Customer Relationship Management for the Web-Access ...

Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii Intern0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 © 2002 IEEE

Customer Relationship Management for the Web-Access Challenged: Inaccessibility of the Fortune 100 Business Web Sites

Nicholas C. Romano, Jr.

Management Science and Information Systems College of Business Administration

Oklahoma State University 700 North Greenwood Avenue

Tulsa, OK 74106-0700 [email protected]

Abstract Companies employ the World Wide Web (Web) to gather and disseminate information to and from actual and potential customers and increasingly for end-consumer business transactions through Electronic Commerce (EC). Online barriers limit or eliminate Web accessibility for many potential customers with access challenges. It is difficult to establish, develop and manage relationships with potential customers if they cannot access the company’s Web site for information, let alone to place orders or request services. This study evaluated the accessibility of the top 100 2001 Fortune 500 company Web sites. An accessibility validation program quantified the number and severity of accessibility errors and problems for each site. Results indicated that the majority (71%) of the Fortune 100 Company Web sites had accessibility problems and that many of these problems were severe enough those firms should consider it a high priority to correct them. Additionally, many errors and problems should be fixed as a matter of good programming style as well as general interface and usability principles. The bright side is there were actually few types of errors across all 100 Web sites and most can easily be amended to make sites more accessible and usable for all potential customers. This study illustrates the need for companies to examine the accessibility of their Web sites and bring them into compliance with ADA and other guidelines and requirements. Suggestions for improving accessibility of Web sites are provided. Keywords: Web Site Accessibility, Access Challenges, Customers, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Center for Assistive Technologies (CAST), Validation. Introduction “The economic aspects of Web-based business should be reason enough to jump-start the private sector into building accessible Web sites. Beyond good business, it is the law. Section 508 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act [http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/rehab.html] says that all government-funded RFPs (request for purchase) must include provisions to meet the technology needs of people with disabilities. This ties in with the ADA Act that requires reasonable accommodation for employees and the Telecommunication Act [http://www.

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17ational Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-35�02)

fcc.gov/telecom.html] that demands access to the Internet for the disabled [21].” The 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) [20] affords the same civil rights protection to disabled individuals that apply as due to race, gender, national origin, and religion [7]. Title III of the ADA directs that public facilities make reasonable modifications to control discrimination and support accessibility in policies, practices, and procedures [10, 20]. The landmark legislation has resulted in accessibility alterations, such as ramps to elevated areas, sign height adjustment, raised lettering, and Braille becoming commonplace across the United States (US) [15]. The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, programs and services provided by state and local governments, goods and services provided by private companies, and in commercial facilities. The recent May 29th, 2001 Supreme Court decision forcing the Professional Golfers Association (PGA) to make allowances for disabled golfer Casey Martin, by allowing him to use a cart to ride in PGA tournaments, has put the ADA center stage in the media spotlight and prompted many to reconsider the amount of effort and resources they have put forth in accommodating disabled customers [2]. These same laws apply to the World Wide Web (Web) and companies cannot afford to ignore them for much longer. The Web has become an ideal universal medium for collecting and disseminating information, because of the ease of accessibility across platforms and distance [15, 17]. Many companies employ the Web to gather and disseminate information to and from customers and suppliers and increasingly for business transactions with end consumers through Electronic Commerce (EC). One EC area that has received a great deal of academic research and industry trade publication attention is Customer Relationship Management (CRM) [13, 31, 32]. However, online barriers limit or eliminate Web accessibility for many potential customers with disabilities or other access challenges. It is difficult to establish, develop and maintain relationships with potential customers if they cannot access the company Web site for information, let alone to place orders or request services. Companies may be missing out on large segments of potential markets as they move toward EC. Making company Web sites accessible to all

.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 1


Proceedings of the 0-7695-1435-9/02 $

potential customers, especially those with disabilities or other access challenges, is not only smart business, it is also the law under the ADA [7, 15, 21]. Severe disability is not the only reason customers might need assistance to access multimedia Web sites [15, 21]. Kautzman [21] provides examples that fall outside our traditional concept of “disabled” but may still leave customers unable to access Web site information and site owners unable to reach potential customers (See Figure 1.) There are several groups of potential customers many firms are practically ignoring by not providing simple and inexpensive accessibility features on their Web sites. These include the physically disabled, visually impaired, economically disadvantaged and bandwidth challenged. Figure 1. Examples of Web Access Difficulties [21] • A hearing worker on the floor of a noisy stock

exchange may catch the verbal cues given by a sophisticated RealAudio-equipped Web page.

• Students with Attention Deficit Disorders or cognitive disabilities may not be able to focus on a text-busy Web page.

• Mobility challenged users may not feel comfortable using a standard keyboard or mouse to click on small icons.

• Older computers do not have fast connections or modems and have their limitations for downloading large, image-based, files.

• Colorblind users easily miss hyperlinks when their inability to differentiate tones works against them.

To date, little research has studied the extent to which corporate Web sites are accessible to customers. This paper describes the first in a series of studies to explore corporate Web site accessibility. The purpose was to evaluate accessibility of company Web sites by access challenged individuals. 100 of the 2001 Fortune 500 Company (www.fortune.com) Web sites were evaluated. An accessibility validation program was used to quantify the number and severity of accessibility errors and problems each Web site contained. Results indicated that most of the top Fortune 100 companies’ Web sites had accessibility problems and that many of these problems were severe enough that the firms should give them a high priority for correction. Additionally many of these errors and problems should be fixed as a matter of good programming style and general interface and usability design principles. The bright side is there are actually few “types” of errors across all the Web sites and many can be easily amended to make pages more accessible and usable for potential customers. This study illustrates the need for companies to examine the accessibility of their Web sites and bring them into compliance with ADA requirements. Suggestions for improving accessibility of Web sites are provided. Motivation for Web Site Accessibility Companies have a several reasons to make Web pages accessible, including a growing potential market of access challenged customers and legislative action and

0-7695-1435-9/02 $1735th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-35�02) 17.00 © 2002 IEEE

governmental guidelines. The academic and trade press literature on accessibility makes it clear that firms have a vested interest in making their Web sites accessible to all customers, especially those with access challenges, be they due to disabling, economic, or technological conditions. Increasing Numbers of Access Challenged Customers It is becoming clear to companies that providing access to technology is "the smart thing to do", because there is a growing population of access challenged people who require accommodations. Some 750 million people worldwide are affected by disabling conditions that interfere with their ability to work and/or carry out daily activities, which includes about 7 million people in the United Kingdom (UK) and 54 million in the US [24]. A report released in March 2000 by the US National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (www.dsc.ucsf.edu) states that only 25% of these individuals own computers today, and only 10% have used the Internet. The IBM Pubic Affairs report ‘Assuring Access for All’ [19] suggests that "..to help prevent a division of haves and have-nots, competing firms must be free to provide customers all over the world with the best and most affordable network computing products and services. [however]. . . governments must be prepared to fund universal access programs for those who are left unserved by competition." An increasing number of disabled and acess challenged individuals are browsing the Web. Web designers are beginning to notice this growing population of potential Web customers, and are developing Webs sites and design standards to assure that those with access challenges are not left out in the cold in cyberspace. An example is WeMedia.com, which was launched in conjunction with the United Nations International Day of Disabled Persons (December 3rd, 1999) [http://www.independentliving.org/LibArt/UN/IntlDoD.html]. The WeMedia.com site offers editorials, shopping, information, and services to provide Web access. They offer specialized products and services such as a talking Web browser and audio and video broadcasts. The President’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities states that there are 48.9 (19.4%) million Americans, one out of every five of the non-institutionalized civilians in the United States, who have a functional limitation. [http://janweb.icdi.wvu.edu/english/pcepd.htm]. “According to the U.S. Census Bureau [http://www.census.gov/], 5.8 percent of people under the age of 18 live with a disability. The numbers increase as our population ages. A full 29.2 percent of those 45 to 64 years old have disabilities, and a whopping 63.7 percent of 75 to 84 year olds live with blindness, deafness, immobility, or a number of other chronic conditions” [21] These functional limitations impact an individuals’ ability to use and experience new information technology. Capozzi [8] points out that approximately 8% of all Web users have a disability and that there are 145,000 Federal employees (7.5%) with disabilities.

.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 2



The US is also experiencing a rapid rise in the number of older Americans and more than 53% of all Americans with disabilities are 65 or older [21]. The Census Bureau projects that the number of Americans 65 and older will more than double to 80 million by 2050. Those that reach increased age have a greater probability of functional limitation, thus it seems likely that the "graying of America" may result increased demands for easy-to-use products to compensate for functional limitations [21]. The technology needs of millions of disabled individuals are not yet being fully met [8, 21], which means that most of this market remains untapped. Companies that meet those needs will have a strong competitive advantage over other companies who do not. Legislative Action and Governmental Guidelines Perhaps the most compelling reason to make Web sites accessible is that it is the law in many countries. US and European federal governments are taking legislative action and proposing guidelines to ensure Web sites and other information technology are accessible to all individuals. Following is a brief summary of recent actions taken to promote Web access for disabled individuals. The US is the leader in championing Web access for all individuals. Starting in 1996, the Department of Justice issued an opinion stating that ADA applies to Web access: "Covered entities under the ADA are required to provide effective communication, regardless of whether they generally communicate through print media, audio media, or computerized media such as the Internet. Covered entities that use the Internet for communications regarding their programs, goods, or services must be prepared to offer those communications through accessible means as well" [37]. The 1996 Telecommunication Act [http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html] demands access to the Internet for the disabled. Consonant with both of these acts is section 508 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act [http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/rehab.html], which states that all government-funded Requests For Purchase (RFP) must include provisions to meet technology needs of individuals with disabilities [8]. Capozzi [8] provides the following examples of the Federal government market. The US Federal government (FED) is the single largest market for goods and services in the world. The FED spends nearly $200 billion annually for everything from paper clips to jet aircraft. The FED awards a contract with an average value of $465,000 every 20 seconds of every working day. The Fed is also the single largest procurer of technology. The FED spends $26.4 billion annually on electronic office equipment, information technology, and technical assistance services. Clearly companies must pay attention to these laws and provide access to disabled individuals if they do not want to want to miss out on the lucrative FED technology market [8]. The Federal Information Technology Accessibility Initiative (FIATI) [http://www.section508.gov/index.html] is a Federal government interagency effort to offer information and technical assistance to assist in the successful


implementation of Section 508. The final Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) rule For Implementing Section 508 of the Rehab Act, Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities, was published in the Federal Register April 25, 2001 (http://www.section508.gov/docs/Final99607A.htm). Clearly the US Federal Government is taking Web access seriously. European governments are also beginning to support Web access for the disabled. Larkin [24] points out that the UK’s Disability Discrimination Act will include Web accessibility in its 2004 requirements and that on June 20, 2000 the European Council recommended adopting the 2001 Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI; www.w3.org/wai) guidelines for public websites of the European Commission and member states (europa.eu.int/comm/information_society/eeurope/actionplan/actline2c_En.htm). Clearly businesses now are or soon may by legally required to make their Web sites accessible to those with any type of access challenge, be it physical, economic or technological. This is an issue all organizations must address at some point in the near future. If businesses do not take the lead in establishing accessibility guidelines recent actions have shown that governments will. This is a strong motivation for firms to learn about accessibility guidelines and to incorporate them into their Web site designs and implementations. Literature Review I performed a thorough literature review and found no studies of corporate Web site accessibility. Web site accessibility research is directly relevant to this study as it provides methodology and tools used to study this domain, as well as literature and online resources. Few researchers or professionals have empirically studied Web site accessibility, and only in specific domains. Flowers and co-authors [5, 6, 14-16] studied the accessibility of several educational Web site types with the Bobby Validation program (http://www.cast.org/bobby/). They [15] found that most of the 250 (79%) Colleges of Education home pages had accessibility problems and that most of these (67%) were severe enough to be given a high priority for correcting. They also studied community college Web sites and found that approximately three-fourths (77%) of 195 sites had at least one Priority 1 error that seriously affected accessibility [5, 6]. Báthory-Kitsz [3] performed an exceptionally thorough accessibility evaluation of all 2000 US Presidential candidates Web sites with six different software tools and manual checking (See Figure 2). Only Al Gore’s site passed automatic Level 1 evaluation using Bobby, but failed manual checking. All the sites had problems with the other accessibility evaluations [3]. He then went on to describe many of the accessibility errors and problems for each of the pages. Schmetzke [33] surveyed accessibility of the Web sites of the 24 most highly ranked US universities according to U.S. News and World report. Results were presented in tems of percentages of Bobby-approved pages and

.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 3



average errors per page for Web pages of the top level campus, the library and the School of Library and Information Sciences. Tables 1 and 2 present summary findings. The Web site for the study presents detailed data for each site. An interesting finding was that the schools of library and information sciences had on average more accessability errors than the top level campus or the library web sites. Figure 2. Six software tools used to Evaluate Presidential Candidates Web Sites

Web Accessibility Guidelines: World Wide Web Consortium standard for Web languages and protocols.

Bobby: Web-based evaluation tool that uses W3C guidelines to produce a list of errors and barriers in Web sites and areas to check by hand.

Lynx: Text-only browser used with speech programs and 'screen-scraping' readers to speak text being displayed.

Home Page Reader: IBM program to work hand-in-hand with Netscape to determine materials to be read aloud.

Palm V with ProxiWeb: The most-used palmtop computer/organizer along with a Web browser, to evaluate how sites would appear to the mobile voter.

Netscape: Browser used to examine how sites were meant to appear in an ordinary graphical view.

OrbitAccess: Hand checks of site home pages and selected pages to determine how multimedia applications, forms, and design and functional scripts and applets were being used. [3]

Table 1. Bobby-approved pages in Schmetzke Study

Site Type Mean % Standard Deviation

Range

Campus 50% 33 0-100% Library 59% 33 0-100% School of Library and Information Sciences

23% 30.6 0-100%

[33] Table 2. Priority 1 errors in Schmetzke Study

Site Type Mean Standard Deviation

Range

Campus 5.8 6.6 0-24.3% Library 2.8 3.8 0-13.7% School of Library and Information Sciences

8 8 0-26.8%

[33] These researchers evaluated the accessibility of different types of Web sites with different methods and presented the results in different formats. Their methods and findings are relevant to this research because they


provide background and guidelines for studying accessibility of Corporate Web sites and they are the only formal accessibility evaluations available at the time this study was undertaken. Web Accessibility Background Technological changes have provided exciting new business opportunities via the Web for firms and customers [1, 18, 22, 34, 38]; however, simultaneously they have restricted and complicated content and resource accessibility for disabled individuals and those with other access challenges [3, 23, 26]. Physical accessibility barriers are clear problems for disabled individuals. Web page designers must become just as aware of the online barriers that may create significant accessibility problems for many individuals. The ADA requires all organizations to make reasonable accommodations for disabled individuals. Using the Web to disseminate and gather customer information and to provide for online transactions is no exception. It is important that corporate Web site developers become aware of and follow standards that allow accessibility to all Web customers. Assistive technologies or accessibility aids, such as Braille output systems, modified keyboards, screen enlargement tools, voice output devices, and others allow customers with disabilities to access information on the Web. However, the complexity of many Internet sites makes some information inaccessible even with these specialized aids. Developers of accessibility aids continue to identify and develop features to overcome some of these barriers, but there are many actions Web page developers can take, with minimal effort, to make their sites more accessible to all potential customers [3, 23, 26] . The Trace Research and Development Center at the University of Wisconsin at Madison produced the Unified Web Site Accessibility Guidelines [35]. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) employed these guidelines to produce HTML Author Guidelines - version 1.0. [36]. According to the guidelines, measures for improving accessibility fall into three categories: (a) Structure: HTML documents should use markup

to convey meaning and less for format and layout pages.

(b) Navigation: Authors should support keyboard-only navigation and methods to facilitate orientation.

(c) Alternative Content: Authors should always provide alternative ways to access information presented with images, sounds, applets, and scripts.

The WAI also provides explicit recommendations and strategies on how to design Web sites that comply with the guidelines, through examples and models of appropriate use of HTML tags (i.e., page title, text, lists and outlining, tables, links, objects, images, audio, applet, frames, forms, scripts) and elements. Web Site Developer Accessability Problems:

.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 4


Proceedings of the 30-7695-1435-9/02 $1

The conversion of the Web from academic resource to “information superhighway” occurred in a short period of time. The transformation happened within an environment of “browser wars” over features and glitziness, so that most of the accessibility structure incorporated into the Web's rendering language (HyperText Markup Language - HTML) was either forgotten or ignored [3]. Web site designers (graphics artists and publishers) strove to make Web sites have the look and feel of glossy magazines and brochures. Simultaneously, the explosion of multimedia presentation tools often distracted developers from assuring that their sites remained accessible to all potential users. Phrases such as "best viewed with Netscape" or "you must have the Shockwave plug-in" and "your browser must be Java-enabled" started to appear [3]. Web site designers have come to have a narrow view of how the interface should appear, based on the two most popular Internet browsers: Microsoft Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator. Designers may even dismiss other browsing options as not worth their time and effort. However, users increasingly access the Web with speech browsers, palm-sized computers, TV set-top boxes, and Internet appliances, and other graphical browsers. This very heterogeneous environment may have unduly undermined accessibility for access challenged individuals [3]. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Following is the first paragraph of the abstract of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 W3C Recommendation issued 5-May-1999. “These guidelines explain how to make Web content accessible to people with disabilities. The guidelines are intended for all Web content developers (page authors and site designers) and for developers of authoring tools. The primary goal of these guidelines is to promote accessibility. However, following them will also make Web content more available to all users, whatever user agent they are using (e.g., desktop browser, voice browser, mobile phone, automobile-based personal computer, etc.) or constraints they may be operating under (e.g., noisy surroundings, under- or over-illuminated rooms, in a hands-free environment, etc.). Following these guidelines will also help people find information on the Web more quickly. These guidelines do not discourage content developers from using images, video, etc., but rather explain how to make multimedia content more accessible to a wide audience.” [36] This abstract explains the primary goal behind the guidelines and describes how they can assist Web content developers in making Web pages more accessible to all potential users. Figure 3. lists the 14 Web Content Acessability guidelines [36]. Figure 3. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [36] 1. Provide equivalent alternatives to auditory and

visual content. 2. Don't rely on color alone. 3. Use markup and style sheets and do so properly. 4. Clarify natural language usage


5. Create tables that transform gracefully. 6. Ensure that pages featuring new technologies

transform gracefully. 7. Ensure user control of time-sensitive content

changes. 8. Ensure direct accessibility of embedded user

interfaces. 9. Design for device-independence. 10. Use interim solutions. 11. Use W3C technologies and guidelines. 12. Provide context and orientation information. 13. Provide clear navigation mechanisms. 14. Ensure that documents are clear and simple. Web Content Acessability Validation The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) [http://www.cast.org] is a non-profit educational organization that uses technology to expand opportunities for all people, including those with disabilities, was founded in 1984. Cast provides the Web-based Bobby Validation program [9] to identify accessibility problems on Web pages. CAST offers Bobby as a free service to help Web page authors identify and repair significant barriers to access by individuals with disabilities. Bobby analyzes accessibility based on the W3C WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [36]. Each of the 14 major guidelines (See Figure 3) has checkpoints to explain how the guideline applies in typical content development scenarios. Each checkpoint has a priority level assigned by the Working Group based on the checkpoint's impact on accessibility. Priority levels range from 1 to 3 (See figure 4.). Figure X. Presents examples errors for each priority level and the URL for each error. Figure 4. W3C Priority Levels [36] [Priority 1] A Web content developer must satisfy this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it impossible to access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint is a basic requirement for some groups to be able to use Web documents. [Priority 2] A Web content developer should satisfy this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it difficult to access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint will remove significant barriers to accessing Web documents. [Priority 3] A Web content developer may address this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it somewhat difficult to access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint will improve access to Web documents.

Figure 5. Example Errors for each Priority Level [36] [Priority 1] Provide alternative text for all images. www.cast.org/bobby/html/gls/g9.html Provide alternative text for all image map hot-spots (AREAs). www.cast.org/bobby/html/gls/g240.html

.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 5



Provide alternative text for all image-type buttons in forms. www.cast.org/bobby/html/gls/g10.html [Priority 2] Make sure event handlers do not require use of a mouse. www.cast.org/bobby/html/gls/g269.html Use relative sizing and positioning (% values) rather than absolute (pixels). www.cast.org/bobby/html/gls/g104.html Use a public text identifier in a DOCTYPE statement. www.cast.org/bobby/html/gls/g271.html [Priority 3] Identify the language of the text. www.cast.org/bobby/html/gls/g125.html Provide a summary for tables. http://www.cast.org/bobby/html/gls/g31.html Separate adjacent links with more than whitespace. http://www.cast.org/bobby/html/gls/g35.html

There are also three conformance levels associated with the guidelines (See Figure 6.) Figure 6. The three levels of conformance to the W3C guidelines • Conformance Level "A": all Priority 1

checkpoints are satisfied; • Conformance Level "Double-A": all Priority 1

and 2 checkpoints are satisfied; • Conformance Level "Triple-A": all Priority 1, 2,

and 3 checkpoints are satisfied; Note. Conformance levels are spelled-out in text so

they may be understood when rendered to speech by assistive technoolgies.

A Web site that passes all of the Priority 1 accessibility checkpoints established by the WAI, which includes meeting all of the criteria presented in Figure 7, is Bobby-Approved and may display this logo

. Figure 7. Criteria for Bobby approved Status of a Web Site [36] • Provide text equivalents for all images and

multimedia such as animations, audio, and video • Ensure that all information conveyed with color is

also available without color • Identify headers for data tables and make line-by-

line reading sensible for layout tables • Provide summaries of graphs and charts • Identify document language and any changes of the

language • Organize content logically and clearly, such as with

headings, list elements, meaningful links, and navigation bars

• Provide alternative content for features (e.g., applets or plug-ins) that may not be supported

Additional details about Bobby are discussed in the section on the evaluation process.


Method This study examined the accessibility of the top 100 Web sites of the 2001 Fortune 500 companies. The purpose of the research presented in this paper was twofold: First, to evaluate the accessibility of fortune 100 company Web sites according to the W3I Guidelines (cite and correct reference); Second, to provide references to available resources to assist companies in the development of accessible Web sites. Sampling A list of URLs for 2001 Fortune 500 was obtained from the Fortune Magazine Web site [http://www.fortune.com]. I selected the top 100 Web sites of the 2001 Fortune 500 companies for evaluation in this study. This population was selected because it usually provides leadership in the use of Information Technology [28]. Additionally several previous studies have surveyed the IS marketing practices and Web sites of Fortune 500 companies [4, 27-30]. Evaluation Process Each Fortune 100 Company Web site main page was evaluated using the online version of the Bobby 3.2 Validation program [9], which produces a summary report to allow researchers and other professionals to evaluate Web sites in accordance with the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative's guidelines [12]. The summary report provides a measure of the extent to which a Web site is accessible to disabled users. The summary report has two main sections: a marked-up copy of the original web page, and a textual accessibility report. Figure 8 shows an example of the marked-up copy of an analyzed web page, in which automatically detectable Priority 1 accessibility errors are flagged with a "Bobby-hats" with a wheelchair and possible Priority 1 errors that cannot be fully automatically checked are flagged with a question mark . This enables the user validating the page to see visually where the problems occur in the page. Figure 8. Marked-up Bobby Analyzed Web page

The textual accessibility report contains at most five sections (irrelevant sections are not displayed). Figure 8 lists the sections contained in the Bobby textual accessibility report. Figure 9 presents an example of an actual textual accessibility report generated by Bobby.

.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 6



Figure 9. Types of Accessibility Errors Contained in Bobby Textual Accessibility Report Priority 1 Accessibility (High Severity) Priority 1 User Checks Priority 2 Accessibility (Medium Severity) Priority 2 User Checks Priority 3 Accessibility (Low Severity) Priority 3 User Checks Browser Compatibility Errors Download Time

Figure 10. Bobby Generated Accessibility Report

The Priority 1 Accessibility section lists problems that seriously affect the Web sites’ usability by users with disabilities. A web page qualifies for Bobby Approved status if it has zeros Priority 1 Accessibility errors, however a Bobby approved rating is only granted to sites in which none of the pages have any Priority 1 accessibility errors. The report is interactive and clicking on any of the reported problems links to a detailed description of how to correct it [9]. In addition to items that Bobby can examine automatically, a number of items that require manual examination are presented in the User Checks section. The User Checks are relevant to your Bobby Approval rating since they are important to ensure your site is accessible in accordance with Priority 1 WAI guidelines. However, most of these items will not apply to your page, but are presented since they require human evaluation. Even if you correct one of these items, it will still appear in the list. Bobby Approved status is equivalent to Conformance at Level A for the Web Content Guidelines. Priority 2 Accessibility errors are access problems that you should try to fix. Although not as vital as Priority 1 access errors, the items in this section are considered important for access. If you can pass all items in this section, including relevant User Checks, your page meets Conformance Level Double A (AA) for the Web Content Guidelines. This is the preferred minimum conformance level for an accessible site, even though it is not considered part of Bobby Approval. Priority 3 Accessibility are third-tier access problems, which web site designers and administrators should also consider. If a site can pass all items in this section, including relevant User Checks, your page meets Conformance Level Triple A (AAA) for the Web Content Guidelines.


The Browser Compatibility Errors section lists those HTML elements and element attributes that are used on the site which are not valid for particular browsers. These elements do not necessarily cause accessibility problems, but users should be aware that the page might not be rendered as expected which may impact usability and accessibility. The Download Time section provides a summary of how long the web page and images would take to download on a slow modem line (assuming the server is not too busy). This is not specifically required for accessibility, but if the page takes too long to load users may not find it as usable. There are many accessibility issues that Bobby 3.0 cannot detect. For example, Bobby 3.0 cannot determine programmatically if the Web site is following accessibility principles, and can only draw the users attention to the potential risks of any technology that is used. Some accessibility errors cannot be confirmed using Bobby 3.2, but Bobby 3.2 provides user check data that informs the user that manual examination and human judgment are required for examining a specific area of the home page. For a full description of the types of access errors see the Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [11]. In this study only initial Company home pages were evaluated and no links within the domain were evaluated. Evaluation results were tabulated and analyzed. Data was entered into an Access Database through a specially designed form (See Figure 10.) Queries were then generated to organize the data into meaningful information patterns for analysis.

Figure 11. Accessibility Database Form

Results 71 of the 100 Web sites had at least 1 Priority 1 accessibility error, and therefore do not qualify for “Bobby Approval”. This means they do not meet the minimum Web Content Guidelines for accessibility. 94 of the 100 Web sites had at least 1 Priority 2 accessibility error and 97 had at least 1 Priority 3 accessibility error. Tables 3 to 5 list all of the types of priority 1, 2 and 3 errors found. Across all 100 sites there were 108 priority one errors of 4 types, 307 priority 2 errors of 10 types, and 264 priority 3 errors of 5 types. On average, there were 2.62 of all priority level accessibility errors per page. Considering only this

.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 7



small average may be deceiving, as one must consider the number of instances of a particular error in a specific Web site and that some sites had zero errors, while others had numerous errors. When considered by priority level the averages were 1.12 priority 1 errors per site, 2.73 priority 2 errors per site, and 2.77 priority

2 errors per site. It is also interesting to point out that for all three priority level errors a small percentage of sites had a majority of the instances of a particular error; this is explained in the notes accompanying each table.

Table 3. 4 Priority 1 Errors Among the 100 Sites

Priority 1 Accessibility Errors No. of Sites

% of all P1

Total # of Instances

Correction Difficulty

Provide alternative text for all images. 58 53.70% 1570 Easy Provide alternative text for all image map hot-spots (AREAs). 22 20.37% 157 Hard Provide alternative text for all image-type buttons in forms. 18 16.67% 24 Easy Give each frame a title. 10 9.26% 29 Easy Total 108 1780

Notes: 20 of 58 (34%) sites had 1204/1570 (77%) of the instances of “Provide alternative text for all images.” 2 of 22 (9%) sites had 51/157 (33%) of the instances of “Provide alternative text for all image map hot-spots (AREAs).”

Table 4. 10 Priority 2 Errors Among the 100 Sites

Priority 2 Accessibility Errors No. of Sites

% of all P2


Make sure event handlers do not require use of a mouse. 87 28.34% 709 Use relative sizing and positioning (% values) rather than absolute (pixels). 68 22.15% 4500 Use a public text identifier in a DOCTYPE statement. 67 21.82% 69 Explicitly associate form controls and their labels with the LABEL element. 36 11.73% 133 Do not use the same link phrase more than once when the links point to different URLs. 26 8.47% 129 Include a document TITLE. 9 2.93% 9 Do not cause a page to refresh automatically. 7 2.28% 7 Provide a NOFRAMES section when using FRAMEs. 4 1.30% 4 Create link phrases that make sense when read out of context. 2 0.65% 8 Do not cause a page to redirect to a new URL. 1 0.33% 1 Total 307 5569

Notes: 20 of 68 (29%) sites had 3107/4500 (69%) of the instances “Use relative sizing and positioning (% values) rather than absolute (pixels).” 24of 87 (28%) sites had 612/709 (86%) of the instances of the P2 error “Make sure event handlers do not require use of a mouse.”

10of 36 (28%) sites had 86/133 (65%) of the instances of the P2 error “Explicitly associate form controls and their labels with the LABEL element.” 10 of 26 (38%) sites had 102/129 (80%) of the instances of the P2 error “Do not use the same link phrase more than once when the links point to different URLs.”

Table 5. 5 Priority 3 Errors among the 100 Sites Priority 3 Accessibility Errors Number

of Sites % of all P3


Identify the language of the text. 97 36.74% *102 Provide a summary for tables. 61 23.11% 1555 Separate adjacent links with more than whitespace. 44 16.67% 475 Include default, place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas. 35 13.26% 69 Client-side image map contains a link not presented elsewhere on the page. 27 10.23% 206 Total 264 2407

Notes: * - language – greater than number of sites due to multiple frames. 20 of 61 (33%) sites had 1259/1555 (81%) of the instances of the P3 error “Provide a summary for tables.” 15 of 44 (34%) sites had 368/475 (77%) of the instances of the P3 error “”

Table 6 lists the fortune 100 companies sorted by the number of Priority 1 errors, number of priority 2 errors, number of priority 3 errors and then alphabetically within groups with the same number of all three types of errors. The most interesting thing to note is that the fortune 100 rank and the relative accessibility are not the same. For example the 2nd ranked company, Walmart Stores, is 87th in terms of usability. This implies that the success of the company in terms of Fortune measures does not imply that their Web site is accessible. Those with the most resources to make their sites accessible may not be exerting the required effort to do so. Suggestions to Improve Web Site Accessibility Suggestions for improving Web site accessibility are presented in two sections. First, global suggestions that apply to all Web site designers are provided. Second,


for each accessibility error found among the Fortune 100 Website home pages evaluated specific guidelines as to how to correct the problem are provided along with Universal Resource Locators with additional details. These suggestions are provided to assist Web site designers in making their sites accessible to disabled potential customers. Universal Suggestions One universal suggestion for the Web site developers is that they should encoded Web site pages for ‘meaning’ and content rather than appearance and flash [3, 15, 21]. There are many Web sites that provide information and recommendations on how to make accessible Web sites. Following are some key recommendations for ensuring that Web sites are accessible: First, Web site designers should adhere to the W3C accessibility guidelines and consider them as they

.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 8



develop content, rather than as an afterthought [3, 15, 21, 25, 33, 36]. Validation procedures should be employed at the earliest stages of design and development as accessibility issues identified early are easier to correct and avoid than those that are identified after all the coding has been done [36]. Second, Every Web site page should be explicitly tested for accessibility via Multiple procedures including both automatic and human reviews: [3, 9, 15] The reasoning behind this is that while automated tools are fast and convenient, they cannot identify all accessibility issues, whereas human reviewers are better at ensuring clarity of language and ease of navigation [36]. Flowers et al. [15] made the following useful suggestions for multiple validation strategies: (a) View each page on monochrome screen or use high

contrast option of control panel; (b) Turn off graphics and view page for readability or

use Lynx to view the page; (c) Select only text, print to clipboard, and view for

readability; (a) Navigate using only the keyboard; (b) Use Bobby or other Web evaluation software to

test the Web pages. Appendix A. – Validation of the WC3 Guidelines [36] lists the Following important validation methods (for details see www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CORE-TECHS/#validation) 1. Use an automated accessibility tool and browser

validation tool. Please note that software tools do not address all accessibility issues, such as the meaningfulness of link text, the applicability of a text equivalent, etc.

2. Validate syntax (e.g., HTML, XML, etc.). 3. Validate style sheets (e.g., CSS). 4. Use a text-only browser or emulator. 5. Use multiple graphic browsers, with: a. sounds and graphics loaded, b. graphics not loaded, c. sounds not loaded, d. no mouse, e. frames, scripts, style sheets, and applets not loaded

1. Use several browsers, old and new. 2. Use a self-voicing browser, a screen reader,

magnification software, a small display, etc. 3. Use spell and grammar checkers. A person reading a

page with a speech synthesizer may not be able to decipher the synthesizer's best guess for a word with a spelling error. Eliminating grammar problems increases comprehension.

4. Review the document for clarity and simplicity. Readability statistics, such as those generated by some word processors may be useful indicators of clarity and simplicity. Better still, ask an experienced (human) editor to review written content for clarity. Editors can also improve the usability of documents by identifying potentially sensitive cultural issues that might arise due to language or icon usage.

5. Invite people with disabilities to review documents. Expert and novice users with disabilities will provide

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-35�02)

7.00 © 2002 IEEE

valuable feedback about accessibility or usability problems and their severity.

Third, Web site designers should provide ‘text only’ versions of Web sites by using cascading style sheets to ensure that updates can be accomplished more easily [3, 9, 15]. Text only versions of Web sites also provide customers with slow Internet connections or older machines with a relatively fast way to access a company’s Web site [3, 9, 15]. Fourth, Web site designers should provide customers with alternative methods for obtaining information about the Company: such as phone numbers, email addresses, or Postal addresses [3, 9, 15]. Such alternative contact information should be placed prominently on the Company’s Web site. Discussion This study has explained how online barriers can limit the accessibility of the Web for potential customers with disabilities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accessibility of corporate Web sites. The Top 100 fortune 500 Company Web sites were evaluated with the Bobby Web-based Validation program Most Fortune 100 Company Web sites had accessibility problems (71%). The need for companies to examine the accessibility of their Web sites and correct potential online barriers is obvious based on the out the outcome of this study. The results provide empirical evidence that most Fortune 100 Company Web sites are not accessible to individuals with disabilities or other access challenges. This could mean that these firms are missing out on a potentially large segment of their market of potential customers. With little effort all these Fortune 100 Web sites could be amended to eliminate the severe Priority 1 accessibility errors that make access for disabled potential customers almost impossible in some cases. Corporate Web developers must begin to examine their Web sites for accessibility problems. Accessibility guidelines provided by authors and researchers in this area strongly recommend employing validation methods during the early stages of Web design and development, which will help make problems easier to correct and assist developers in avoiding many accessibility problems. Also, a knowledgeable individual and individuals with disabilities to ensure clarity of language and ease of navigation should examine each site. Creating home pages that are accessible to a diverse group of users would insure the universality of the Web. The ADA directs that disabled people, including potential customers being served by businesses conducting EC are entitled to the same civil rights protection as those without disabilities. The ADA is associated with efforts to make public and private facilities and institutions more accessible for individuals with disabilities. The Internet and World Wide Web have revolutionized access to resources and services of

.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 9



American business, public and private institutions, and other organizations. The accessibility of this information to potential customers with disabilities or other access challenges has not been extensively studied. References [1] L. M. Applegate, Holsapple, C. W., Kalakota, R., Radermacher, F. J., and Whinston, A. B., "Electronic Commerce: building blocks of a new business opportunity," Journal of Organizational Computing & Electronic Commerce, vol. 6, pp. 1-10, 1996. [2] P. Associated, "Supreme Court: Martin can use cart,". http://www.msnbc.com/news/579671.asp: Associated Press, 2001. [3] D. Báthory-Kitsz, "Web Accessibility of the Presidential Candidate Sites,".: Orbit Access, 1999. [4] L. E. Boone, and Kurtz, D. L., "Marketing information systems: current status in american industry," presented at Relevance in Marketing: problems, research action, Chicaog, Il, 1972. [5] M. Bray, and Flowers, C., "Web accessibility of community colleges' web pages," Community College Journal of Research and Practice, (In press). [6] M. Bray, and Flowers, C., "Web accessibility of Community Colleges' Web pages," presented at 18th International Conference on Technology and Education, Arlington, Texas, (in press). [7] C. Button, & Wobschall, R., "The Americans with Disabilities Act and assistive technology," Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, vol. 4, pp. 196-201, 1994. [8] D. Capozzi, "Federal Accessibility Laws Outlined,". http://www.microsoft.com/enable/news/capozzi.htm: Speech as Accessibility Day 98 at Microsoft headquarters, Redmond, Washington., 1998. [9] C. A. S. T. Center, "Bobby 3.2 [computer program],".: Available: http://www.cast.org/bobby/, 2001. [10] C. f. E. Children, "Planning accessible conferences and meeting: An ERIC/OSEP information brief for conference planner,". Reston, VA, 1994. [11] W. Chisholm, and Vanderheiden, G., "Techniques for Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0 [on-line]. Available: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/,"., 1999. [12] W. Chisholm, and Vanderheiden, G., "Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0 [on-line],".: Available: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/, 1999. [13] D. Firth, "The Organizing Vision for Customer Relationship Management," presented at America's Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA, USA, 2001. [14] C. Flowers, and Bray, M., "Individuals with Disabilities and the World Wide Web: Accessibility at Institutions of Higher Education.," presented at WebNet World Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 2000. [15] C. P. Flowers, Bray, M., and Algozzine, R. F., "Accessibility Of Schools And Colleges Of Education Home Pages For Students With Disabilities," College Student Journal, vol. 34, pp. 550-556, 2000.


[16] F. Flowers, Bray, M., and Algozzine, R., "Accessibility of Special Education Program Home Pages," Journal of Special Education Technology, vol. 14, 1999. [17] D. Heflich, and Edyburn, D. L., "Getting ready to connect to the World Wide Web [and] World Wide Web self-assessment checklist," Teaching Exceptional Children, vol. 30, pp. 6-7., 1998. [18] D. L. Hoffman, Novak, T. P., & Chatterjee, P., "Commercial scenarios for the web: opportunities and challenges," Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 1, 1995. [19] P. A. IBM, "Assuring Access for All. Living in the Information Society,". http://www.ibm.com/ibm/publicaffairs/access/index.html: IBM Corporation, 1997. [20] U. S. Department of Justice.: ADA Homepage, Available Online at: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm. [21] A. M. Kautzman, "Virtuous, Virtual Access: Making Web Pages Accessible to People with Disabilities," Searcher, vol. 6, pp. 42-49, 1998. [22] G. R. Kiani, "Marketing opportunities in the digital world," Internet Research, vol. 8, pp. 185-194, 1998. [23] M. Larkin, "Making web page content accessible to all," The Lancet, vol. 354, pp. 689, 1999. [24] M. Larkin, "Web gears up for people with disabilities," The Lancet, vol. 356, pp. 142-143, 2000. [25] M. Larkin, "Websites tuning in to users with disabilities," The Lancet, vol. 355, pp. 243, 2000. [26] L. F. Laux, McNally, P. R., Paciello, M. G., and Vanderheiden, G. C., "Designing the World Wide Web for people with disabilities: a user centered design approach," presented at ACM conference on Assistive technologies, Vancouver Canada, 1996. [27] E. Y. Li, "Marketing information systems in the top US companies: a longitudinal analysis," Information and Management, vol. 28, pp. 13-31, 1995. [28] E. Y. Li, McLeod, R. Jr., and Rogers, J. C., "Marketing Information Systems in the Fortune 500 Companies: Past, Present, and Future," Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 10, pp. 165-192, 1993. [29] C. Liu, Arnett, K. P., Capella, L. M., and Beatty, R. C., "Web sites of the Fortune 500 companies: Facing customers through home pages," Information & Management, vol. 31, pp. 335-345, 1997. [30] R. J. McLeod, and Rogers, J. C., "Marketing Information Systems: Uses in the Fortune 500," California Management Review, vol. 25, pp. 106-108, 1982. [31] N. C. Romano, Jr., "Customer Relations Management in Information Systems Research," presented at Proceedings of the America's Conference on Information Systems (AIS 2000), Longbeach, California, 2000. [32] N. C. Romano, Jr., "Customer Relations Management Research: An assessment of Sub Field Development and Maturity," presented at Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, 2001.

.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 10



[33] A. Schmetzke, "Web Page Accessibility at Twenty-four U.S. Universities: 2000 Survey Data,".: University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, 2000. [34] T. Strader, and Hendrickson, A. R., "Consumer Opportunity, Ability and Motivation as a Framework for Electronic Market Research," Electronic Markets, vol. 9, pp. 5, 1999. [35] G. C. Vanderheiden, and Chisholm, W.A., "Unified Web Site Accessibility Guidelines: Avaialble online at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/central.htm,", vol. 2001: Trace Research and Development Center at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, 1998. [36] W. W. W. C. W3C, "Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI): HTML Author Guidelines--version 1.0 : http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/,"., 1998. [37] C. D. Waddell, and Thomason, K. L., "Law Firm Homepages and the ADA," in The Internet Lawyer, vol. November, 1998, pp. Available onlien at: http://kevinleethomason.com/articles/til-ada-and-homepages.html. [38] H. A. Wan, "Opportunities to enhance a commercial website," Information & Management, vol. 38, pp. 15-21, 2000.

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 115th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-35�02) 7.00 © 2002 IEEE


Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii Internation0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 © 2002 IEEE

Table 6. Fortune 100 Companies Sorted by Number of Accessibility Errors U# Rank Company Website URL Bobby P1 P1UC P2 P2UC P3 P3UC BC DL

1 31 Chase Manhattan Corp. http://www.chase.com Yes 0 1 0 2 1 2 0 0.62 69 Duke Energy http://www.duke-energy.com Yes 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0.553 78 Bristol-Myers Squibb http://www.bms.com Yes 0 1 0 2 1 2 0 0.754 79 Sara Lee http://www.saralee.com Yes 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0.595 80 FleetBoston http://www.fleetbankbostonmerger.com Yes 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0.556 3 Exxon Mobil http://www.exxon.mobil.com Yes 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 0.87 16 Sears Roebuck http://www.sears.com Yes 0 1 1 3 1 2 0 0.628 56 Dell Computer http://www.dell.com Yes 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0.669 87 Xerox http://www.xerox.com/ Yes 0 4 1 7 1 2 8 0.56

10 89 Dow Chemical http://www.dow.com Yes 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 0.611 60 ConAgra http://www.conagra.com Yes 0 2 1 5 2 4 2 2.5312 93 CVS http://www.cvs.com Yes 0 4 1 6 2 3 0 6.913 97 Federated Department Stores http://www.federated-fds.com Yes 0 3 1 4 2 4 2 1.0514 46 United Parcel Service http://www.ups.com Yes 0 6 1 6 3 7 0 32.9215 23 Procter & Gamble http://www.pg.com Yes 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 0.516 24 Albertson's http://www.albertsons.com Yes 0 4 2 3 0 3 0 0.5417 25 MCI WorldCom http://www.mciworldcom.com Yes 0 4 2 1 0 2 0 0.518 1 General Motors www.gm.com Yes 0 1 2 2 1 2 0 0.5519 38 McKesson HBOC http://www.mckesson.com Yes 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0.7620 51 USX http://www.usx.com Yes 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 0.6121 58 BellSouth http://www.bellsouthcorp.com Yes 0 4 2 1 1 2 0 0.6522 83 Coca-Cola http://www.cocacola.com/ Yes 0 2 2 3 1 2 1 0.7623 44 Costco Wholesale http://www.costco.com Yes 0 5 2 7 2 3 6 1.7724 64 Berkshire Hathaway http://www.berkshirehathaway.com Yes 0 4 2 7 2 7 0 7.3825 12 SBC Communications http://www.sbc.com Yes 0 8 2 9 3 6 9 51.8726 6 Intl. Business Machines http://www.ibm.com Yes 0 6 2 7 4 8 11 19.8527 13 Hewlett-Packard http://www.hp.com Yes 0 5 3 9 2 7 7 37.0728 67 First Union Corp. http://www.firstunion.com Yes 0 7 4 12 3 9 13 49.5629 68 Wells Fargo http://www.wellsfargo.com Yes 0 5 4 11 4 8 7 46.0730 75 Cigna http://www.cigna.com No 1 3 0 5 1 3 1 1.1231 30 Morgan Stanley Dean Witter http://www.msdw.com No 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 0.9832 35 Chevron http://www.chevron.com No 1 1 1 4 1 3 0 1.1333 53 Metropolitan Life Insurance http://www.metlife.com No 1 4 1 2 1 2 0 0.6134 66 Walt Disney http://www.disney.com No 1 4 1 5 1 3 0 2.1535 76 PepsiCo http://www.pepsico.com No 1 4 1 2 1 2 0 0.7336 14 Kroger http://www.kroger.com No 1 5 1 6 2 7 5 23.2237 86 UnitedHealth Group http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com No 1 4 1 7 2 7 5 46.838 90 UtiliCorp http://www.utilicorp.com No 1 1 1 6 2 3 3 1.2739 99 Supervalu http://www.supervalu.com No 1 4 1 6 2 4 4 7.3640 7 Citigroup http://www.citigroup.com No 1 4 1 2 3 6 0 0.6241 28 Texaco http://www.texaco.com No 1 1 2 2 1 2 0 1.1442 43 Johnson & Johnson http://www.jnj.com No 1 3 2 4 2 4 2 1.943 49 Aetna http://www.aetna.com/ No 1 5 2 5 2 7 3 17.5844 34 Merck http://www.merck.com No 1 5 2 7 3 7 6 51.6945 77 AMR http://www.amrcorp.com No 1 7 2 11 3 6 9 12.5146 42 E.I. du Pont de Nemours http://www.dupont.com/ No 1 5 2 6 4 6 11 16.3947 21 Home Depot http://www.homedepot.com No 1 4 3 3 1 2 0 1.2148 61 International Paper http://www.ipaper.com No 1 0 3 2 1 2 0 0.5749 63 AutoNation http://corp.autonation.com No 1 6 3 8 3 6 13 66.6650 73 PG&E Corp. http://www.pgecorp.com No 1 5 3 7 3 4 5 19.4951 100 Bergen Brunswig http://www.bergenbrunswig.com No 1 4 3 5 3 6 6 19.2352 18 Enron http://www.enron.com No 1 6 3 12 4 8 10 35.2653 22 Lucent Technologies http://www.lucent.com No 1 8 3 8 4 8 4 27.0154 39 Intel http://www.intel.com No 1 5 3 8 4 7 6 30.5355 81 Sprint http://www.sprint.com No 1 6 3 9 4 7 12 24.0756 88 Lehman Brothers Holdings http://www.lehman.com No 1 6 3 8 4 7 7 32.957 41 Ingram Micro http://www.ingrammicro.com No 1 5 3 12 5 9 4 19.5758 50 Bank One Corp. http://www.bankone.com/ No 1 6 4 7 2 6 8 31.2559 36 J.C. Penney http://www1.jcpenney.com/jcp No 1 7 4 11 3 8 9 50.6860 70 New York Life Insurance http://www.newyorklife.com No 1 7 4 10 3 7 24 45.761 82 Raytheon http://www.raytheon.com/ No 1 5 4 6 3 7 7 53.7562 8 AT&T http://www.att.com No 1 7 4 10 4 8 2 23.5663 55 GTE http://www.gte.com/ No 1 5 4 8 4 7 1 24.3964 74 Conoco http://www.conoco.com No 1 7 4 9 4 9 12 32.665 94 UAL http://www.united.com No 1 5 4 10 4 9 9 27.4766 17 American International Group http://www.aig.com No 1 5 5 12 3 7 8 23.0567 9 Philip Morris http://www.philipmorris.com No 1 7 5 9 4 8 6 39.9868 15 State Farm Insurance Cos. http://www.statefarm.com No 1 7 5 11 4 8 10 24.9869 29 Merrill Lynch http://www.ml.com No 1 9 5 12 4 7 15 31.0970 72 Loews http://www.loews.com No 2 5 1 8 1 3 3 5.9471 26 Fannie Mae http://www.fanniemae.com/ No 2 5 2 6 3 8 3 45.4572 40 Safeway http://www.safeway.com No 2 6 3 7 3 6 8 54.0573 71 American Express http://www.americanexpress.com No 2 6 3 11 3 9 12 39.274 11 Bank of America Corp. http://www.bankofamerica.com No 2 6 3 11 4 7 8 28.6975 33 Bell Atlantic http://www.bellatlantic.com/ No 2 5 3 6 4 6 3 25.876 37 Motorola http://www.motorola.com No 2 5 3 8 4 7 10 38.3977 62 Freddie Mac http://www.freddiemac.com No 2 6 3 8 4 7 12 51.4778 96 Georgia-Pacific http://www.gp.com No 2 6 3 9 5 8 11 53.6279 4 Ford Motor http://www.ford.com No 2 7 4 9 3 8 16 42.980 10 Boeing http://www.boeing.com No 2 4 4 6 3 7 3 18.881 95 Walgreens http://www.walgreens.com No 2 6 4 9 3 7 13 35.5482 27 Kmart http://www.bluelight.com No 2 7 4 14 4 9 17 43.1983 48 Prudential Ins. Co. of America http://www.prudential.com No 2 7 4 10 4 7 11 35.4684 65 Honeywell International http://www.honeywell.com No 2 7 4 12 4 10 15 45.4685 84 Microsoft http://www.microsoft.com No 2 6 4 11 4 7 12 17.0886 20 Compaq Computer http://www.compaq.com No 2 6 5 12 3 8 9 29.987 2 Wal-Mart Stores http://www.walmart.com No 2 6 5 12 4 9 12 36.488 47 Allstate http://www.allstate.com No 2 5 5 10 4 8 5 28.8589 5 General Electric http://www.ge.com No 2 5 5 10 5 8 17 74.5490 54 Goldman Sachs Group http://www.gs.com No 2 7 5 10 5 7 11 24.2991 57 United Technologies http://www.utc.com No 2 8 6 13 4 8 14 66.492 59 Cardinal Health http://www.cardinal-health.com No 3 6 3 8 3 5 11 20.2493 19 TIAA-CREF http://www.tiaa-cref.org No 3 6 4 11 4 9 15 17.3194 85 Caterpillar http://www.cat.com No 3 7 4 10 4 8 13 61.1595 32 Target http://www.targetcorp.com No 3 6 4 10 5 8 14 52.3196 91 Electronic Data Systems http://www.eds.com No 3 7 4 10 5 9 11 57.897 98 Sysco http://www.sysco.com No 3 7 4 12 5 8 11 42.8998 52 Lockheed Martin http://www.lockheedmartin.com No 3 6 6 11 4 8 10 49.899 92 J.P. Morgan & Co. http://www.jpmorgan.com No 3 15 6 26 7 16 11 22.69

100 45 Time Warner http://www.time.com/time No 4 8 4 12 5 8 12 82

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 12al Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-35�02)

Customer Relationship Management for the Web-Access ...

Documents

Transcript of Customer Relationship Management for the Web-Access ...