Skip to main content

Accessibility in Life Sciences Data Resources

A figure containing three graphs. Graph A shows that 96% of data portals have issues. Graph B shows the percentage of those issues by accessibility categories, with contrast being the most prevalent issue, and label_missing, alt_missing, and label_empty highlighted. Graph C is a pie chart showing that 78.8% of alt text in journals are entirely missing, while 21.3% are uninformative.

Evaluation of Accessibility in Life Sciences Data Resources

Our lab has been conducting extensive research evaluating the accessibility of life sciences websites and data resources. In this ongoing project, we assessed over 3,000 data portals and journal websites using accessibility evaluation tools, like WAVE and Axe. We also evaluated selected data portals with a screen reader user to identify real-world barriers for performing important tasks (e.g., data discovery).

Current Accessibility Status

Our evaluation revealed that nearly all assessed websites (96%) had severe accessibility issues. The most common issue identified was the absence of crucial metadata, such as alternative text for images, which creates significant barriers for users with blindness and low vision (BLV). Without such metadata, it is impossible for BLV users to fully understand the content displayed in life sciences data visualizations (Refer to the figure on the top).

Research Aims

Our primary goal is to improve the accessibility of life sciences resources by identifying the key barriers and developing strategies to address them. Through this work, we aim to ensure that life sciences websites and tools comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and are accessible to people with disabilities.

Our Contributions

  • Evaluation Results: We identified a range of accessibility failures, with missing alt texts being one of the most prevalent issues.
  • Mixed-methods Approach: We employed computational accessibility tools to conduct our analysis at scale, in addition to conducting user evaluation for selected resources.
  • Addressing Gaps: Our findings highlight the need for improving accessibility across life sciences websites, particularly in providing alternative texts and complying with WCAG.

Call to Action

We invite you to participate in this effort. We seek feedback and suggestions from the broader scientific and accessibility communities and potential collaborations for academic and non-academic activities.

Publications

Status

Active