A look at Internet Banking Accessibility in Australia

Dr Sofia Celic, Web Accessibility Consultant, Accessible Information Solutions [HREF1], National Information and Library Service [HREF2], 454 Glenferrie Road, Kooyong, 3144, Australia. Email: sofia.celic@nils.org.au

Mr Steven Faulkner, Web Accessibility Consultant, Accessible Information Solutions [HREF1], National Information and Library Service [HREF2], 454 Glenferrie Road, Kooyong, 3144, Australia. Email: steven.faulkner@nils.org.au

Dr Andrew Arch, Manager Online Accessibility Consulting, Accessible Information Solutions [HREF1], National Information and Library Service [HREF2], 454 Glenferrie Road, Kooyong, 3144, Australia. Email: andrew.arch@nils.org.au

Abstract

The Australian Banker's Association prepared an internet banking standard in April 2002 and recommended certain levels of conformance with their standard within 6 months and 18 months. A bank's home page is usually the most important entry point to their online services - any accessibility issues on this page will create access problems for some user groups. In December 2003 we examined the home pages of eight Australian banks for accessibility. Our findings show that while none of the banks met the standard, some of them had good levels of technical conformance. We cannot ascertain the impact of the introduction of these standards as there are no previous studies to benchmark against. However, we hope that this comparative study will encourage the banks further in their accessibility endeavours.

Introduction

This paper reports on a comparative study of the accessibility of the home pages of the major retail banks operating in Australia. While the study does not profess to pass judgement on the accessibility of the banks' entire websites, the accessibility of the home page is probably a good indicator of the attention the banks pay to this issue. It is also the key entry point to the banks' online services; most people will pass through the home page on their way to find out about available services or to undertake some transactional activity.

In April 2002 the Australian Banker's Association (ABA) released a Banking Industry Action Plan to improve the accessibility of electronic banking by their members and other financial institutions by developing Industry Standards [HREF3]. The Industry Standard covers Automated Teller Machines (ATMs), Electronic Funds Transfer at the Point of Sale (EFTPOS), Automated Telephone Banking and Internet Banking. The Standard was developed in consultation with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and organisations of and for older Australians and people with disabilities, to incorporate the best information, guidance and new research. The objective was to describe best practice in accessibility consistent with the Disability Descrimination Act (DDA). Adopting the standard would provide organisations with some confidence against DDA complaints, but not guarantee fulfilment of legal responsibilities under the DDA.

Adoption of the standard was cited as voluntary and that it could be used by banks to develop their own standards. HREOC state that: "Subsequently a number of ABA members have committed to adopting the standards, in part or in full." in a request for feedback [HREF4]. HREOC are now (two years post release) in the process of assessing the initial impact and awareness of the standards. They requested feedback from people with disabilities and representative organisations by February 6th 2004.

The results of the HREOC assessment have not been made public to date (early April 2004). However, discussions with two organisations that responded to HREOC's request for feedback have provided variable comment on the accessibility of Internet Banking. One of these provided some detail of website accessibility, indicating a lack of ability to vary the font size and unclear link phrases as the biggest issues.

Accessible Internet Banking has the potential to make a very big difference to many people with disabilities in addition to the advantages it provides for the population as a whole. Internet Banking has the potential to provide people that have accessibility problems with other means of banking (such as access to a "walk-in" branch or telephone banking) a means to remain independent and more in control of their own financial requirements.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics Disability, Ageing and Carers report [HREF5] estimates that 19.2% of Australia's population (ie, 3.6 million people) have a recognised and ongoing disability. While not all of these people will have trouble using a computer, a significant number of the population will benefit from more accessible banking web sites. A study undertaken in the U.S., 'The Wide Range of Abilities and Its Impact On Computer Technology' [HREF6], has found that 57% of working-age computer users are 'likely' or 'very likely' to benefit from the use of accessible technology due to experiencing 'mild' or 'severe' difficulties or impairments.

Accessible Information Solutions (AIS) web accessibility team, at the National Information and Library Service, has undertaken various projects on accessibility for financial organisations and has conducted a comparative study of the accessibility of the home page of eight Australian banks. The scope of this study is only a small part of assessing the accessibility of banking websites, providing a glimpse into the potential accessibility or not of each website.

This study is an examination of each home page as at December 2003. It does not assess improvements (or not) in Internet Banking because of the lack of a corresponding assessment at an earlier date. It is hoped that this study, along with the findings from the HREOC review and the ABA's stated commitment to accessibility, will prompt greater attention to accessibility issues in the future.

What is web accessibility?

The ability of users to access information and services from the web is dependent on many factors. These include the content format; the user's hardware, software and settings; internet connections; the environmental conditions and the user's abilities and disabilities.

The term "web accessibility" generally relates to the implementation of website content in such a way as to maximise the ability of users with disabilities to access it. For example, providing a text equivalent for image content of a web page, allows users with some visual disabilities access to the information via a screen reader. The techniques and approaches that create more accessible web pages for people with disabilities also address many other access issues such as download speed and discoverability.

Many governments, industries and groups around the world have designated the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) version 1.0 [HREF7], developed by the Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium, as the accessibility standard for their web content or use this as the basis for their own standard.

WCAG 1.0 offers these user scenarios to consider in making web content more accessible:

ABA Industry Standard - Internet Banking

The Internet Banking section of the ABA Industry Standard includes the following scope (paraphrased):

The implementation requirements of the ABA Internet Standard reference both W3C's WCAG 1.0 [HREF7] and US Public Law 508 [HREF8] (paraphrased):

What did we do?

The accessibility of the home page of 8 major and regional Australian Banks, as rendered in Internet Explorer 6, was assessed against WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints at all priority levels in December 2003. This was done by examining the page's appearance and the code for each page for any Checkpoint failure. To aid this process we used the AIS Accessibility Toolbar [HREF9], the W3C HTML Validator [HREF10] and Juicy Studio's colour contrast tools [HREF11]. A 'pass', 'fail' or 'not applicable' result was determined for each Checkpoint. Some Checkpoints were assigned 'not applicable' due to a) their incompatibility with the assessment of a single web page, or b) the feature was not used on the page. For example, Checkpoint 14.3 (create a style of presentation that is consistent across pages) requires assessment across multiple pages and therefore was rated as 'not applicable' for all bank home pages in this review.

The 8 banks assessed were:

Results

The results for technical conformance to WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints are presented in the following tables. This is a summary of the number of Checkpoints passed, failed or which were not applicable, at each priority level, for each home page. An average figure provides an indicative figure for the eight Australian banks as a whole.

WCAG 1.0 contains 14 guidelines and 65 Checkpoints. The Checkpoints are classified into three priority levels (the degree of severity of some accessibility issues may alter the classification of associated Checkpoints to a different Priority level):

  1. Priority 1 (16 Checkpoints) - these must be satisfied "otherwise one or more groups will find it impossible to access information in the document"
  2. Priority 2 (30 Checkpoints) - these should be satsified "otherwise one or more groups will find it difficult to access information in the document"
  3. Priority 3 (19 Checkpoints) - these may be addressed "otherwise one or more groups will find it somewhat difficult to access information in the document"

These clasifications were established in 1998; the web is quite different now with its online service delivery. Many Priority 2 and Priority 3 Checkpoints are now essential for access by people with disabilities, especially those people relying on assistive technologies.

Total number of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints failed out of 65 for each bank home page.
ANZ CBA NAB Westpac BankWest Bendigo St.George Suncorp
23
16
18
16
25
24
24
16

WCAG 1.0 checkpoint compliance for each bank home page by Priority level.
Priority
Level
Compliance
status
ANZ CBA NAB Westpac BankWest Bendigo St.George Suncorp Average
1 Pass 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 4 2.9
Fail 2 3 2 1 5 6 3 1 2.9
NA 12 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 10.4
2 Pass 8 9 9 15 11 6 7 10 9.3
Fail 14 9 11 8 15 13 16 11 12.1
NA 8 10 9 7 4 11 7 9 8.1
3 Pass 2 4 5 2 4 3 6 5 3.9
Fail 7 4 5 7 5 5 5 4 5.3
NA 10 11 9 10 10 11 8 10 9.9

The following sections present each bank's home page and discuss the following aspects:

Within each sub-section, we have given a "heads up" on accessibility through a "smile" or "frown" icon as indicated below:

Legend for accessibility icons
Icon Explanation
Good implementation
Accessibility for this issue has been well implemented
Both good and poor implementation
Accessibility for this issue could have been implemented better; somtimes a bank may fail one aspect and pass another, or the implementation could generally be improved.
Poor implementation
Accessibility for this issue has been poorly implemented

ANZ

ANZ bank website home page

Text equivalents

Both good and poor implementation This page had many images with missing 'alt' attributes or with inappropriate 'alt' attribute values. These were limited to decorative images, of which there were many, and so a user needing textual information would not actually miss important information but their experience of using the page is impacted negatively. For example, a user browsing with a screen reader may have the large number of decorative images announced as path and file names. In addition, other information will be repeated, making the page more tedious and time consuming to get through. The user may not be aware that the images with missing 'alt' attributes do not contain any important information.

JavaScript-dependent Internet Banking

Poor implementation Without JavaScript support, logging on to the Internet Banking area of the website was not possible. The JavaScript-dependent log on was still presented to the user when JavaScript was not supported. Information was not provided about the JavaScript support required, either beforehand or in response to selecting this element of the page.

Good implementation The JavaScript-dependent link to Internet Banking could be activated by keyboard when JavaScript was supported.

Image text

Both good and poor implementation The main navigational items across the centre of the page were images of text that could easily have been implemented as text with style sheet specifications. A text link to the same targets was available, but it consisted of the phrase "more...". A clearer link phrase (e.g. "more individuals information...") would provide a link to these main navigational items that could be altered in size and colour use.

Layout

Poor implementationThe size of the layout was fixed. The content, at default font size, fit within 1024 X 768 pixels. Vertical scrolling was required at 800 X 600 pixels for the bottom quarter of the page content.

Poor implementation The central navigational area had an incorrect linearisation order. The headings "Individuals", "Financial Advice", "Business", "Corporate" and "Rural" were contained in one layout table row and their corresponding sub-link lists were contained in the next table row. This results in grouping all of the headings together and then all of the sub-link lists together, breaking the required non-visual association between a heading and its corresponding list.

Font size

Poor implementation The textual component of the page content was implemented with fixed size units throughout.

Tab inclusion

Good implementation All navigational items were included in the keyboard tab order.

Commonwealth Bank

Commonwealth Bank website home page

Text equivalents

Both good and poor implementation This page contained a few images with missing text alternatives. These appeared to be part of a counter function for the page and did not include any images containing important information.

Both good and poor implementation A couple of images contained a text alternative that repeated information already provided in text content. The images were linked to the same target as the text portion but were not included in the one link element. The text alternative is appropriate if the current implementation is maintained, but one link containing both the image and the text phrase is preferable.

Poor implementation The page contained many images using the 'longdesc' attribute incorrectly. Some images used this attribute to provide an extended textual description of the image-link target and other images repeated the image-link's target URL as the value. The purpose of this attribute is to provide a URL to a page containing a longer description of the image itself. This attribute was not required for the images on this home page.

JavaScript-dependent Internet Banking

The home page contained two links to Internet Banking. The first was a "log on" text link under the 'NetBank online banking' heading and the second was from the list of links presented in the drop-down box for "Log in to...".

Poor implementation If JavaScript support was not available, navigating to the Internet Banking area of this site from either link was not possible. Information was not provided about the JavaScript requirement.

Both good and poor implementation The JavaScript-dependent links to Internet Banking could be activated by keyboard when JavaScript was supported. However there appeared to be a time limitation with the drop-down box (see 'Tab inclusion' section).

Image text

Both good and poor implementation Images of text were identified as the main navigational items in the left-hand column. In addition, images of form drop-down boxes were used instead of actual form drop-down boxes. All of these could have been implemented as text or form elements, as appropriate, with style sheet specifications.

Layout

Poor implementation The layout of this page was fixed. The content fit comfortably at a resolution of 1024 X 768. A quarter of the page content was off the screen vertically at a resolution of 800 X 600 pixels.

Poor implementation The linearisation order of this page was contrary to the visual expectation. The linear order begins with the 'For your information...' section, followed by the marketing content ('5.99% p.a. for five months' and 'Save without sacrifice' sections), the bank logo and name, the log-in section on the right-hand side of the central image, the search box area, the top row of links, the left-hand navigational links, the "drop-down box" images, and ending with the footer information.

Font size

Poor implementation The textual component of the page content was implemented with fixed size units throughout.

Tab inclusion

Both good and poor implementation Most interactive elements were within the tab order. Selection of the images of drop-down boxes would present a list of links, but these were not all included in the tab order. There appeared to be a time limitation for presentation of these links, because the list would disappear after a short while. The time period for display was insufficient to allow tabbing through the list of links.

National Australia Bank

National Australia Bank website home page

Text equivalents

Both good and poor implementation This page had some decorative or spacer images with alt="". In theory, this is the correct 'alt' attribute value for images that do not convey important information. However, many current screen readers will treat this implementation as though no 'alt' attribute has been used at all and may announce the file name and path instead.

Good implementation Images that conveyed important information had appropriate text alternatives.

JavaScript-dependent Internet Banking

Poor implementation The link to the Internet Banking area was non-functional when JavaScript support was unavailable. The JavaScript-dependent function is still presented when JavaScript is not supported. Information was not provided about the JavaScript support required, either beforehand or in response to selecting this element of the page.

Good implementation The JavaScript-dependent link to Internet Banking could be activated by keyboard when JavaScript was supported.

Image text

Good implementation This page contained one image with text that could have been implemented as text with style sheet specifications. All of the main navigational items were implemented as text and not images, an implementation that improves a user's ability to alter aspects such as size and colour.

Layout

Good implementation This page had a flexible layout but contained a lot of information. It required scrolling to get to key features even at its default text size and 1024 X 768 resolution. This would be exaggerated with increased font size or lower resolutions. Half of the page content was off the screen vertically at a resolution of 800 X 600 pixels.

Both good and poor implementation The 'Internet Banking' and 'OnLine Trading' sections of links at the top of the page did not linearise appropriately. The 'Internet Banking Login' and 'OnLine Trading Login' links were within one table row, while their related links 'Register' and 'More Info' for each section were in the next table row. The appropriate associations were lost when the content was linearised. The rest of the page appeared to linearise appropriately.

Font size

Poor implementation The textual component of the page was implemented with fixed font size units throughout.

Tab inclusion

Good implementation All navigational items were included in the keyboard tab order.

Westpac

Westpac Bank website home page

Text equivalents

Poor implementation This page had many images with missing 'alt' attributes or with inappropriate 'alt' attribute values. These were limited to decorative images, and so a user needing textual information would not actually miss important information but their experience of using the page is impacted negatively. For example, a user browsing with a screen reader may have the large number of decorative images announced as path and file names.

JavaScript-dependent Internet Banking

Good implementation Navigation to Online Banking sign-in was not dependent on JavaScript support.

Poor implementation The link to Online Banking was not within the keyboard tab order and therefore could not be activated by keyboard.

Image text

Both good and poor implementation The four links implemented as images of tabs at the top of the page contained text that could have been implemented as text with style sheet specifications. There did not appear to be a non-image way to view links to those targets. The remaining navigational items have been implemented as text.

Layout

Poor implementation The layout of the page content was of fixed size. At 800 X 600, half the page content was vertically off the screen. At 1024 X 768, one third of the page content was vertically off the screen.

Good implementation The page content appeared to linearise appropriately.

Font size

Both good and poor implementation The font size for the content area of the page was flexible but not for the top and left navigational areas, making a key aspect of the page difficult to adjust for users that need to alter this aspect.

Tab inclusion

Poor implementation The left-hand list of navigational items were omitted from the keyboard tab order. This would prevent many user groups from accessing most areas of this site.

BankWest

BankWest website home page

Text equivalents

Poor implementation This page had a Flash movie in the center of the page. No textual alternative was available for users without Flash support or other user groups (such as screen reader users). The movie was only used to provide an animation and could have easily be implemented as an image with appropriate 'alt' text instead.

JavaScript-dependent Internet Banking

Poor implementation The link to the Internet Banking area was non-functional when JavaScript support was unavailable. The JavaScript-dependent function was still presented to the user and information was not provided about the JavaScript support required in response to selecting this element of the page.

Both good and poor implementation The JavaScript-dependent link to Internet Banking could be activated by keyboard when JavaScript was supported. However, there was a potential issue with getting to this link via keyboard (see 'Tab inclusion' section).

Image text

Good implementation The page had some images in the top right-hand corner consisting of an icon with text underneath. The text component could be separated and implemented as text with style sheet specifications. However, there were textual links on the page to the same targets, making this less important.

Layout

Poor implementation The layout was a fixed size. One third of the page content was vertically off the screen at 800 X 600 pixel resolution. The page content fits within 1024 X 768 pixels.

Good implementation The content appeared to linearise appropriately.

Font size

Poor implementation The text content of the page was implemented with fixed font size units throughout.

Tab inclusion

Poor implementation The Flash movie in the center of the page will trap keyboard focus for users without Flash Player version 7. This makes the page effectively inaccessible to keyboard users without the right plugin. The movie was only used to provide an animation and could have easily be implemented as an image instead, avoiding this potential issue.

Bendigo Bank

Bendigo Bank website home page

Text equivalents

Poor implementation Many of the images in this page did not have a text alternative. This included the important navigational images along the left hand side of the page.

JavaScript-dependent Internet Banking

Poor implementation Internet Banking was not available if JavaScript was not supported. Information was provided about the JavaScript requirement when a user attempted to access Internet Banking in this situation. However, the information was limited to describing how to turn JavaScript support on in Internet Explorer 5 & 6 and Netscape 7. No provision was made for users that are not in a position to do this (which is often the case when JavaScript support is not available).

Good implementation The JavaScript-dependent link to Internet Banking could be activated by keyboard when JavaScript was supported.

Image text

Poor implementation Important navigational links (at the top and left of the page) have been implemented as images of text. In addition to the issue this presents resizing and altering colours for this text, the colours chosen for the left-hand menu would have been problematic for some users.

Layout

Good implementation This page had a flexible layout. However, more than half of the page content was vertically off the screen at the default text size and a resolution of 1024 X 768 pixels. At 800 X 600 pixels, three-quarters of the content was off the screen vertically.

Good implementation The content or each frame appeared to linearise appropriately.

Font size

Good implementation The text component of the page (the main content area) was implemented with flexible font size units.

Tab inclusion

Good implementation All navigational items were in the keyboard tab order.

St.George Bank

St. George Bank website home page

Text equivalents

Poor implementation This page had a number of images without text alternatives or with inappropriate text alternatives. Many image icons or bullets had text alternatives that repeated the textual information following it. Some had the name "St George" at the start, adding unnecessary information.

JavaScript-dependent Internet Banking

Poor implementation Internet Banking was not available when JavaScript was not supported. The JavaScript-dependent function was still presented to the user and information was not provided about the JavaScript support required in response to selecting this element of the page.

Good implementation The JavaScript-dependent link to Internet Banking could be activated by keyboard when JavaScript was supported.

Image text

Poor implementation Images of text were used for the navigational elements.

Layout

Both good and poor implementation The layout was flexible to a degree, having a minimum size requirement. At 1024 X 768 pixels, a quarter of the page content was vertically off the screen. At 800 X 600 pixel resolution, almost half of the page content was off the screen vertically and a small amount horizontally. In addition, because of fixed width and height of containing elements, some content overlapped when the text size was forcibly increased.

Good implementation The content appeared to linearise appropriately.

Font size

Poor implementation The text content of the page was implemented with fixed font size units throughout.

Tab inclusion

Good implementation All interactive elements were in the keyboard tab order.

Suncorp

Suncorp Bank website home page

Text equivalents

Poor implementation Only two images on the page had text alternatives. This did not include images with important information such as the company name (logo), contact details, finding a branch or email images.

JavaScript-dependent Internet Banking

Direct links from this page to Internet Banking were available in two places - the first was in one of the left-hand menu "fly-outs", the presentation of which was dependent on JavaScript, and the other was along the right-hand side of the page in a form-based element.

Good implementation The second link allowed the user to progress to the log on screen when JavaScript was not supported. The user was presented with information about the JavaScript requirement for using online banking at this point.

Good implementation The JavaScript-dependent link (first Internet Banking link) to Internet Banking could be activated by keyboard when JavaScript was supported.

Image text

Both good and poor implementation The site contained a few images that could have been implemented as text with style sheet specifications, such as "find a branch", "email us", "online services" and "latest news".

Layout

Good implementation The layout of the content was flexible for window size. At 1024 X 768 pixels, approximately a fifth of the page content was off the screen vertically. At 800 X 600 pixel resolution, almost half was off the screen vertically.

Both good and poor implementation Some content did not linearise appropriately. The headings 'Calculators', 'Apply' and 'Interest Rates' were contained within one table row and their associated sub-links were contained in the next table row, resulting in the loss of association when this content was linearised. The remainder of the content appeared to linearise appropriately.

Font size

Good implementation The text content of the page was implemented with flexible font size units. This includes the flyout menu items - a commendable effort because in many implementations these often end up overlapping when text size is increased.

Tab inclusion

Both good and poor implementation All interactive elements were included in the keyboard order. But this page used a navigation system of flyout menus where all levels of sub-menus were included in the tab order. This meant that there were hundreds (over 450 on the day we assessed this home page) of links to get through in the left-hand navigation. A "skip to content" link to bypass this area was not provided.

Conclusion

The overall status of the accessibility of Australian banking web sites, using the accessibility of their home pages as an indicator, is less than desirable. None of the banks assessed has met the ABA recommended timetable of addressing all applicable WCAG 1.0 Priority 1 and Priority 2 checkpoints within 18 months of the Standard being released (April 2002).

Total number of WCAG 1.0 Priority 1 and Priority 2 checkpoints failed
ANZ CBA NAB Westpac BankWest Bendigo St. George Suncorp
16
12
13
9
20
19
19
12

Bar chart showing WCAG 1.0 Priority 1 and 2 failures by Bank

Discussion and Future Developments

In the UK, AbilityNet recently released their "eNation" report on online banking, ' On-line banks score one out of ten for accessible websites' [HREF20]. This report indicated that UK banks also still have a long way to go to meet the needs of people with disabilities trying to bank online. While the methodology was not provided, it would appear at face value that Australian banks are, on average, slightly ahead of their UK counterparts in providing accessible websites.

The next step in assessing bank websites for their accessibility is to assess the website as a whole. While an assessment can be made of a bank's informational pages, it is also highly desirable to follow through on some processes such as using their Internet Banking service. After all, this is why most people would be visiting a bank's web site. The ABA Internet Standard lists transactions covered by the standard, such as balance enquiry, statement viewing and bill pay.

User testing with people that utilise assistive technology is a highly effective way to identify accessibility issues, particularly those that may not be covered by standards such as WCAG, and to identify useability issues associated with accessibility. These latter issues can be just as important in a user's acceptance of utilising online services as the more traditional accessibility issues.

Other issues often overlooked in accessibility such as page weight and cross-browser functionality are also important to assess.

Access to the interactive service areas of these websites generally requires an account with the bank. Some bank websites offer a "demonstration" mimicking their actual internet banking facility but this is often limited in functionality. A "dummy" account, or similar, is required to undertake further testing . Therefore, testing of these interactive service areas would be subject to the agreement by each bank to provide such access to their internet banking facility.

Hypertext References

HREF1
http://www.accessibleinfo.org.au/
HREF2
http://www.nils.org.au/
HREF3
http://www.bankers.asn.au/ABA/pdf/Web%20Standard.htm
HREF4
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/inquiries/ecom/feedback.htm
HREF5
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/b06660592430724fca2568b5007b8619/
c258c88a7aa5a87eca2568a9001393e8!opendocument
HREF6
http://www.microsoft.com/enable/research/default.aspx
HREF7
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
HREF8
http://ww3w.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.22.htm
HREF9
http://www.nils.org.au/ais/web/resources/toolbar/index.html
HREF10
http://validator.w3.org/
HREF11
http://www.juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast.asp
HREF12
http://www.anz.com.au
HREF13
http://www.commbank.com.au
HREF14
http://www.national.com.au
HREF15
http://www.westpac.com.au
HREF16
http://www.bankwest.com.au
HREF17
http://www.bendigobank.com.au
HREF18
http://www.stgeorge.com.au
HREF19
http://www.suncorp.com.au
HREF20
http://www.abilitynet.org.uk/content/oneoffs/e-nation3.htm

Copyright

National Information and Library Service, © 2004. The authors assign to Southern Cross University and other educational and non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to Southern Cross University to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web and on CD-ROM and in printed form with the conference papers and for the document to be published on mirrors on the World Wide Web.