Automatically Detectable Accessibility Barriers in E-Commerce: Heterogeneity and Multivariate Profiles Across 50 Websites
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64747/kq08v954Keywords:
web accessibility, e-commerce, WCAG, WAVE, inclusive design, multivariate analysisAbstract
E-commerce accessibility affects autonomous access to goods and services, yet automated-tool counts are often interpreted without considering their distribution, co-occurrence, and limitations. This study characterized the heterogeneity and multivariate profiles of WAVE-detectable barriers across 50 e-commerce websites and derived cautious inclusive-design priorities. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional observational reanalysis of a public dataset audited on March 25, 2021. Eleven WCAG 2.1 criteria and six structural indicators were reconciled. Analyses included robust descriptive statistics, Spearman correlations with 5,000 permutations and bootstrap samples, Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment, robustly scaled principal components, and hierarchical clustering with stability assessment. Aggregate burden had a median of 12.5 detections per site (IQR: 7.0–62.0), totaling 3,051 errors and contrast errors. Non-text content affected 86% of websites, minimum contrast 80%, and link purpose 78%. By volume, contrast accounted for 54.36% of the 3,019 criterion-assigned detections, followed by non-text content (25.64%) and link purpose (11.59%). The first three components explained 82.55% of variance, but no two- to five-cluster solution yielded a defensible typology: the two-group pattern separated 48 websites from two outlying observations. None of 15 structural associations survived multiplicity adjustment; the largest linked criterion burden and structural elements (rho = 0.402; 95% CI: 0.161–0.611; adjusted p = 0.051). Priorities converged on contrast, text alternatives, and link purpose. These findings describe automated signals from a historical snapshot; they do not establish WCAG conformance, comprehensive accessibility, or users’ lived experience.
References
Abduganiev, S. G. (2017). Towards automated web accessibility evaluation: A comparative study. International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science, 9(9), 18–44. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijitcs.2017.09.03
Abu Doush, I., Sultan, K., Al-Betar, M. A., Almeraj, Z., Alyasseri, Z. A. A., & Awadallah, M. A. (2023). Web accessibility automatic evaluation tools: To what extent can they be automated? CCF Transactions on Pervasive Computing and Interaction, 5(3), 288–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42486-023-00127-8
Acosta-Vargas, P., Salvador-Acosta, B., Salvador-Ullauri, L., Jadán-Guerrero, J., & Gonzalez, M. (2021). Dataset Web accessibility e-commerce website (Version 1) [Data set]. Mendeley Data. https://doi.org/10.17632/s33r57h5zm.1
Acosta-Vargas, P., Salvador-Acosta, B., Salvador-Ullauri, L., Jadán-Guerrero, J., & Gonzalez, M. (2022). Accessibility challenges of e-commerce websites. PeerJ Computer Science, 8, e891. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.891
Alsaeedi, A. (2020). Comparing web accessibility evaluation tools and evaluating the accessibility of webpages: Proposed frameworks. Information, 11(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11010040
Campoverde-Molina, M., Luján-Mora, S., & García, L. V. (2023). Accessibility engineering in web evaluation process: A systematic literature review. Universal Access in the Information Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-023-00967-2
Laamanen, M., Ladonlahti, T., Puupponen, H., & Kärkkäinen, T. (2022). Does the law matter? An empirical study on the accessibility of Finnish higher education institutions’ web pages. Universal Access in the Information Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00931-6
Manca, M., Palumbo, V., Paternò, F., & Santoro, C. (2023). The transparency of automatic web accessibility evaluation tools: Design criteria, state of the art, and user perception. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 16(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3556979
Power, C., Freire, A. P., Petrie, H., & Swallow, D. (2012). Guidelines are only half of the story: Accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the web. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 433–442). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207736
Santoki, S., & Patvardhan, N. (2021). An examination on ‘website accessibility’ for active engagement of visually impaired e-commerce customers. Technology and Disability, 33(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-200293
Schmutz, S., Sonderegger, A., & Sauer, J. (2017). Implementing recommendations from web accessibility guidelines: A comparative study of nondisabled users and users with visual impairments. Human Factors, 59(6), 956–972. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817708397
Vigo, M., Brown, J., & Conway, V. (2013). Benchmarking web accessibility evaluation tools: Measuring the harm of sole reliance on automated tests. In Proceedings of the 10th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2461121.2461124
WebAIM. (2024). The WebAIM Million: The 2024 report on the accessibility of the top 1,000,000 home pages. https://webaim.org/projects/million/2024
World Wide Web Consortium. (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/REC-WCAG22-20231005/
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative. (2024). Selecting web accessibility evaluation tools. https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/tools/selecting/
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2025-06-29 (2)
- 2025-06-29 (1)
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 MARLON ELINOVICH TENECELA-CALDERON (Autor/a)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant Sapiens Global the right of first publication. The article is distributed under CC BY 4.0, except where third-party material is identified under different terms.