A Survey on the Accessibility Awareness of People Involved in Web Development Projects in Brazil
Andre P. Freire, Cibele M. Russo, Renata P. M. Fortes · 2008 · Proceedings of the 2008 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A) · doi:10.1145/1368044.1368064
Summary
This paper presents one of the largest surveys of its time examining how people involved in web development projects in Brazil perceive and address accessibility. The researchers conducted an exploratory study using a web-based questionnaire distributed across all 27 Brazilian states, collecting 613 valid responses from participants in academia, industry, and government. The questionnaire covered 17 questions spanning demographic information, HTML/CSS skills, awareness of how people with disabilities use the web, knowledge of assistive technologies, familiarity with Brazilian accessibility law (Decree/Law 5,296/2004) and W3C guidelines, accessibility training received, evaluation methods used, and whether accessibility is actually considered in respondents's projects. The study builds on four prior surveys of web developers (Lazar et al. 2004, ENABLED Group 2005, Tangarife and Mont'alvão 2006, and Ferreira et al. 2007) but surpasses them in scale and geographic breadth. The sample skewed toward academia (56% from research and education) and male respondents (70%), with the largest concentration from Brazil's southeast region (42%). Most participants held advanced degrees, with 30.67% having PhDs and 23.49% holding master's degrees, and 43% identifying as researchers or lecturers. The study was designed to enable more rigorous statistical analysis than prior Brazilian surveys, which had been limited to small, convenience-based samples.
Key findings
The headline finding is stark: only 19.9% of participants stated that accessibility is fully considered in their projects, while 44.37% said it is only partially considered and 35.4% said it is not considered at all. More than half (56.38%) had never received any training on accessibility, and 39.15% had no knowledge of WCAG whatsoever. Knowledge of Brazilian accessibility law was similarly poor — 40.29% had never heard of Decree/Law 5,296/2004 and another 32.95% barely knew it. Nearly half (47.8%) used no accessibility evaluation methods at all; those who did primarily relied on HTML validation (34.42%) and CSS validation (30.18%) rather than actual accessibility-specific testing. Only 18.11% used automated accessibility tools, and just 7.67% tested with users with disabilities. Among those who did consider accessibility, personal motivation was the top driver (66.39%), far outpacing organizational requirements (17.21%) or customer requirements (24.59%). For those who did not consider accessibility, the top barriers were lack of training (53.17%), lack of organizational requirements (51.33%), and lack of customer requirements (49.08%).
Relevance
Although this study is nearly two decades old and focused on Brazil, its findings illuminate patterns that persist globally: accessibility remains marginal in web development primarily because of inadequate education, weak enforcement of legislation, and insufficient organizational demand rather than technical difficulty. The finding that personal motivation was the strongest driver for those who did consider accessibility — far exceeding organizational or legal pressure — suggests that awareness campaigns and developer education may be more effective than regulation alone. The study's revelation that most "evaluation" consisted of HTML/CSS validation rather than actual accessibility testing remains a relevant concern today. For organizations building accessibility programs, the data underscores that training must be paired with organizational mandates and client expectations to move accessibility from an individual concern to a systemic practice.
Tags: web accessibility · survey research · developer awareness · accessibility education · accessibility legislation · Brazil · WCAG knowledge · assistive technology awareness
Standards referenced: WCAG 1.0 · WCAG 2.0 · ATAG 1.0 · Section 508 · e-MAG