to
change the current situation, since they can develop approaches
that have a large social, family and health impact, and that facili-
tates the availability of information and implementation of serv-
ices in the tourism sector [106]. Often, not so complex websites
are required, but more navigable and usable with less intensive
when it comes to images and alternative videos and text that
facilitate the use for all, such as Rwanda in Africa, India in Asia,
Micronesia FSM in the Pacific, Colombia in America or Cyprus and
Bosnia and Herzegovina in Europe.
Lewthwaite [107] stated that the current predominant dis-
course on website accessibility standards fails to consider disabil-
Downloaded by [Mount Sinai Health System Libraries] at 01:10 14 August 2017
ity as a complex and culturally contingent interaction. There is a
large degree of leeway to expand the ways in which accessibility
standards are understood, developed and applied. Lewthwaite
proposed that the WCAG should provide a step-by-step vision and
serve as a guide, although they must improve when it comes to
offering physical alternatives (combined accessibility) [108]. This
problem has also been detected in the study described in this
paper, and as such it is recommended that designers should not
only apply a set of standards, but build on preexisting experience
and develop new, more dynamic knowledge. In doing so, organi-
zations need to go beyond compliance checking to make website
accessibility breakthroughs that would benefit consumers through
better opportunities for travel planning and destination marketing
organizations by being regarded as market leaders that in turn
provides a competitive advantage while others catch up.
Conclusions
It is clear that less accessible websites should make a greater
effort to reverse this situation. This can be achieved through more
prescriptive legislation for on web accessibility guidelines gener-
ally to benefit people with disabilities that effectively motivates
equal rights and opportunities, and in this case, access to informa-
tion communication technologies. They may also choose to estab-
lish as a benchmark a set of mandatory standards for public
bodies, or require that external agencies should audit the work of
web designers in this area. It is clear that given the role that the
Internet plays in our daily lives in the twenty-first century, and
even more so when regarding travel plans, a country's official
tourism websites should set an example to the private sector.
It can be seen that people with disabilities and older people
are becoming more active and want to enjoy their free and leisure
time, and often travel is their main activity [109]. Therefore, it is
essential to obtain the greatest amount of reliable information to
ensure that they have the best experience possible when travel-
ing, and the Internet is an ever-growing source of this informa-
tion. Nevertheless, as has been seen throughout this study, there
are numerous issues and problems in accessing the information
contained in the official tourism websites of countries around the
world. Accessibility varies according to the level of conformance
analyzed, AA or AAA, but in general, it has been shown that the
vast majority of countries are making a great effort to provide
accessible websites (cluster 2 level AA and cluster 1 level AAA).
However, there are still many that should rethink their strategy
regarding accessibility, mainly in terms of the compatibility of
assistive technologies, navigability, compatibility, adaptability and
text alternatives. Some criteria are keys to developing a more
WEBSITE ACCESSIBILITY IN THE TOURISM INDUSTRY 9
inclusive organizational approach to web accessibility including:
text alternatives for any non-text content; create content that can
be presented in different ways without losing information; and
provide ways to help users navigate, find content, determine
where they are and navigable websites and maximize compatibil-
ity with assistive technologies and user agents. With respect to
destination managers and their responsibility for website provi-
sion, they should reflect on what is more important, usability for
all or design and graphics for esthetic courses preferencing those
with sight.
Although this study has been performed on a worldwide
scope, it is also important to note that the cultural peculiarities of
each country have not been taken into account. Nor has it been
considered that each type of disability is a world in itself. While
the use of standards helps facilitate and homogenize websites in
terms of accessibility, they should not be taken as immovable or
rigid. Disability and enabling information communication technol-
ogy environments are a dynamic and evolving areas where what
was acceptable 10 years ago is regarded very differently today.
Tourism is used to evolving and reinvigorating itself from a destin-
ation perspective and web accessibility is a prime marketing, pro-
motion and distribution channel must include dynamic
improvements to web accessibility as what is regarded as best
practice evolves [72,110].
In addition, like almost any research, this study presents several
limitations. Only the destinations included in the UNWTO report
have been analyzed. Another relevant aspect in this regard is that,
as the contents of the websites are dynamic, the issues found
vary according to the specific time when they were analyzed.
Further, the content about accessibility and the point of view of
the user when using the websites have not been taken into
account, so these two areas should be covered in further research.
Disclosure statement
The authors report no declarations of interest. The authors alone
are responsible for the content and writing of this article.
ORCID
Trinidad Dom
ınguez Vila http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2031-351X
Elisa Al

en Gonz
alez http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6304-7805
Simon Darcy http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5394-2566
References
[1] World Tourism Organzation (UNWTO). UNWTO. Anual
report 2015. Spain: UNWTO; 2016.
[2] World Tourism Organzation (UNWTO). Tourism highlights
2016 Edition. Spain: UNWTO; 2016.
[3] World Health Organization (WHO). Disability. Report by
the Secretariat A66/12, 11 March 2013, including EB132/
10. Geneva: WHO; 2012.
[4] World Health Organization and the World Bank. World
report on disability. Switzerland: World Health
Organization; 2011.
[5] Burnett JJ, Baker H. Assessing the travel-related behav-
iours of the mobility-disabled consumer. J Travel Res.
2001;40:4–11.
[6] Fuguet T. Europa demanda mas accesibilidad. Editur.
2008;7:10–15.
 10 T. D. VILA ET AL.
[7] Burnett JJ. What services marketers need to know about
the mobility-disabled consumer. J Serv Mark. 1996;
10:3–20.
[8] Economic and Social Commision for Asia and Pacific. HIV/
AIDS in the Asian and Pacific Region. New York:United
Nations;2003.
[9] Darcy S, Dickson T. A whole-of-life approach to tourism:
the case for accessible tourism experiences. J Hosp Tour
Manag. 2009;16:32–44.
[10] European Commission. Accesibilidad a turistas con disca-
pacidad. Manual para la industria del turismo, DG XIII,
Unidad Turismo. Spain: EC; 1997.
[11] Eurostat. Tourism in the enlarged European Union.
Catalogue No KS-NP-05–013-EN-N. Brussels: European
Commission; 2005.
[12] Bizjak B, Knezvevic M, Cvetrezvnik S. Attitude change
towards guests with disabilities. Ann Tourism Res. 2011;
Downloaded by [Mount Sinai Health System Libraries] at 01:10 14 August 2017
38:842–857.
[13] Daniels MJ, Rodgers EB, Wiggins PB. Travel tales: an inter-
pretive analysis of constraints and negotiations to pleas-
ure travel as experienced by persons with physical
disabilities. Tourism Manage. 2004;26:919–930.
[14] Darcy S. Anxiety to access: tourism patterns and experien-
ces of New South Wales people with a physical disability.
Sydney: Tourism New South Wales; 1998.
[15] Eichhorn V, Miller G, Michopoulou E, et al. Enabling access
to tourism through information schemes. Ann Tourism
Res. 2008;35:189–210.
[16] Freeman I, Selmi N. French versus Canadian tourism:
response to the disabled. J Travel Res. 2010;49:471–485.
[17] Nyaupane GP, Andereck KL. Understanding travel con-
straints: application and extension of a leisure constraints
model. J Travel Res. 2008;46:433–439.
[18] Ozturk Y, Yayli A, Yesiltas M. Is the Turkish tourism indus-
try ready for a disabled customer‘s market? The views of
hotel and travel agency managers. Tourism Manage.
2008;29:382–389.
[19] Pagan R. The contribution of holiday trips to life satisfac-
tion: the case of people with disabilities. Curr Issues Tour.
2015;18:524–538.
[20] Ray MM, Ryder ME. Ebilities tourism: an exploratory dis-
cussion of the travel needs and motivations of the mobil-
ity-disabled. Tourism Manage. 2003;24:57–72.
[21] Richards V, Pritchard A, Morgan N. (Re)Environing tourism
and visual impairment. Ann Tourism Res. 2010;
37:1097–1116.
[22] Darcy S. Inherent complexity: disability, accessible tourism
and accommodation information preferences. Tourism
Management. 2010;31:816–826.
[23] Dom
ınguez T, Fraiz JA, Alen E. Economic profitability of
accesible tourism for the tourism sector in Spain. Tourism
Econ. 2013;19:1385–1399.
[24] Dwyer L, Darcy S. Economic contribution of tourists with
disabilities: an Australian approach and methodology. In:
Buhalis D, Darcy, editors. Accessible tourism: concept
and issues. Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications; 2011.
p. 213–239.
[25] Eichhorn V, Miller G, Tribe J. Tourism: a site of resistance
strategies of individuals with a disability. Ann Tourism Res.
2013;43:578–600.
[26] Kastenholz E, Eus
ebio C, Figueiredo E. Contributions of
tourism to social inclusion of persons with disability.
Disabil Soc. 2015;30:1259–1281.
[27] McKercher B, Packer T, Yau MK, et al. Travel agents as
facilitators or inhibitors of travel: perceptions of people
with disabilities. Tourism Manage. 2003;24:465–474.
[28] Metz D. Mobility of older people and their quality of life.
Transport Policy. 2000;7:149–152.
[29] VanHorn L. The United States: travelers with disabilities.
In: Buhalis D, Darcy S, Ambrose I, editors. Best practice in
accessible tourism: Inclusion, disability, ageing
population and tourism. Bristol, UK: Channel View
Publications; 2011. p. 65–78.
[30] United Nations. Convention on the rights of persons with
disabilities. UN; 2006.
[31] Darcy S. Disabling journeys: the tourism patterns of peo-
ple with impairments in Australia. Paper presented at the
riding the wave of tourism and hospitality research.
Lismore: CAUTHE - Southern Cross University; 2003.
p. 5–8.
[32] Murray AT. Public transport access. Transp Res D.
1998;3:319–328.
[33] United Nations. The standard rules on the equalization of
opportunities for persons with disabilities. UN; 1993.
[34] Vogel N. Not marketing to people with disabilities? You’re
missing out. Most marketers are ignoring loyal consumer
segment that has “sizable spending power”. [cited 2010
Sep 30]. 2006. Available from: http://springboard.com.
s75811.gridserver.com/wpcontent/uploads/2009/08/
AdvertisingAgeArticle-Published.pdf.
[35] Franco P. La formacio
n de los profesionales del turismo.
Ocio y equiparacio
n de oportunidades de las terceras jor-
nadas de la C
atedra de Ocio y Minusval
ıas; 1999:87–96.
[36] Dom
ınguez T. Marketing tur
ıstico para personas con disca-
pacidad. El producto tur
ıstico accesible. Tesis Doctoral pre-
sentada en la Universidad de Vigo; 2008.
[37] Choi S, Lehto XY, O’Leary JT. What does the consumer
want from a DMO website? A study of US and Canadian
tourists’ perspectives. Int J Tourism Res. 2007;9:59–72.
[38] Ip C, Law R, Lee HA. A review of website evaluation stud-
ies in the tourism and hospitality fields from 1996 to
2009. Int J Tourism Res. 2011;13:234–265.
[39] Law R, Qi S, Buhalis D. A review of website evaluation in
tourism research. Tourism Manage. 2010;31:297–313.
[40] Tang L, Jang S. Investigating the routes of communication
on destination websites. J Travel Res. 2012;51:94–108.
[41] Bastida U, Huan T. Performance evaluation of tourism
websites’ information quality of four global destination
brands: Beijing, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Taipei. J Bus
Res. 2014;67:167–170.
[42] Del Vasto-Terrientes L, Valls A, Slowinski R, et al.
Extending concordance and discordance relations to hier-
archical sets of criteria in ELECTRE-III method. In: Torra V,
Narukawa Y, L
opez B, Villaret M, editors. Modeling deci-
sions for artificial intelligence – 9th International
Conference, MDAI 2012, Girona, Catalonia, Spain,
November 21–23, 2012. Proceedings, Springer, Lecture
Notes in Computer Science. 2012;7647:78–89.
[43] Fern
andez-Cavia J, Rovira C, D
ıaz-Luque P, et al. Web
Quality Index (WQI) for official tourist destination websites.
Proposal for an assessment system. Tour Manage
Perspect. 2014;9:5–13.
[44] Lee W, Gretzel U. Designing persuasive destination web-
sites: a mental imagery processing perspective. Tourism
Manage. 2012;33:1270–1280.
[45] Li X, Wang Y. Measuring the effectiveness of us official
state tourism websites. J Vacation Mark. 2011;17:287–302.

[46] Park YA, Gretzel U. Success factors for destination market-
ing web sites: a qualitative meta-analysis. J Travel Res.
2007;46:46–63.
[47] Luna-Nevarez C, Hyman M. Common practices in destin-
ation website design. J Destin Mark Manage. 2012;12:
94–106.
[48] Pai CK, Xia ML, Wang TW. A comparison of the official
tourism website of five east tourism destinations. Inf
Technol Tourism. 2014;14:97–117.
[49] Destination Marketing Association International (DMAI).
What is a destination marketing organization? [Internet];
2011. Available from: http://www.destination marketing.
org/page.asp?pid1=4105.
[50] Wang Y, Russo SM. Conceptualizing and evaluating the
functions of destination marketing systems. J Vacation
Mark. 2007;13:187–203.
[51] Yuan YL, Gretzel U, Fesenmaier DR. Internet technology
Downloaded by [Mount Sinai Health System Libraries] at 01:10 14 August 2017
use by American convention and visitors bureaus. J Travel
Res. 2003;41:240–255.
[52] Fern
andez-Cavia J, Mirabent S, P
erez M. Calidad de los
sitios web tur
ısticos oficiales de las comunidades
auto
nomas espan ~olas. BiD: textos universitaris de bibliote-
conomia i documentacio
. Universitat de Barcelona.
2013; 31.
[53] Morriso D. The ultimate student guide to xMOOCs and
CMOOCs. MOOC News and Reviews; 2013.
[54] Google Travel Study and Ipsos MediaCT. [Internet]. The
2013 traveler’s road to decision: affluent insights.
Thinkinsights Google, January 2014. Available from:
https://think.storage.googleapis.com/docs/travelers-road-
to-decision-affluent-insights_research-studies.pdf.
[55] Buhalis D. eTourism: information technology for strategic
tourism management, Pearson. London: Financial Times/
Prentice Hall; 2003.
[56] Darcy S, Daruwalla P. The trouble with travel: people with
disabilities and travel. Soc Altern. 1999;18:41–46.
[57] Akg€ ul Y, Vatansever K. Web accessibility evaluation of gov-
ernment websites for people with disabilities in Turkey.
J Adv Manage Sci. 2016;4:201–210.
[58] Cavinato J, Cuckovich M. Tourism and transportation for
the disabled: an assessment. Transport J. 1992;31:46–53.
[59] Federici S, Micangeli A, Ruspantini I, et al. Checking an
integrated model of web accessibility and usability evalu-
ation for disabled people. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:
781–790.
[60] Rumetshofer H, Wo €ss W. Tourism information systems pro-
moting barrier-free tourism for people with disabilities. In:
Miesenberger K, Klaus J, Zagler W, et al. editors.
Computers helping people with special needs. Berlin:
Springer Verlag. 9th International conference proceedings.
France: ICCHP; 2004.
[61] Shaw G, Veitch C, Coles T. Access, disability and tourism:
changing responses in the United Kingdom. Tourism Rev
Int. 2005;8:167–176.
[62] Stumbo N, Pegg S. Travellers tourists with disabilities: a
matter of priorities and loyalties. Tourism Rev Int.
2005;8:195–209.
[63] Turco D, Stumbo N, Garncarz J. Tourism constraints for
people with disabilities. Park Recreat. 1998;33:78–84.
[64] Yau M, McKercher B, Packer T. Traveling with a disability:
more than an access issue. Ann Tourism Res.
2004;31:946–960.
[65] Zhang Y, Cole ST. Dimensions of lodging guest satisfac-
tion among guests with mobility challenges: a mixed-
WEBSITE ACCESSIBILITY IN THE TOURISM INDUSTRY 11
method analysis of webbased texts. Tourism Manage.
2016;53:13–27.
[66] European Concept of Accesibility. Technical assistance
manual 2003. Luxembourg: ECA; 2003. Available from:
http://www.eca.lu/index.php/documents/eucan-docu-
ments/13-2003-european-concept-for-accessibility-2003.
[67] Fern
andez S. Qu
e se entiende por ‘disen~o universal? Entre
Dos Mundos. 2000;13:21–26.
[68] Americans with Disabilities Act. 1990.
[69] World Wide Web Consortium. Authoring Tool Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0. W3C Recomendation February 3, 2000.
Available from: https://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-
20000203/.
[70] United Nations. World population ageing. New York:
UN;2015.
[71] Disabled World. The disabled world accessibility category
covers a range of topics including ADA and DDA access-
ible regulations. 2015. Available from: https://www.dis-
abled-world.com/disability/accessibility/.
[72] Buhalis D, Michopoulou E. Information-enabled tourism
destination marketing: addressing the accessibility market.
Curr Issues Tour. 2011;14:145–168.
[73] Paciello M. Web accessibility for people with disabilities.
United States of America: CRC; 2000.
[74] Wang F, Head M, Archer N. The relationship building
model for the web retail market place. Internet Res
Electron Netw Appl Policy. 2000;10:374–384.
[75] Atkinson RD, Castro D. Digital quality of life: understand-
ing the personal and social benefits of the information
technology revolution. United States of America: ITIF;
2008.
[76] World Wide Web Consortium. World Wide Web
Consortium Process Document. October 14, 2005.
Available from: https://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-
20051014/.
[77] U.S. Departamento of Justice. Civil Rights Division.
Disability Rights Section. June, 2003.
[78] Williams R, Rattray R, Grimes A. Meeting the on-line needs
of disabled tourists: An assessment of UK-based hotel
websites. Int J Tour Res. 2006;8:59–73.
[79] P€uhretmair F. It's time to make etourism accessible. In:
Miesenberger K, Klaus J, Zagler W, Burger D, editors.
Computers helping people with special needs. . Berlin:
Springer Verlag. 9th International conference proceedings.
France: ICCHP; 2004.
[80] Latif MHA, Masrek MN. Accessibility evaluation on Malasya
e-goverment websites. J E-Gov Stud Best Pract.
2010;2010:935272.
[81] Al Mourad B, Kamoun F. Accessibility evaluation of Dubai
e-Government websites: findings and implications. J E-Gov
Stud Best Pract. 2013;2013:978647.
[82] Al-Radaideh MSM, Wahbeh A. Evaluating accessibility of
Jordanian E-government websites for people with disabil-
ities. Proceedings of International Conference on
Information and Communication Systems; 2011 May
22–24; Irbid, Jordan.
[83] Bakhsh M, Mehmood A. Web accessibility for disabled: a
case study of government websites in Pakistan.
Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Frontiers
of Information Technology (FIT); 2012 Dec 17–19; Pakistan
[84] Baowaly MK, Hossain J, Bhuiyan M. Accessibility analysis
and evaluation of government-websites’ in developing
countries: case study Bangladesh. Comput Eng Intell Syst.
2012;3:1–9.
 12 T. D. VILA ET AL.
[85] Englefield P, Paddison C, Tibbits M, et al. A proposed
architecture for integrating accessibility test tolos. IBM
Syst J. 2005;44:537–556.
[86] Espadinha C, Moniz L, Moreira F, et al. Accessibility of
Portuguese Public Universities' sites. Disabil Rehabil.
2011;33:475–485.
[87] Goodwin M, Susar D, Nietzio A, et al. Global web accessi-
bility analysis of national government portals and ministry
web sites. J Info Technol Politics. 2011;8:41–67.
[88] Isa W, Suhami M, Safie N, et al. Assessing the usability and
accessibility of Malayisa E government website. Am J Eco
Bus Admin. 2011;3:40–46.
[89] Kuzma J, Weisenborn G, Philippe T, et al. Analysis of U.S
senate web sites for disability accessibility. Int J Buss Res.
2009;9:174–181.
[90] Paris M. Website accessibility: a survey of locale-govern-
ment websites and legislation in Northern Ireland. Univ
Downloaded by [Mount Sinai Health System Libraries] at 01:10 14 August 2017
Access Inf Soc. 2006;4:292–299.
[91] Shi Y. E-government web site accessibility in Australia and
China: a longitudinal study. Soc Sci Comput Rev.
2006;24:378–385.
[92] Youngblood NE, Mackiewicz J. A usability analysis of
municipal government website home pages in Alabama.
Gov Info Q. 2012;29:582–588.
[93] World Wide Web Consortium. Web Accessibility Evaluation
Tools List. Update March [Internet]; 2016. Available from:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/.
[94] World Wide Web Consortium. Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. W3C Recommendation 11
December, [Internet]; 2008. Available from: https://www.
w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.
[95] Dom
ınguez T, Fraiz JA. Un nuevo desaf
ıo: el contenido y
la accesibilidad al contenido de las web tur
ısticas espa-
~olas. Rev Galle Econ. 2009;18:1–23.
n 2010.
[96] TAW. WCAG 2.0 Online. 2016.
[97] World Wide Web Consortium. Introduction to
Understanding WCAG 2.0. [Internet]; 2016. Available from:
https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/intro.html.
[98] World Tourism Organzation (UNWTO). Tourism highlights
2015 Edition. Spain: UNWTO; 2016.
[99] Liu Y, Li Z, Xiong H, et al. Understanding of internal clus-
tering validation measures. IEEE International Conference
on Data Mining. 2010;911–916.
[100] Dolnicar S, Leisch F. Evaluation of structure and reproduci-
bility of cluster solutions using the bootstrap. Mark Lett.
2010;21:83–101.
[101] European Parliament. Assistive technologies to support
people with disabilities. European Parliamentary Research
Services. 2015;1–8.
[102] Hong JW, Hendrix DA, Papatsenko D, et al. How
the Dorsal gradient works: insights from postgenome
technologies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:
20072–20076.
[103] Kuzma J, Dorothy Y, Oestreicher K. Global e-goberment
web accessibility: an empirical examination of EU, Asian
and Africa sites. ICTA’09, Tunisia, 2009.
[104] Australian Human Right Commission. World Wide Web
Access: Disability Discrimination Act Advisory Notes ver
4.1. [Internet]; 2014. Available from: https://www.human-
rights.gov.au/world-wide-web-access-disability-discrimin-
ation-act-advisory-notes-ver-41-2014.
[105] Thompson T, Comden D, Ferguson S, et al. Seeking pre-
dictors of web accessibility in US higher education institu-
tions. Inf Technol Disabil. 2013;13.
[106] Packer TL, McKercher B, Yau MK. Understanding the com-
plex interplay between tourism, disability and environ-
mental contexts. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29:281–292:24–32.
[107] Lewthwaite S. Web accessibility standards and disability:
developing critical perspectives on accessibility. Disabil
Rehabil. 2014;36:1375–1383.
[108] Kelly B, Lewthwaite S, Sloan D. Pa
ıses en desarrollo;
Desarrollo de experiencias: enfoques de accesibilidad para
el mundo real. Conferencia Internacional de Disciplina
Cruzada sobre Accesibilidad Web (W4A). Nueva York:ACM;
[109] Fundacio
n ONCE. Observatorio de Accesibilidad del
Turismo en Espan ~a. Jornada D
ıa Internacional de la
Discapacidad. Fundacio
n ONCE and UWWTO. Madrid;
2016.
[110] Buhalis D, Darcy, S, editors. Accessible tourism: concepts
and issues. Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications; 2011.