Web accessibility in Spanish city councils: a challenge for the democratic inclusion and well-being of citizens

Abstract

Public institutions find an open window and greater transparency towards citizens in the digital sphere. So much so that the websites of local corporations can be considered an instrument of democratic inclusion and overall well-being. However, web accessibility continues to be a pending issue in order to encourage any person, regardless of their physical, mental or age capabilities, to interact without any kind of barrier. This paper analyses the web accessibility of 18 provincial capital city councils in Spain, comparing two periods to detect compliance with the requirements of adaptation to citizenship by applying the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. The results show that accessibility to the websites of local corporations is still an unresolved issue. The commitment to web accessibility is not related to the size of cities or their budgetary level. It is necessary to undertake the appropriate improvements if they want, in their commitment to all citizens, to not leave out two key groups: people with functional diversity and the elderly. The contribution of this work goes beyond the need to use a type of analysis model to evaluate the democratisation of websites as digital public services and, consequently, it raises a series of practical implications relevant to the political decision-making bodies of local councils.

Introduction

Technological development and the irruption of the Internet bring new scenarios of access, information and participation to society as a whole. The growing interest in this subject has led to a proliferation of research studies that highlight the potential of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in the field of democracy (Becker, 1998; Kneuer and Datts, 2020). Indeed, the term digital democracy is coined to describe the phenomenon that explains how advances in the digital realm provide an opportunity to articulate new practices of citizenship inclusion that bring about social, economic and political gains and overall well-being (McConnell and Becker, 2002). In some ways, these new challenges result in better governance and greater transparency of social and political institutions of different kinds (Pieper, 2012). However, recent work such as that of Kneuer and Datts (2020) focuses on the spatial dimensions of their implementation (national, transnational, etc.) and it is conceivable that their application at the most local level (local councils) may also entail some particularities. Likewise, it seems that the level of development of political systems and the exposure and familiarity with digital media may also condition the use and activism in a general way on any digital platform offered to citizens (García Luengo, 2006). According to Epting (2021) and Fernández-Díaz et al. (2023), social isolation causes suffering and generates a negative impact and can undermine the abilities of the most vulnerable people in their day-to-day lives in the society in which we live, which is why it also requires special attention. For this reason, a study methodology based on technological tools that could offer benefits if they receive the appropriate attention is proposed.

Public policy shapes the experience of being a citizen in a given country (Fang et al., 2022), and governments recognise that digital transformation can help them achieve this. Internet-age technologies are increasingly being applied in public services, impacting the experience of healthcare, education and the economy, as well as rethinking how we use the environment around us and the social support we provide to one another in our communities. While countries are embracing these changes in the hope that no one will be left behind, there are risks that a “digital by default” approach will eliminate face-to-face or telephone channels without thinking through the implications for digital infrastructure provision or for those who lack access to the Internet or the skills to maximise its benefits (OECD, 2022).

Nonetheless, there is a gap in the literature as the challenge of digital democratisation and the effective and standardised validation of web accessibility are not being brought together (Vermeeren et al., 2016).

Responsive environments applied to the websites of governments, public administrations and local corporations must be approached from theory and practice in order to include the entire citizenry in the digital sphere in the processes of reflection, decision-making and participation typical of our era. Generally speaking, remaining on the sidelines of these new approaches implies the generation of invisible barriers for certain groups, among which people with functional diversity stand out (Fleming et al., 2018; Zimmermann et al., 2019). We could refer to digital democracy and effective inclusion of citizens only if the content, design, navigation and access to websites meet minimum standards that ensure equal opportunities for all.

The digital era has brought profound changes in organisations and institutions, as well as in new habits of citizen behaviour, hence many everyday procedures have been modified, making it easier for users to access a wide range of content on the web (IAB Spain, 2019). This technological evolution in turn becomes a barrier that prevents all citizens from accessing such content with the same ease if they have a disability, as the code of accessible websites is lighter and more efficient. Websites that are better adapted ensure that a wider population can access them (WebAIM, 2021). The public sector and, more specifically, public administrations’ dealings with their public have undergone substantial changes.

The recommendation on Digital Government Strategies provides a framework to ensure that in the design, delivery and operation of policy and services, public servants and elected representatives can maximise the impact of digital, data and technology to improve and enhance the well-being of those under their care (OECD, 2022).

In Spain, in February 2013, the government approved the Digital Agenda, which established the strategy for the development of the economy and the digitalisation of public administrations, thus becoming the umbrella for the government’s actions in the field of telecommunications and the information society, in parallel with the European framework (Digital Agenda, 2021). Its lines of action are articulated around six main objectives, including promoting inclusion and ensuring that citizens, especially the most disadvantaged groups, benefit from the opportunities offered by the digital society. According to Luengo and García-Marín (2019), Spain has now reached European standards in record time and interactions with institutions cannot be understood without considering the new digital economy.

As of 1st January 2019, public administrations are obliged to interact telematically with their stakeholders. This is dictated by Law 39/2015 on the Common Administrative Procedure for Public Administrations (Boletín Oficial del Estado, 2015). This law is applicable to the relations of any natural or legal person with the entire public sector, including, therefore, the General State Administration, the Administrations of the Autonomous Communities, the Entities that make up the Local Administration and the institutional public sector.

The United Nations (2006) established a Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopting measures for States Parties to take them into account by ensuring that persons with disabilities have access to ICTs, physical environments and other services.

The World Health Organization (2020) estimated that more than one billion people suffer from some kind of disability, and that the numbers are increasing due to the ageing population. Therefore, we are facing an important social challenge, as it is not only a question of eliminating the physical barriers that occur in the environment, but we must also aspire to make Internet content accessible to all types of users, regardless of their disability. The concept of web accessibility is based on the essence of the message “design for all”, through compliance with a set of technologies and standards that are applied in the development of a web page, making it easier for the user to use and understand these contents (Observatorio de Infoaccesibilidad de Discapnet, 2004).

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is the international community founded with the aim of making web content and information available to all types of users. The W3C establishes the guidelines that must be complied with based on verification points and establishes certain levels of compliance with web accessibility (W3C, 2021a, 2021b).

The current guidelines incorporate new indicators that make it possible to comply with the recommended web accessibility and serve as a guide for web developers and designers, especially in the public sector. In this sense, this aspect takes on special relevance, since the digital profiles that are most in contact with the development of digital platforms and the construction of the web architecture itself must be based on these coding and design standards, taking into account ethical and social objectives (Serrano Mascaraque et al., 2010). Due to the importance of web accessibility from the point of view of social inclusion, studies carried out on this discipline are increasingly necessary (Acosta-Vargas et al., 2018a; Hernández and Amado-Salvatierra, 2012; Hilera et al., 2013; Ismail and Kuppusamy, 2018; Ribera et al., 2009; Sosa et al., 2015) even highlighting studies oriented towards digital accessibility related to public health (Safarov, 2021; Yu, 2021). Also noteworthy is the study carried out in Spain on the analysis of web accessibility in the portals of town councils in provincial capitals, by Discapnet’s Infoaccessibility Observatory (2008). However, although users with disabilities are always mentioned in connection with the concept of web accessibility, the W3C (2005) states that compliance with web accessibility also favours users without disabilities, for example, if they do not have a fast Internet connection, or if they are elderly and have limited physical abilities1.

Based on this scenario, the following research question is posed: Q1. Do local councils take the international guidelines on web accessibility into account in order to articulate a participatory and inclusive digital environment for citizens? Answering this question requires taking a standardised model that provides concrete empirical evidence, so we have opted for the international criteria and guidelines of the World Wide Web Consortium. The main objective of this research is to analyse how local corporations internalise this social challenge in the digital sphere. Furthermore, some interest is raised as to whether a change in the internalisation of global inclusion of all groups of people linked to local authorities is discernible over time. Not only is it noted that institutions are more permeable and transparent to their audiences and must provide citizens with as many mechanisms and tools as appropriate to make this effective, but also that accessibility regulations have been updated to be consistent with the new reality. Have local councils been able to adapt to the new challenges of e-democracy by including a declaration of accessibility compliance in accordance with the new regulations proposed by the W3C in their web portals? In order to answer this question, the evolution of the portals in recent years is analysed. This question is also a contribution to the previous literature, given that there are few studies that analyse the accessibility of public institutions and introduce participatory inclusion and e-democracy as a focus. Currently, there is a wide range of tools that support the analysis of web accessibility. The most important tools used by researchers in recent years are TAW (2023) and Wave (2023), both of which allow us to study the accessibility of web pages and indicating those aspects that require improvement. In this study, the Wave tool has been used since it is endorsed by the Webaim organization “Web accessibility in mind” and supported by other studies that have analysed web pages of other public government agencies highlighting Al-Sakran and Alsudairi (2021); Liu et al. (2019); Sanchez-Gordon et al. (2020).

The depth of analysis of each sample unit is noteworthy in this study, as a total of 5 pages were included for each of the local councils analysed. This varying number of pages analysed is usually a controversial point of discussion in accessibility studies, for example, Ribera et al. (2009) selected 2 web pages from each university, Acosta-Vargas et al. (2018a) analysed the home page and Hilera et al. (2013) analysed 3 pages. It is also worth mentioning the report by the Observatorio de Infoaccesibilidad de Discapnet (2008), which analysed the web accessibility of the main town councils in Spain, selecting 5 pages for evaluation, but evaluating WCAG 1.0. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that there is no previous research analysing the evolution of digital accessibility compliance over a given period of time in the sphere of public institutions. Consequently, it worth’s to point out that the main contribution of this research work regarding the theoretical framework is that the digital sphere enables citizens participation as well as tourist promotion and outreach of cities, even making those cities more inclusive and engaged with special collective -as functional diversity people or elderly. The results show that Web Accessibility remains being a challenge for public institutions but they are in the way to be more credible, trustworthy and transparent.

This study is divided into four main sections: introduction, methodology, analysis of results, discussion and conclusions. The first section explores the relationship between web accessibility and the inclusion of citizens in the digital sphere, as a key challenge for local councils today. The methodology section details the tools used to analyse accessibility in 18 local council portals. The analysis shows that all Spanish local councils have not yet managed to adapt to the normative framework (WCAG) 2.1, although it is expected that they will be overridden by WCAG 2.2. (Campbell, 2020). It should be noted, according to the latest draft of W3C, WCAG 3.0 is close to its international approval and therefore will contemplate other aspects related to interactive content, visual and auditory media, and virtual and augmented reality, so the dimension digital takes on special relevance (W3C, 2023). In general terms, more deficiencies are evident in the latest versions to reach the accessibility quotas that make the integration of the most vulnerable groups effective, highlighting people with functional diversity and adding the elderly. Finally, the discussion and conclusions are shown, as well as the recommendations proposed to solve the errors and alerts that have been detected in the analysis.

Methodology

Sample

The main objective of this research is to verify whether the 18 portals analysed from town councils in the provincial capitals of Spain are ready to adapt to the new accessibility regulations established by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C, 2021a), assessing their current level of compliance with digital accessibility and comparing it with the results already analysed in 2015 in these portals.

To carry out the analysis, a stratified random sample of a total of 18 portals has been selected under the premise that local corporations are present, with the aim of achieving a holistic representation, the sample is divided into 4 groups; Group 1: the metropolitan areas in Spain, and Groups 2, 3 and 4 represent large, medium and small municipalities, with respect to population and per capita income (Table 1). This representative sample of local corporations at the digital level is an example of how, regardless of whether it is a municipality with a greater or lesser number of registered citizens, its digital channels must be prepared for the elimination of barriers, whether technological or physical, that prevent access to the digital content of their city to carry out procedures or queries through forms.

Table 1. Homepages of the 18 local councils analysed.

	Local councils	Homepages analysed
Group 1	Madrid	https://www.madrid.es
	Barcelona	https://www.barcelona.cat
Group 2	Malaga	http://www.malaga.eu/
	Murcia	http://www.ayto-murcia.es/
	Palma de Mallorca	https://www.palma.cat
	Oviedo	https://www.oviedo.es/
	Pamplona	https://www.pamplona.es/
	Santander	http://santander.es/
	San Sebastian	https://www.donostia.eus/
	Castellón de la Plana	http://www.castello.es/
	Albacete	http://www.albacete.es/
	Logroño	http://www.logroño.es/
Group 4	Cáceres	https://www.ayto-caceres.es/
	Lugo	https://www.lugo.gal
	Ceuta	https://www.ceuta.es/
	Soria	https://www.soria.es/
	Teruel	http://www.teruel.es

From each portal, 5 pages are analysed based on the following criteria: (1) Home page: main page of the website; (2) Standard page: second level reference page of the website, which marks the structure of the rest of the interiors of the page; (3) Page with tables: page that shows the content laid out using tables; (4) Page with a form: to carry out a management or query through a contact page, etc.; (5) Search result: this is usually used to extract information necessary for locating content and is checked by searching for a keyword, which in this case of analysis the word “web accessibility” is used as an example. Appendix Table 3 shows in detail each of the 5 pages that have been analysed.

Measuring instruments

This is an exploratory type of research and by means of quantitative analysis, the accessibility of a total of 88 pages (the year 2015) and 87 pages (the year 2021) of 18 portals of the town councils of the provincial capitals of Spain has been evaluated. The study began in 2015 and a comparison was made with respect to the year 2021, during the months of March, April and May. This evaluation period allows a comparison of the results and determines whether these pages have improved their compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 and whether the budgetary level and size of the cities demonstrate a direct relationship to the level of adaptation to the standards of web accessibility. The W3C establishes the guidelines that must be complied with based on certain checkpoints and establishes certain levels of Web accessibility compliance, namely WCAG 1.0, WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1 (W3C, 2018). The W3C (2021c) also establishes that each of these guidelines is based on levels of compliance according to the level of compliance of each of the verification points: Compliance level A (the least demanding), double A; and triple A (the most demanding). The latest approved regulation includes 13 guidelines, maintaining the 4 principles of the WCAG 2.0 (perceptible, operable, understandable and robustness), but incorporating 17 more compliance criteria, with a total of 78, divided into three levels of compliance (A, AA and AAA) (Revilla Muñoz and Carreras Montoto, 2018).

Data collection

From the point of view of data analysis, this has been carried out using a tool specialised in digital accessibility analysis. Among the tools available that analyse the level of compliance with the WCAG 2.0 are the following: TAW, Examinator, Koa11y or Cynthia Says (Acosta-Vargas et al., 2018b). For this study, the Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool (Wave, 2021), recommended by the W3C and developed by WebAIM, an organisation whose mission is based on providing digital accessibility solutions, is used (WebAIM, 2021). The data collection and subsequent benchmarking of this study has been carried out through the Wave tool’s mode, integrating it into the Google Chrome toolbar (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 [Images not available. See PDF.]

Example of results from the Wave tool used for the analysis.

This analysis platform has indicators that it displays as it analyses each of the URLs, the significance of which is detailed below:

Red “Errors” icons: these are the errors shown on the web page that must be fixed as they do not comply with WCAG 2.0. It provides a lot of information to help the expert to identify them and recommendations to solve them (Table 2).

Table 2. Comparative research data collection tool total errors.

		ERRORS- 2015					Total errors 2015	ERRORS- 2021					Total errors 2021
		URLS DE ESTUDIO						URLS DE ESTUDIO
		1-(H)	2-(T)	3-(Ta)	4-(F)	5-(S)		1-(H)	2-(T)	3-(Ta)	4-(F)	5-(S)
GROUP 1	Madrid	0	0	1	29	2	32	1	1	6	30	4	42
	Barcelona	3	2	1	0	3	9	10	20	5	4	2	41
GROUP 2	Málaga	1	3	13	2	1	20	3	2	2	2		9
	Murcia	1	15	12	6	1	35	1	1	1	1	2	6
	Palma de Mallorca	0	7	2	2	5	16	0	0	3	3	3	9
GROUP 3	Sta. Cruz Tenerife	4	1	1	6	5	17	2	2		3	3	10
	Oviedo	2	1	1	1	1	6	0	0	0	2	3	5
	Pamplona	22	0	0	0	1	23	11	6	6	6	6	35
	Santander	0	0	0	0	1	1	7	0	5	1	0	13
	San Sebastián	6	3	1	5	3	18	20	0	4	2	7	33
	Castellón de la Plana	2	5	5	29	2	43	9	1	0	25		35
	Albacete	3	35	35	21	8	102	1	30	30	1	1	63
	Logroño	27	12	4	43	20	106	7	0	1	1	0	9
GROUP 4	Cáceres	4	3	1	2	4	14	17	5	0	5	4	31
	Lugo	3	0	2	0	0	5	0	0	0	1	0	1
	Ceuta	1	1	1	0	4	7	1	1	1	2	1	6
	Soria	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	4	7	4	4	24
	Teruel	9	3	7			19	0	5	9	1	3	18
	TOTAL	88	91	87	146	61	473						390

Green “Features” icons: indicate accessibility features that are met, but need to be verified later in a manual review.

Yellow “Alerts” icons: indicate those elements that need to be checked because they probably do not fully comply with the requirements of WCAG 2.0, and therefore need to be observed and checked afterwards, to modify them in case they are wrong or to maintain them in case they are correct.

In addition, other icons appear, such as “Structurals” and “Html 5 and Aria” which are other structural elements that show the expert the structure of the page and allow one to check which criteria are fulfilled and which are not, but which are considered for a later manual check.

Contrast “Errors” icons: these are contrast errors, which help to identify possible problems that may arise between the colours of the web background and the text, even indicating possible colour solutions through the tool itself.

During the research, an observatory-type manual analysis was carried out on each of the 18 portals to see what standard of compliance they claimed to have in the accessibility section, comparing the time period 2015–2021. There were portals that specified that they complied with WCAG 1.0 double A, others that claimed to have WCAG 2.0 double A or triple A, and even portals that did not specify which accessibility guidelines they complied with.

Results

Taking into account the results obtained after analysing the 18 portals and their 88 pages (the year 2015) and 87 pages (the year 2021), it is worth noting that the total number of errors has slightly decreased by around 17%, from 473 to 473 errors, 390 in the total number of accumulated errors (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 [Images not available. See PDF.]

Errors detected for each page analysed and year (2015–2021).

The fact that the errors have decreased slightly with respect to 2015 is still too high considering the years that have passed and may be due to the fact that as local councils have been adjusting their websites to the new technological needs of recent years, the elements that make up the website have been affected by these changes and have not been adapted to the required compliance with respect to web accessibility, for example, adaptations of the website to responsive design so that it adapts to all mobile devices. It can be seen that approximately 39% of the portals analysed have increased the total number of errors with respect to those they had in 2015, especially affecting Town Councils in Groups 1 and 4. Among the most common errors is “1.1.1. Non-text Content” in level A, which deals with the lack of alternative text in images. Another common error is often Level A’s “2.4.4 Link purpose (in context)”, which deals with a button that is empty or has no text value. This commonly missed success criterion is also associated in the tool with the “Empty link” error, which refers to a link containing no text. All of these errors can cause confusion for screen readers.

With regard to the total number of alerts, it can be seen that these have increased considerably by more than 32% compared to the 2015 data (Fig. 3). Furthermore, it can be observed that approximately 72% of the portals analysed have increased the total number of alerts in 2021 with respect to the 2015 data, affecting local councils in all groups, except one belonging to Group 1 and two local councils in Groups 3 and 4. Non-text Content” of level A is also among the most common of the alerts.

Fig. 3 [Images not available. See PDF.]

Alerts detected for each page analysed and year (2015–2021).

Figure 4 shows the data evaluated on the contrast errors between the text and the background of the website. In this case, these have also increased by approximately 45% with respect to the 2015 data, so that in this respect there has also been no improvement according to the analysis of the automatic tool. It can be seen that approximately 50% of the portals analysed have increased the total number of contrast errors with respect to the 2015 data, with Group 1 being exempt in this case, and especially affecting the local councils in Groups 3 and 4.

Fig. 4 [Images not available. See PDF.]

Contrast errors detected for each page analysed and year (2015–2021).

With regard to the results obtained in terms of the accessibility characteristics “Features” and the structure of the web page “Structurals”, they have increased by approximately 24% and 83% respectively in 2021. As for the data collected on “html 5 and Aria”, it should be noted that they have also increased, exceeding 100%, which shows an important technological evolution. These data help to identify the elements that make up the page and provide information on its structure, complementing the previous data.

Taking into account the total number of errors according to the type of page analysed in the 4 groups of the sample evaluated and their comparison between the years 2015–2021, Fig. 5 shows that in Group 1 the highest number of errors detected is concentrated on the form page in both 2015 and 2021. There is even a worsening if we compare the results for the year 2021 with those for 2015 in all the types of pages analysed within this group. In Group 2, unlike Group 1, all page types show an improvement in accessibility in 2021 compared to 2015, except for the home page, which shows an increase in errors. In Group 3, the number of errors is much higher with respect to the page types of the rest of the Groups (1, 2 and 4), and hardly any differences can be seen in the comparison of the years 2015–2021, except for the standard page and the search engine page, which do show an improvement in accessibility, with a decrease in the number of errors in the year 2021 with respect to 2015. In Group 4, all page types show more errors in 2021 compared to 2015, thus determining that web accessibility has not improved in the pages analysed in this group.

Fig. 5 [Images not available. See PDF.]

Type of page analysed (2015–2021).

Note: 1-(I)-15 / 21—Home page year 2015 / 2021; 2-(Ti)-15 / 21—Type page year 2015/ 2021; 3-(Ta)- 15/21—Tables page year 2015/ 2021; 4-(F)-15/21—Form page year 2015/2021; 5-(B)-15/21—Search engine year 2015/2021.

Figures 4 and 5 show that there has been an evolution in terms of the level of compliance that they claim to have, although this does not mean that they actually comply correctly with the criteria, as can be seen in the previous results. In 2015, approximately 67% of the portals claimed to comply with WCAG 1.0 double A (Fig. 6), concentrating all the pages of the local councils analysed in Group 2, however, this has now been reduced to approximately 21% as more portals have been incorporated that claim to comply with WCAG 2.0, whether double A or even triple A (Fig. 7). The total number of portals that still do not specify their level of compliance is higher in 2021 with 33.33% (Fig. 7), concentrating a part of the pages belonging to Groups 3 and 4, which also coincide with part of the municipalities shown within this range in Fig. 6 in 2015, with 22.22%.

Fig. 6 [Images not available. See PDF.]

Levels of accessibility that each portal claims to comply with on its website (year 2015).

Note: G1- Group 1; G2- Group 2; G3-Group 3; G4-Group 4.

Fig. 7 [Images not available. See PDF.]

Levels of accessibility that each portal claims to comply with on its website (year 2021).

Note: G1- Group 1; G2- Group 2; G3-Group 3; G4-Group 4.

Discussion

The theory put forward in this paper links with results providing answers to the research questions proposed. Thus, this study points out a number of issues that are addressed in contrast with extant literature in the particular case of local councils. The insights provided by this research highlight that the originality of this article lies in identifying accessibility as an opportunity for social inclusion and well-being. From the analysis of the results, the most salient issues are detailed below:

P1. The municipalities in Spain do not comply with the levels of accessibility established by current international standards. In agreement with Luengo and García-Marín (2019), the profound change and effort made towards the digitalisation of institutions and consequently greater citizen participation in the digital sphere is noted. However, the web accessibility of these institutions is still not taken into account in order to articulate a participatory digital environment for citizens, as a very high number of accessibility errors are detected, and the same occurs with the alerts that do not comply with the established guidelines of the WCAG 2.0, and therefore local councils are not prepared to adapt to the new regulations that are recommended to comply with WCAG 2.1 in Spain. Among the most common errors and alerts are the lack of alternative text in the images, buttons that are empty or have no text value, or a link that contains no text. All of these errors and alerts can cause confusion for screen readers and should be addressed by incorporating alternative text within the “Alt” tag of images or by including text in links. A heuristic analysis to check the identified errors and alerts is recommended, as well as the development of a test for users with different types of disabilities, in order to check the results. Assistive technology, screen readers, colour contrasts, text settings, subtitles, etc. should also be tested according to the type of disability.

P2. With regard to the accessibility declaration that the local councils claim to comply with on their websites, it can be concluded that there is still much room for improvement, as only Santa Cruz de Tenerife council claims to comply with the latest regulations approved by the W3C. From a comparative point of view, it can be seen that there has been a positive evolution in terms of the level of compliance in recent years, although not enough, as 33.33% of the sample still does not specify the level of accessibility it complies with. The fact that there are still accessibility statements that claim to comply with WCAG 1.0, which was replaced in 2012, shows that administrations are not aware of digital accessibility.

As indicated in previous sections, the topic of digital democracy and responsive environments has attracted increasing interest in the last decade (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2010; Zimmermann et al., 2019) but this has not been done in an integrated and coherent way or with a standardised methodology focused on WCAG criteria and guidelines that enable organisations to assess the effective adaptation of their accessibility to their audiences as a whole. This work, in line with Becker (1998), underlines the capacity of the digital sphere to assume the social commitments of inclusion and to make them transparent by applying affordable minimums with current technological advances. Likewise, in agreement with Pieper (2012) and Vermeeren et al. (2016), it is clear that the concern for responsive environments demanded by the groups concerned is far from being satisfied in view of the empirical evidence in this paper. On the other hand, it is worth highlighting the scarcity of web accessibility studies that exist on local councils, as most of the research that has been carried out focuses on analysing the websites of both national and international universities, or of other sectors. The findings of this study coincide with those of Acosta-Vargas et al. (2018a) in terms of the main errors and alerts detected, as well as the lack of compliance with the WCAG 2.0 web accessibility criteria. Furthermore, the analysis of the local level supports recent contributions to the literature emphasising the need to delve deeper into territoriality as an explanatory element of citizens’ participation and interest in democracy on the Internet (Kneuer and Datts, 2020). Nevertheless, it is emphasised that previous work does not adopt the prism of inclusion as a social challenge for social participation and effective democracy in the digital sphere.

One of the contributions of this work is the extent of the analysis carried out, taking a total of 5 representative pages for each of the local councils analysed as a sample, compared to other studies that analyse a smaller volume of pages for each selected sample (Acosta-Vargas et al., 2018a; Hilera et al., 2013; Ribera et al., 2009). In some ways, the application of the WCAG Guidelines for analysis as a standard and internationally recognised methodology allows objective comparisons between institutions and countries over time. It is also noteworthy for its innovative nature with respect to the literature.

Most studies analyse web accessibility in a transversal way and therefore, the longitudinal nature of this study provides a new perspective regarding the introduction of new programs, such as the adaptation to responsive pages (which are accessible from all mobile devices). This is another of the main contributions of this study, as it analyses a comparative of a six-year period, from 2015 to 2021.

It should be noted that the improvement that has been detected is not directly related to the size or budgetary volume available to local councils, given that those that have shown an improvement with respect to 2015 do not correspond precisely to larger cities. If the groups analysed are taken into account, it can be seen that Group 1, belonging to large municipalities, shows an increase in errors and alerts with respect to previous years, although it does show an improvement in the comparison of contrast errors. In the case of Groups 2–4, there has been no pattern of improvement or worsening in web accessibility over the last few years, so it can be concluded that population size and total budget are not variables that are directly related to web accessibility. Furthermore, the redesigning of websites is recommended to local government managers and usability experts.

With regard to the limitations of this study, it is worth mentioning that the tool-based analysis should also be complemented with a user test using a group of people with different types of disabilities as a representative sample, as well as tools that they use as technical support during the browsing and content consultation process, such as screen readers. In addition, another limitation to consider is the speed with which technology advances and therefore the international guidelines of the W3C are updated to deal with these advances, this is the case of the current draft based on WCAG 3.0 and that will be taken into account in future (W3C, 2023).

As for future lines of research, given that the current WCAG 2.1 standard also ought to be applied to mobile applications of public administrations, analysis of the mobile applications of local councils, as well as other public bodies is also proposed to determine their level of compliance and verify if they are ready to comply with the new standard. Similarly, it would be of interest to include an analysis of the mechanisms for citizen participation available on the corporate websites of local councils. This could lead to a qualitative leap between inclusive websites and their capacity to incorporate the main people affected by them, the citizens, into the political decision-making process. Finally, with respect to the above, the triangulation of data incorporating the evaluation of citizens as key agents from their experience would provide a holistic and innovative vision on the subject.

The practical implications of this study indicate the need for a more inclusive website that ensures access to communication and information for all people and is therefore accessible not only to people with disabilities, but also to older users or those who simply have a technological barrier. This issue stands out as a relevant contribution because often, analyses have focused on people with functional diversity and do not emphasise a wider range of issues or barriers affecting specific groups. The relevance of the elderly segment in the Spanish population urges the consideration of responsive environments in the digital sphere. Similarly, the technological gap that can affect less densely populated municipalities and rural environments is also a pending issue in order to equalise the levels of inclusion and digital democracy that are desirable. The study also identifies where advances were achieved and the weaknesses that should be managed by the public authorities to improve web accessibility conditions. It is worth noting that this kind of analysis is revealed as being even more relevant in the post-pandemic world. Specifically, the practical implications could be related to different aspects. Firstly, in terms of tourism image, the inclusion of web accessibility could satisfy communities who may find the destination more attractive and appealing because the information is appropriate and adapted to their special requirements. In a way, it can be a guarantee that the destination empathises and takes into account all types of tourists. Secondly, municipalities should be citizen service-oriented and web accessibility also ensures that local authorities consider the circumstances and needs of all the citizens they serve. As a result of the above two implications, city reputation and positioning could be enhanced due to the coincidence between the political discourse of engagement with society from a holistic and inclusive point of view and their digital outreach strategy on corporate websites as city councils. Consequently, cities could be seen as more than just physical places and be connected and engaged with people by adopting an awareness-raising role to achieve an inclusive society.

This research is a further step forward in the field of e-democracy research because it shows how the digital sphere enables citizen participation in a global way in the most local dimension, specifically from the analysis of Spanish town councils. The growth of interest in this area is increasing and the special attention directed not only towards people with functional diversity but also to the elderly - due to their representation in the total population - implies a new challenge in the coming years. Web accessibility not only offers and affordable access to mainstream products and services but also creates development space for the socially excluded and marginalised people to achieve overall well-being. Consequently, the main contribution is not the topic broached in the current literature. Accessibility has been previously addressed, the issue here is the relevance of digital accessibility from a social and welfare point of view for public institutions, in this specific case, for city councils.

Conclusions

Eliminating the barriers that exclude the most vulnerable groups of citizens, people with functional diversity and the elderly, continues to be a challenge for the institutions analysed. Our study supports that the changes undertaken by local councils on their websites to make the transition from the previous WCAG 2.0 standard to the current WCAG 2.1 standard have contributed to a very small reduction in the total percentage of errors. It is determined that they have increased barriers and led to less inclusive portals and therefore greater discrimination. It has been verified that local councils have not been able to adapt and advance in accordance with the new challenges of e-democracy, noting that evolution over time, far from implying an improvement in the reduction of digital barriers for citizens, has meant a worsening of inclusive design, despite the declarations of accessibility that councils claim to comply with on their websites. Web accessibility can facilitate citizen participation at the local level and have a positive impact on well- being, credibility, transparency and trust in the closest public institutions. This work supports that the digitalisation with the effort to adapt web portals to standard accessibility guidelines and criteria offers an opportunity to better connect with people and favours the functioning of citizen participation and, therefore, democracy.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Universidad de Málaga/CBUA.

Author contributions

All authors have made contributions to all of the following: conception, design of the study and writing; acquisition of data; analysis and interpretation of data; critical revision for important intellectual content and final approval of this version. • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work: EF-D, CJ-M, PPI-S, CdlH-P. • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content: EF-D, CJ-M, PPI-S, CdlH-P. • Final approval of the version to be published: EF-D, CJ-M, PPI-S, CdlH-P. • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. EF-D, CJ-M, PPI-S, CdlH-P.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

1

In 2015, Teruel City Council did not have a formal page and search engine, so no data could be collected in this case. In 201521? (or, between 2015–2021) Malaga City Council’s website did not have its own search engine, as it was incorporated into its website via a Google frame outside the context and menu of the website itself; in the case of Castellón de la Plana, it does not have a search engine on its website; and finally, Santa Cruz de Tenerife City Council’s website does not have a page with tables. For this reason, 88 pages were analysed in 2015 and 87 pages in 2021 instead of 90 as initially established.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

Acosta-Vargas, P; Acosta, T; Luján-Mora, S. Challenges to assess accessibility in higher education websites: a comparative study of Latin America universities. IEEE Access; 2018; 6, pp. 36500-36508. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2848978]

Acosta-Vargas P, Luján-Mora S, Acosta T, Salvador-Ullauri L (2018b). Toward a combined method for evaluation of web accessibility. In: Rocha Á, Guarda T (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Technology & Systems (ICITS 2018). Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 602–613

Al-Sakran, HO; Alsudairi, MA. Usability and accessibility assessment of saudi arabia mobile e-government websites. IEEE Access; 2021; 9, pp. 48254-48275. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3068917]

Becker, T. ‘Governance and electronic innovation’: a clash of paradigms. Information. Commun Soc; 1998; 1, pp. 339-343. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691189809358973]

Boletín Oficial del Estado, 2015. Law 39/2015 of 1 October, on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations, Spain

Campbell A (2020) Web content accessibility guidelines (wcag) 2.2 draft for review

Digital Agenda (2021) Digital Agenda for Spain [WWW Document]. Ministerio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital. https://bit.ly/37R3i2b (accessed 2.15.22)

Epting, S. Vulnerable groups, virtual cities, and social isolation. Technol Soc; 2021; 67, 101711. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101711]

Fang, C; Ma, H; Bao, C; Wang, Z; Li, G; Sun, S; Fan, Y. Urban–rural human settlements in China: objective evaluation and subjective well-being. Hum Soc Sci Commun; 2022; 9, 395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01417-9]

Fernández-Díaz, E; Jambrino-Maldonado, C; Iglesias-Sánchez, PP; de las Heras-Pedrosa, C. Digital accessibility of smart cities-tourism for all and reducing inequalities: tourism Agenda 2030. Tourism Rev; 2023; 78, pp. 361-380. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TR-02-2022-0091]

Fleming, A; Mason, C; Paxton, G. Discourses of technology, ageing and participation. Palgrave Commun; 2018; 4, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0107-7]

García Luengo, O. E-activism: new media and political participation in Europe. CONfines de Relacion Internacionales y Ciencia Política; 2006; 2, pp. 59-71.

Gil de Zúñiga, H; Veenstra, A; Vraga, E; Shah, D. Digital democracy: reimagining pathways to political participation. J Inf Technol Politi; 2010; 7, pp. 36-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331680903316742]

Hernández R, Amado-Salvatierra HR (2012) Accessibility evaluation of web portals in educational institutions in Central America. III Ibero-American Congress on Quality and Accessibility of Virtual Training (CAFVIR)

Hilera JR, Fernánde L, Suárez E, Villar ET (2013) Evaluation of the accessibility of websites of Spanish and foreign universities included in international university rankings. Revista Española de Documentación Científica 36. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2013.1.913

IAB Spain, 2019. Top digital trends 2019, IAB Spain

Ismail, A; Kuppusamy, KS. Accessibility of Indian universities’ homepages: an exploratory study. J King Saud Univ-Com; 2018; 30, pp. 268-278. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2016.06.006]

Kneuer, M; Datts, M. E-democracy and the matter of scale. Revisiting the democratic promises of the internet in terms of the spatial dimension. Polit Vierteljahr; 2020; 61, pp. 285-308. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11615-020-00250-6]

Liu, YQ; Bielefield, A; McKay, P. Are urban public libraries websites accessible to Americans with disabilities. Universal Access in the Information Society; 2019; 18, pp. 191-206. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0571-7]

Luengo ÓG, García-Marín J (2019) Digitalization and political science in Spain. In: Kneuer M, Milner HV (eds.) Political science and digitalization–global perspectives. Verlag Barbara Budrich, pp. 197–212

McConnell PJ, Becker LB (2002) The role of the media in democratization. Presented at the Political Communication Section of the International Association for Media and Communication Research at the Barcelona Conference

Observatorio de Infoaccesibilidad de Discapnet (2008) Accesibilidad Web en los portales de ayuntamientos de capitales de provincia. Discapnet, Madrid, Spain

Observatorio de Infoaccesibilidad de Discapnet, (2004) La accesibilidad en los portales universitarios en España

OECD (2022) OECD Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies [WWW Document]. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/recommendation-on-digital-government-strategies.htm (accessed 9.12.22)

Pieper M (2012) Sociological issues of inclusive web design. Presented at the International Conference on Computers for Handicapped Persons, Springer, Berlin, pp. 371–377

Revilla Muñoz O, Carreras Montoto O (2018). Web accessibility. WCAG 2.1 the easy way. Itákora Pres, Spain

Ribera, M; Térmens, M; Frías, A. The accessibility of Spanish university websites. Balance 2001-2006. Revista Española de Documentación Científica; 2009; 32, pp. 66-88. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2009.3.683]

Safarov, N. Personal experiences of digital public services access and use: Older migrants’ digital choices. Technol Soc; 2021; 66, 101627. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101627]

Sanchez-Gordon S, Lujan-Mora S, Sanchez-Gordon M (2020) E-government accessibility in Ecuador: a preliminary evaluation. In: Teran L, Pincay J, Portmann E (eds.), Presented at the 2020 Seventh International Conference on Edemocracy & Egovernment (ICEDEG), pp. 50–57

Serrano Mascaraque, E; Moratilla Ocaña, A; Olmeda Martos, I. Metrics for the evaluation of accessibility on the Internet. Revista Española de Documentación Científica; 2010; 33, pp. 378-396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2010.3.719]

Sosa, H; Gaetán, G; Martín, AE. Redesign of a university web portal applying accessibility patterns. Informe Científico Técnico UNPA; 2015; 7, pp. 139-165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22305/ict-unpa.v7i2.131]

TAW (2023) TAW [WWW Document]. https://www.tawdis.net/ (accessed 7.15.23)

United Nations, 2006. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD). [WWW Document]. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD). https://bit.ly/3kvNszb (accessed 2.12.22)

Vermeeren, APOS; Roto, V; Väänänen, K. Design-inclusive UX research: design as a part of doing user experience research. Behav Inf Technol; 2016; 35, pp. 21-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2015.1081292]

W3C (2023) W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0 [WWW Document]. http://bitly.ws/DrYz (accessed 4.24.23)

W3C (2021a) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WWW Document]. https://bit.ly/3pVhkWY (accessed 1.20.22)

W3C (2021b) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 [WWW Document]. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/ (accessed 2.20.22)

W3C (2021c) Web Accessibility Brief Guide [WWW Document]. https://bit.ly/37WAyVV (accessed 2.20.22)

W3C (2018) WCAG 2.1 at a glance [WWW Document]. https://bit.ly/3r11prm (accessed 1.20.22)

W3C (2005) Introduction to web accessibility: what is web accessibility? [WWW Document]. https://bit.ly/3aXjcdw (accessed 1.21.22)

Wave (2023) Wave [WWW Document]. https://wave.webaim.org/ (accessed 7.15.23)

Wave (2021) WAVE Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool [WWW Document]. https://bit.ly/3b0JWJY (accessed 9.15.22)

WebAIM (2021) Introduction to Web Accessibility. Implementing Web Accessibility [WWW Document]. https://bit.ly/3b0JWJY (accessed 1.20.22)

World Health Organization, 2020. WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard [WWW Document]. https://covid19.who.int/ (accessed 11.15.20)

Yu, SY. A review of the accessibility of ACT COVID-19 information portals. Technol Soc; 2021; 64, 101467. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101467] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33324025]

Zimmermann G, Strobbe C, Ziegler D (2019) Inclusive responsiveness—why responsive web design is not enough and what we can do about this. In: Di Bucchianico G (ed.) Advances in design for inclusion. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 203–215