Program on Employment and Disability

Program on Employment and Disability

A Review of Selected
E-Recruiting Websites:
Disability Accessibility
Considerations
Program on Employment and Disability

Program on Employment and Disability

William A. Erickson, M.S., Research Specialist
Program on Employment and Disability
Cornell University
This report is part of a series of reports under the project
Improving Employer Practices Covered by Title I of the ADA:
A Research and Demonstration Project, funded by the U.S.
Department of Education National Institute on Disability andRehabilitation Research, grant No. H133A70005
Susanne M. Bruyère, Ph.D., Principal Investigator

September, 2002

Abstract

Ten job boards1 and 31 corporate E-recruiting websites
were evaluated for accessibility for people with disabilities. The examination was performed using bothan automated accessibility testing software (Bobbyv3.2) and an examination of a sub-sample of the sites
through a “simulated” application process. The simulated application process was performed utilizing
only the information available to a screen reader andnavigating the site using only keyboard commands,
duplicating how a blind individual would typicallynavigate the web. The purpose of this second method was to see if it would be possible to successfully
proceed through the entire multi-step job search andapplication process.
None of the job board pages (home, job search,
signup, or resumé submittal pages) evaluated by
Bobby were found to be accessible. The vast majority of corporate E-recruiting sites also failed Bobby’s
tests. The simulated application process evaluation
was slightly more promising, but still only threeof the nine job boards and three of the twelve corporate sites evaluated were accessible enough towork through the entire process of registration, job
searching, resumé submittal, and application fora position. Many of the issues encountered could
easily be corrected through the consistent use of alternative text for essential submit image buttons(i.e. “apply,” “post resumé”).
1

Job board: an Internet site where employers pay to post their positions
and to search the resume database for candidates. Candidates can search
and apply online for positions as well as post resumes for free.

This paper is part of a four-year Research and Demonstration
Project funded by the U.S. Department of Education National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR),
to address ways to improve the employment practices covered by Title I of the ADA (Grant No. H133A70005). The study
is administered by the Program on Employment and Disability
in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Extension
Division, at Cornell University in collaboration with the
Washington Business Group on Health, the Society for Human
Resource Management, and The Lewin Group. The purpose ofthis effort is to investigate the impact of the ADA on the employment practices of private sector businesses. The intended
outcome of the research is to assist in the identification of
employment practices that have been the most challenging in
implementing the ADA, and to identify interventions that canbe used by the private sector employers and persons with disabilities to address these employment practices. Employment
policy and practices that enhance both the hiring and retention of workers with disabilities are being examined.
During the course of the project, the growth of the World
Wide Web, the accessibility of electronic information andthe growing use of electronic human resources applications became major areas of concern. Therefore, the focus
of Year Four has been an inquiry into the current employer use of information technologies (IT) in the employment
and human resources management processes, and the accessibility of these services. We believe this will assist us in
better understanding the skills young people with disabilities need to access the workplace, and remain employed, as
well as illustrating the needs of older employees. This information will also inform the NIDRR Disability and BusinessTechnical Assistance Centers (DBTAC) about the accommodation and IT accessibility information needs of businesses, aswell as how that will translate to preparation of both young
and older individuals with disabilities for the work force.
Further information about the NIDRR DBTACs can be found atwww.adata.org, or by calling 800-949-4232.
Further information about this project and related reports canbe found at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/ped/daa/iep.html
The Program on Employment and Disability conducts researchand provides continuing education and technical assistanceon many aspects of disability in the workplace. Since 1968,
we have worked throughout the United States and abroadto help companies, labor organizations, government agencies, schools, and communities accommodate and integrate
individuals with disabilities. We also interact with policy makers, disability advocates, and rehabilitation program
professionals. Further information can be found at http://
www.ilr.cornell.edu/ped/ or by e-mailing ilr_ped@cornell.edu.

©Copyright 2002 Cornell University, Program on Employment
and Disability

The author would like to gratefully acknowledge the support
and assistance of Susanne Bruyère, Sara VanLooy, Andreas
Udby, and Camille Lee. Report design by Larry Clarkberg.

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites:
Disability Accessibility Considerations

Introduction

The use of the Web for business purposes has been rapidly expanding over the
past several years. One of the areas of
the greatest growth is E-recruiting, which
nearly all (91%) Fortune 5002 businesses
have embraced, according to an iLogos
Research survey (2002). The purposeof the research described in this report
was to examine the accessibility of Erecruiting for people with disabilities.
Accessibility of both job boards (where
employers pay to post their positions
and to search the resumé database forcandidates), and large corporate career
websites (where an individual applies directly on a corporation’s careers website)were examined.

Background

With the millions of jobs and resumés
available online, “The Internet has become the most effective way to broadly
disseminate information about the availability of jobs and people” (How online
recruiting changes the hiring game,2001). Bruce Hatz, a corporate staffing
2

The Fortune 500 group of companies is comprisedof the 500 largest companies in the U.S., based ongross revenue, compiled by Fortune Magazine (http://
www.fortune.com)

manager at Hewlett-Packard, states “It’sdramatically more effective than any
medium ever known. The Web is the
future of recruiting” (Useem, 1999, p.
97). Indeed, research by Goldman Sachs
showed that between the beginning of1999 and November 2000, traffic to career-oriented websites had more thandoubled, to 12.3 million unique visitors
per day (Rosenwald, 2000).
A January 2001 poll by the Society for
Human Resource Management (Societyfor Human Resource Management, 2001)
found HR managers made heavy use of
Web recruiting, with 88% of the managers surveyed reporting using Internet job
postings, just slightly behind the proportion using personal contact/networking(95%), newspaper advertisements (96%)
and employee referrals (91%). Internet
job postings came in ahead of headhunters (74%), employment agencies (76%),
and advertisements in professional
and trade journals (67%). The majority (58%) of the respondents said that
Internet job postings were an effective or
extremely effective search technique, justslightly less effective than the highest rated “personal contact/networking” (61%).

Contents
3 Introduction
3 Background4 Methods
4 Sample Selection
5 Review Software
6 Evaluation Process
6 Job Board Websites
6 Bobby Evaluation
7 Job Board
Application Process
8 Web Recruiting
Accessibility Issues
9 Visual Glossary
15 Corporate
Recruiting Websites
15 Bobby Evaluation
15 Simulated Process
Evaluation
25 Conclusion
26 Website Lists
26 References
27 Related
Publications/
Resources

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

3

“The power ofthe Web is in
its universality.
Access by
everyoneregardless of
disability is an
essential aspect.”—Tim Berners-Lee, W3C
Director and inventor of theWorld Wide Web

The recruiting process is the gateway toemployment. E-recruiting is having an
enormous impact on businesses, even as
accessibility of Web sites is a continuing
concern. To explore these interrelated issues, Cornell University conducted anassessment of E-recruiting sites’ accessibility as a part of its research on disability
non-discrimination in employer practice.
This paper presents our findings.
E-recruiting has the potential to revolutionize the job search and application
process for individuals with disabilities. It makes it possible to easily browse
job listings and submit resumes fromhome or from publicly accessible locations such as libraries. However, thisrequires that Web recruiting sites themselves not present accessibility problems.
Inaccessible E-recruiting sites could
present a new technological barrier to
employment, preventing people withcertain disabilities from finding and applying for available positions.
What types of disabilities might cause
difficulties in using the Web and what
are those potential difficulties? The following is a list from the World Wide
Web Consortium (W3C), whose mission
focuses on making the Web more accessible, describing some of the barriers theInternet can present to people with different kinds of disabilities (Brewer, 2001,
p.5):
Visual disabilities:n unlabeled graphics, undescribed video
n poorly marked-up tables or framesn lack of keyboard support or screen
reader compatibility
Hearing disabilities:n lack of captioning for audio
n proliferation of text without visual
signposts3
Physical disabilities:n lack of keyboard or single-switch
support for menu commands

3

For deaf users whose primary language is sign language with nowritten equivalent, a large amountof text can present a barrier.

4

Cognitive or neurological disabilities:n lack of consistent navigation structuren overly complex presentation or languagen lack of illustrative non-text materials
n flickering or strobing designs on pages

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

Only one study has examined the accessibility of Web recruiting sites(Jackson-Sanborn, Odess-Harnish andWarren, 2001). They examined the 50-100
most visited websites in six categories:
overall most-visited, clothing, international, jobs, college, and a random sample of
295 government sites. An automatic Web
accessibility evaluation tool, Bobby v3.2,
was used to evaluate the first layer of
each of these sites. The results only discussed Bobby’s most basic priority one
level errors, “show stoppers” that could
prevent individuals with various disabilities from being able to access informationon the site. Most of the categories performed poorly. Overall, two thirds (66%)
of the websites evaluated failed Bobby’s
most basic accessibility priority one error tests. They found that four out of five(81%) of the job sites were found to be
not accessible according to Bobby’s priority one criteria. Additionally, only 6% of
the sites passed Bobby’s more stringent
user checks level—areas that may create
accessibility problems that require manual evaluation. It is important to note that
this study did not follow-up to determine
if these user checks actually made thesite inaccessible.
Since finding and applying for a position
online is a multi-step process, this study
expands upon this research and moves
beyond simply performing an automatedevaluation of home pages. If the home
page is accessible but the search page orapplication pages are not, then the user
hits a brick wall in the process. This research examines essential pages required
to actually register at a site, search foropen positions, and submit an application at the ten most popular job boards
as well as 31 corporate recruiting sites.

Methods
Sample Selection

Forty-one websites were evaluated in all,31 corporate E-recruiting websites andten job boards. The ten job boards wereselected on the basis of those with thegreatest traffic—defined as the largest
number of unique visitors in the monthof January 2001 according to Neilsen/

Netratings (White, 2001). The list of sites evaluated isnoted on page 26. All evaluations took place in January
and February of 2002.
The 31 corporate recruitment sites selected for the accessibility review were derived from two sources.
Cambria Consulting, a Boston based Human Resources
consulting firm, selected 140 companies from Fortune
Magazines list of America’s “Best Companies to Workfor” and “Most Admired Companies” (Densford, 2000).
They then examined their E-recruiting websites and rated them on their “overall usefulness to employer” (upto five stars) and “overall ease of use” (up to five stars)
for applicants. The most effective sites, 14 in all, wereawarded 10 stars and were included in our accessibility testing (see page 26). The following summarizes
some of the “user friendly” features Cambria Consulting
found on the recruiting sites:n Easy site navigation and links to career pages for candidatesn Categories such as location, job function, and key-wordsearch to help candidates identify appropriate positionsn Attractive and easy to read graphics
n Candidates can easily paste resumes to application page,e-mail them, or create online applications for specificjob openings
n Self-assessment quizzes asking candidates about theirinterests and experience to direct them to appropriate
openings
n Access to company information and “culture” as well as

profiles of archetypal employees to give a sense of whatworking for the company would be likeThe remaining corporate sites were selected from thelist of the top Fortune 500 companies. If any of thesecompanies was already included in the previous “mosteffective recruiting site” sample, the next Fortune 500
company on the list was selected.
These two samples allowed us to examine what was
independently determined as the “best of corporate Erecruiting sites” along with other major corporate sites
with fewer “bells and whistles.” It was hypothesizedthat the 14 most effective recruiting sites might tend to
be less accessible through the use of fancier and more
complex web design than the Fortune 500 companies.
The sites selected for the process evaluation included
nine of the ten job boards (Jobs.com was undergoing reorganization at the time) as well as six of the Top 14 Web
recruiter sites and six of the Fortune 500 company sites.
These sites were selected to cover the range of performance as determined by Bobby’s accessibility evaluation
to attempt to examine their “real world” performance.

Evaluation Software Selected for Site Review

Following the lead of several other accessibility studies (Jackson-Sanborn, 2001; Odess-Harnish and Warren,
2001; Rowland and Smith, 1999; Rowland, 2000; Samsand Yates-Mercer, 2000; Schmetzke, 2001), Bobby 3.24
was the primary evaluation software utilized. Bobby
was developed by the Center for Applied Special
Technology (CAST), a non-profit entity, and is designed
to analyze accessibility based on the World Wide Web
Consortium’s (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. It is designed tocheck for accessibility errors and a report is generated
listing the type, number and the location where the error was detected. Bobby evaluates sites according tothree priority levels for accessibility errors. “Priority
one” level errors are the ones that determine if the siteachieves the “Bobby approved” status and this was
the level/criteria used in this study. These errors are“show stoppers” that would make it impossible for one
or more groups to access the information contained on
the page. Since Bobby cannot automatically check every W3C-WAI guideline, it also lists “user checks” to be
manually examined if triggered by a specific attributeon a page. A site can receive the “Bobby approved” icon
only if does not contain any “priority one” errors andpasses all the level one “user checks.” Due to the large
number of pages evaluated in this study, these user
checks were noted but not checked.
Bobby has several limitations as noted by Schmetzke(2001). Bobby is not able to test the accessibility of
script (i.e. Javascript) or content created by scripts.
When Bobby encounters images it checks to see if there
is alternative text (typically referred to as alt text) associated with it. If there is alt text associated it will passthat image; however, it cannot determine if the alt text
will provide adequate information to successfully navigate the page and understand its contents. For example,a page may indicate a field which is required to be completed by a user with a picture of a star. The alt text
“star” is descriptive of the image, but does not clarify
that the star’s purpose is to identify required information. Bobby is also unable to evaluate pages that require
the user to register or log in, which limited its usefulness in certain types of pages examined in this study,
specifically resumé submittal pages.
It is important to note that even when Bobby detects anerror it does not necessarily mean the site is completely
inaccessible. Bobby has no way of determining the importance or insignificance of the errors it detects. For
example, it may detect missing alt text on a page for animage that is only an advertisement or a background.
4

Since this study was performed Bobby has been purchased by Watchfire(http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/).

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

5

Bobby will note it as an error and flag the site as inaccessible, despite the fact that a particular error may not have
any impact on the actual purpose of the page. Despite
these issues Bobby is still the most often used tool toevaluate a large number of sites for accessibility andgives a useful and stringent test for overall accessibility.
Due to the issues of Bobby evaluations noted above,
all of the job boards and six sites from each of thetwo corporate categories of sites were further evaluated manually. This evaluation was performed withtwo computers, both running under the Windows 2000
operating system. Pages were loaded with Microsoft
Internet Explorer, version 5.5.
Another accessibility testing tool, WAVE version 2.01,
was used to supplement Bobby’s evaluations. WAVE
performs similar checks, but has the advantage of being
able to evaluate certain sites that Bobby is unable to access. WAVE was developed by Pennsylvania’s Initiativeon Assistive Technology (PIAT) based at Temple
University.5
Two screen readers were used in conjunction with thesimulated application process: Windows Narrator and
JAWS. Narrator is a very basic screen reader installed
as part of the Microsoft Windows 2000 operating system designed to assist with computer setup or use otherpeople’s computers. Although it is not nearly as functional as the commercial screen readers, it was thoughtthat this “free” reader might be the only affordable option for unemployed individuals searching for work.
JAWS version 4.0 (Job Access with Speech) is a much
more sophisticated screen reader and is the most popular reader used by blind or low vision computer users(http://www.FreedomScientific.com). Narrator and
JAWS were used to evaluate situations which appeared
to be potentially problematic to screen readers.

The Evaluation Process

The simulated application process was performed
following a portion of the W3C’s recommended preliminary review for evaluating sites for accessibility. The
purpose of this simulated application process was to see
if it was actually possible to search and apply for a job
given the potentially more challenging scenario of anindividual using a screen reader with limited hand dexterity that prevented the use of a mouse. One computer
was running Microsoft Internet Explorer with images
and sound turned off, and navigation limited to the key5

Available at: http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/

6

Bobby Priority one errors are “show stoppers” that would make it impossible for one or more groups to access the information contained on the page.

6

board only. Another computer was set up alongside thefirst, but running a fully functional version of Internet
Explorer to determine what was lost in the droppingof images and to clarify problematic navigation issues.
Inaccessible links and images not required for the purpose of performing a job search and the application
process were ignored in this evaluation, although links
that were deemed potentially useful for these purposes(i.e. help pages) that were inaccessible were also noted.
Four web pages were chosen for evaluation on eachsite. The pages selected were those most likely to be
encountered and navigated by a person looking andapplying for a job. The corporate site pages evaluatedincluded the home pages of each site, the corporate careers page, job search or job postings page, and finallythe resumé submission front page (when available).
The job board pages selected for evaluation were similar, and included the following components: the home
page, job search/postings page, and the first page for resumé submission. As most job boards required signingup/registering for their service before a resumé could
be submitted, the job board registration page was also
evaluated for accessibility. Both the process and the
Bobby evaluations were performed in the first quarterof 2002.

Job Board Results
Bobby Evaluation

None of the ten job board home pages passed Bobby’s
priority one evaluation (see Table 1 on page 7), with all
containing at least one priority one type error.6 Bobby
therefore deemed them all inaccessible. When the job
search pages of the job boards were tested by Bobby,
none were determined to be accessible. The same wasfound for the sign up/registration pages of the job
boards with all showing Bobby priority one errors. Due
to most sites requiring registration before allowing access to their resumé builder/submittal page, Bobby was
only able to evaluate two of the job board’s resumé pages. Neither of the two resumé pages which Bobby wasable to evaluate received Bobby approval, with bothhaving at least three priority one errors.
The most common error was the lack of alternative text
(alt text) for images, which Bobby detected on nearly
all of the pages (80-100 percent of each page type evaluated) in all ten job board sites. Alternative text is atext description that screen readers can read to identify
images for those with visual problems (see the Visual
Glossary on page 9 for examples). The number of theseerrors on a single page ranged from a low of four to as
many as 272 on a single home page (average of 78).

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

Some of these are non-essential images or backgrounds,
but they frequently include essential links, or an important title for a list of links. In the case of image-links
without this descriptive text, a user with a screen reader
would only have a link address (often cryptic) to figureout where it leads. While labeling images is important, some images such as spacers and backrounds are
non-essential to either navigation or comprehension.
These images should be given the null alt-text (<IMG
src=“filename” alt=“” />) so that a screen reader user
does not have to wade through a host of unnecessary
image descriptions to get to the content of the site.
The next most common error detected was not providing alternative text for image-type buttons in forms.
This is particularly prevalent and problematic with sixof the ten registration pages and three of the ten job
search pages. In order to register with a job board or
submit a search, a button that is an image (often labeled “submit”) must be “pressed.” If these buttons are
not identified with alt text, the user has no way of registering with the job board (and therefore applying for
any of the positions posted on the board) or any way
to find out the results of a search—the Web equivalentof hitting a brick wall. This situation was also found in
one of the two resumé submittal pages that Bobby wasable to evaluate—again another job application “brickwall” for an individual using a screen reader.
Other errors Bobby detected included two sites using
frames7 that did not label the frames, and two others that did not provide alternative text for image map“hot-spots.”8

Evaluation of Job Board Application Process

Only nine of the ten job boards underwent this evaluation, as Jobs.com was undergoing reorganization at thetime of this analysis and the site was not available. As
can be seen in Table 2 on page 10, all the home pages of
the job boards contained accessible links to the essential pages examined: signup/login/registration, resumébuilder, and the job search page. One site’s home pagelink to the job search was an image map link without alt
text, but it was possible to access the job search page via
the site map page (which was accessible from the homepage).
When a basic screen reader such as “Narrator” encounters a link missing alt text it will just read “link”
7

Frames may be used to organize the information on a page. Frame labels
can assist a screen reader user to understand this organization and simplify
page navigation.
8

Some larger images may contain multiple links, called “hot spots,” within
the image. Each “hot-spot” should have alt text for the link to be accessible.

Table 1:
Job Boards, Bobby Priority One Test Results
Home
Pages

Sign uppage

Job
SearchResumé
BuilderNumber of sites
Bobby evaluated

n=10

n=10

n=10

n=2

% Accessible (no priority
one errors detected)

0%

0%

0%

0/2

Accessibility errors noted
Provide alternative text
for all image-type buttons
in forms

40%

60%

30%

1/2

Provide alternative text
for all images

100%

90%

80%

2/2

Give each frame a title

20%

30%

20%

2/2

Provide alternative text
for all image map hotspots

20%

20%

20%

1/2

Each frame must reference
an HTML file

10%

20%

10%

1/2

—clearly a dead end. More sophisticated screen readers(i.e. JAWS) will read the link address if there is no alt
text. However, this information is not always useful depending on the actual link address. One example of an
unlabeled “job agent” (which e-mails a user of new job
postings that fit their search criteria): link address “http://jobcast.jobboard.com/texis/ja/%2Bnww_qt5wcwGO/
new.html’,’commonwindow’,’720’,%20’650”—not very
helpful or explanatory of where that link leads.
Only four of the nine job boards had accessible signup/login pages. Most of the inaccessible pages were passable until the critical “submit” stage where five of thesites used image buttons without identifying alt text.
As with links without alt text, one site’s registration
submit button is read by the JAWS screen reader as:“btn_submit_org.gif.” A screen reader user might beable to deduce the button’s purpose, but would bemuch simpler if it had alt text attached “click to submit
your registration information.”
One board also utilized a problematic auto-submit combo box that allows a mouse-using applicant to selectone of 67 job categories (see Figure 1). Unfortunately, if
you attempt to navigate the list with the standard method using the arrow keys, only accountants can progress
further, as that is the first item and automatically chosen. Successful navigation is possible using Internet
Explorer, but requires the use of a non-intuitive and undocumented key combination (“alt-down arrow”). Thisdisables the auto-submit, allowing the user to browse

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

7

through the list and make a selection. As there is noway for a user to differentiate between a standard combo box and an auto-submit combo box, a user would
probably accidentally trigger the auto-submit, be sent
to the wrong page, and have to return to the original
page to use this key combination and make a selection.
The key combination workaround is not available in
Netscape.
An additional issue was found with one job board.
Whenever a user clicked on a link or submitted information the site would throw up at least one, if not twoor three, additional “popup” windows from their advertisers. This is annoying to sighted users but far moredisruptive to users of screen readers who now are facedwith several new unanticipated windows in front of thepage they were expecting.
Three of the job search pages were inaccessible—most because of the simple oversight of not including alt text forthe submit search buttons (see Figure 2 on page 11). In
addition, one site utilizes a completely inaccessible image map of the United States to select job locations, due tothe lack of alt text (see Figure 3 on page 12). Once a job
is identified, three sites did not have alt text for their “apply” image button (for an example, see Figure 4 on page13). Of the eight sites that had a resumé builder page, half
were inaccessible, once again most often due to the lackof alt text on the image buttons for “continue” or “submit”(for an example, see Figure 5 on page 14).

Examples of Web Recruiting Accessibility Issues

Pages 11 to 14 provide representations of various job
board pages illustrating some of problems and solutions
found in the examination of the sites around Web accessibility issues, followed by a summary table. Each
example provides two images: the upper image is what
is visible with a fully operational Microsoft Internet
Explorer browser. The lower image is the same page,
but with images turned off and alternative text showing(where it has been implemented). What text is visibleon the page in this mode is the information a screen
reader has available to read. Images without alternative text show up as an empty box with an image icon
inside. Although these pictures do not comprehensively show all the Web access issues on a particular page,
they do illustrate and highlight some of the major issues
encountered by an individual with a visual disability
using a screen reader.
The most common issues encountered on the pages
include:n Critical submit buttons lacking alternative text (alt text)n Critical links lacking alternative textn Image maps lacking alternative textn Combo-boxes designed to “auto submit on change”
n Form tables with inadequate labels for columns and rows

Overall, only a third of the nine job boards were accessible through the entire process using information
available to a screen reader and navigating with keyboard commands. In fully a third of all the job board
pages examined the primary issue was the simple lackof alt text for a critical image button required to submit
information.

Figure 1: Job Board Auto-Submit Combo Box
Only the accounting category is available using documented keyboard commands.

8

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

Visual Glossary of Basic Screen Reader Web Accessibility Issues Encountered

This is an image without alternative text. Images can be anything from photographs, to icons, to an image of text as in these examples. A screen reader will ignore it if it is just an image and has no alt text.
If it has alt text the text will be read. If it is a link without alt text, basic screen readers will note it
simply as “link.” More sophisticated screen readers will read the address of the link itself. Addresses canbe quite cryptic as is this one whose photograph of an employee links to a description of her experience
working for the company: http://www.careers.com/images/portrait3_On.jpg.

This is an image map with “hot spots”: This is a single larger image that has four areas (hot spots)
within it “mapped” to link to other pages on the site. Each of these “hot spots” needs alt text for successful navigation using a screen reader.

This is a typical “submit” button image. As with other images, if a button lacks alternative text it is
impossible for a screen reader to determine what the button’s purpose is. The second image is what isdisplayed when images are turned off in the Web browser—a blank box containing an image icon. The
third image illustrates how the button would appear if it had associated alt text of “Search.”

This is a “combo box” which provides a listing of alternate choices. On recruitment sites these are often used to select a job type or location. Combo boxes
are typically not problematic for keyboard navigation (a user can tab to the box
and use the arrow keys to select their choice). However, on some Web pages
these combo boxes are designed to “auto-submit upon change.” This means assoon as an item is selected the user is sent to that selection. For a mouse user
this is not an issue as they can scroll through the list then make their selection.
However this “auto-submit feature” makes keyboard navigation through the list problematic as it sends
the user off to that page—without giving the screen reader/user an opportunity to read/hear the otherchoices.

This is a form table from a resumé submittal page. The way it is designed results in a screen reader reading the headers across the top (Title, Employer, From Date, To Date) and then “enter” 16 times(once for each text field)—making it very difficult if not impossible to determine what information isneeded for that particular field. Most resumé submittal pages avoided this problem by separating eachposition out rather than using this table type design.

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

9

Table 2: Summary of Simulated Application Process: Job Boards
Screen reader/keyboard navigation barriers encountered

Job Boards

Home page

Signup/Login

Resumé builder

Search Page

Search Results

Other

Job Board 1“premium” service inaccessible

Job Board 2

Generates many popup windows

Job Board 3NA

Job Board 4
Job Board 5

Only lacks alt text for 1 signup submit
buttonJob Board 6*Home page image map link to job
search page inaccessible (must use
sitemap)*

Job Board 7

Job Board 8** Results page e-mail & add to clipboard submit buttons inaccessible,
apply button OK

Job Board 9
Overall

9/9

4/9

4/9

6/9

6/9

Minimally accessible: basic information and links are accessible via screen reader and keyboard (Note: otherlinks and buttons may lack alt text and other accessibility issues may still exist)
Essential submit button image missing alternative text (i.e. search, go, continue, submit)
Essential image link missing alternative text
“Combo box” menu automatically submits on change not keyboard accessible—item is submitted as soon as
item is selected (impossible to get beyond first item in menu)
Inadequately labeled tables
Frames issue—can’t access essential areas of page with keyboard

10

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

Figure 2: Job Board Job Search pagen “Search Jobs” Image Button inaccessible (no alt text)

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

11

Figure 3: Job Board Search Page

This is the first step of a job search for one job board.
n “Steps 1-3” are images without identifying alt text.
n The U.S. map is an “image map” where a mouse clickin different regions selects the state. A screen reader reads “Javascript:windowfocus()imagemap link” foreach of the 50+ locations on the map—completely inaccessible.
n If the user is sighted but cannot use a mouse it

the map. However the order in which the images
are tabbed through has no apparent logic. It skips
from Washington D.C. to Alaska, Hawaii, Montana,
Minnesota, Massachusetts, Nevada, Pennsylvania . . .
not very user friendly.
n Frames issue: if a state is selected, a list of cities inthat state is presented, but the list is not accessible via
the keyboard nor are the “next” and “finish” buttons.
n The “previous” “next” and “finish” submit buttons areimage buttons lacking alt text.

is possible to use the keyboard to “tab through”

12

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

Figure 4: Job Board Job Search Results Page

Note the lack of alt text identifying the essential submit image buttons:
n Apply now
n Send to friendn Print
n CloseA Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

13

Figure 5: Job Board Resumé Submittal Page
Note the lack of alt text for all images including all
critical submit button images:
n Job Searchn Add Skilln Remove Skilln Previewn Reset

14

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

Corporate Recruiting Websites
Results
Bobby Evaluation

The Bobby evaluation of the top 14 E-recruitment sites
and those of the 17 Fortune 500 sites were found to bequite similar, so their results are combined here. The
home pages of the corporate E-recruitment sites fared
somewhat better than the job boards, with eight of the31 (26%) passing without any priority one errors (seeTable 3 on this page). Again, the most common error
detected was lack of alternative text for an image. Of
the eight that passed without errors, all had between
nine and 11 Bobby “user checks” that needed to be
performed to determine if it actually could be “Bobby
approved.” At the career page level only three companies’ sites passed without any Bobby priority one errors.
The job search pages did slightly better, with five passing without errors although all had between five andnine user checks. Bobby again had difficulty with manyof the resumé submittal pages, as most required a signin. Only one of the 11 resumé pages Bobby was able toaccess were free from priority one accessibility errors.

Simulated Process Evaluation

The findings from the simulated application process ofcorporate sites are similar to those of the job boards(see Table 4, page 17). Nearly all of the home pages examined (11/12) had accessible links to the careers page.
The one site in which access was problematic had its
career link embedded in an auto-submit combo box.
Given the apparent effort this company made to makeeverything else on its home page accessible (and thefact that the combo-box had a submit button) makes it
appear as if the auto submit feature was an accidental
oversight. That site did have an accessible link to thesite map that contained a text link to the careers page.
Nine of the 12 careers pages contained accessible links
to the essential job search and resumé submittal pages.
Seven of the 12 job search pages were accessible andthe same number of the search results had accessible
results that allowed application for a position identified.
Overall, only three of the twelve corporate sites evaluated were found to be accessible throughout the entire
job search and application process using information
available to a screen reader and keyboard navigation.
The types of accessibility issues encountered on thecorporate sites were very similar to those found with
the Job Boards. Fifteen of the 20 inaccessible corporate recruiting pages lacked alt text for critical “submit”
or “continue” image buttons. Six of the problem pages
contained essential links lacking alt text required for a

Table 3: Corporate Web Recruiting Sites,
Bobby Priority One Test Results
Home
Pages

Sign uppage

Job
SearchResumé
BuilderNumber of sites
Bobby evaluated

n=31

n=29

n=29

n=11

% Accessible (no priority
one errors detected)

26%

10%

17%

9%

Accessibility errors noted
Provide alternative text
for all image-type buttons
in forms

19%

10%

28%

9%

Provide alternative text
for all images

52%

79%

59%

64%

Give each frame a title.

10%

10%

28%

36%

Provide alternative text
for all image map hotspots.

13%

14%

7%

none

Each frame must reference
an HTML file

3%

none

7%

9%

screen reader and three contained problematic automatically submitting “combo boxes.”
Several examples of career pages are shown on the following pages to show some of the issues encountered.
Figure 6 (see page 18) shows the primary careers pagefor a Fortune 500 company. The page contains 27 careers
related links as images, all of which are lacking alt text.
Luckily the site map link does have alt text and is accessible from this page. The site map allows access to all
the inaccessible links on the career page. However, both
the resumé builder page and the search results page also
make heavy use of images, most of which are without
associated alt text thereby making those pages inaccessible. Figure 7 (see page 19) is another example of atypical career page of a Fortune 500 company.
Although the search and apply link is accessible, allof the primary links lack alt text (“Working at . .,”“Campus recruiting,” “Search jobs,” “Career development,” etc.). Alt text that could be applied to thesewould be as simple as duplicating the text used in theimage. All the header/titles/descriptions that describe
the contents of the lists on the page are images lacking
alt text. Note that the site index link (upper right handcorner), which presents many of the inaccessible links
available from this page accessibly, is itself inaccessible
due to the lack of identifying alt text. Also the photographs of employees are links to a description of theirexperiences as employees—information that is unavailable to a screen reader without alt text descriptions.

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

15

Figure 8 (see page 20) shows the job opportunities
page of a Fortune 500 company through which all career traffic is routed. Note that all links listed along theleft hand side of the screen are images and none of theimages contain alt text. This page is a dead end for anon-sighted user. What is interesting about this siteis that several of the pages it links to, such as the career search page, actually contain text links to most of
the pages, but the only way to get there is through thiscompletely inaccessible page. This type of inconsistency
was encountered on many sites and pages.

More sophisticated screen readers such as JAWS readthe link address of the button. As noted previously, theaddresses can be virtually unintelligible, as can be seenfrom examples taken from this page:

It was not unusual to find pages that were almost accessible, such as that shown in the example in Figure
9 (see page 21). Clearly an attempt to make the information accessible was made, as even the required
information asterisk images had alt text. Unfortunately
the even more important detail of the submit image button to begin the search is missing alt text.

Figure 11 (see page 23) demonstrates what an accessible job search page could look like and some simple
features can make a good page even more accessible.
All of the images used have alt text, and this page goesbeyond basic text to include descriptive explanations toimprove a screen reader users experience. For example,
the alt text for the “help” button is not merely “help,”
but reads “click on help for Job Category searching.”
The page also includes useful hints on how to navigate
it with only keyboard commands, and offers a link to ascreen reader.

An extreme example of inaccessibility is shown in
Figure 10 (see page 22), which shows a job listing
accessed from a search results page. The “Careers
Quickpick” list/combo box lacks an alt tag for its image,so it is unclear what its purpose might be. The combo
box is also designed to automatically submit, allowing
easy selection of different opportunities via a mouse. As
previously noted, this approach makes it problematicto navigate from the keyboard as it automatically submits when a change is made. The navigation buttons
lack alt text so basic screen readers such as Microsoft’s
Navigator would just read “link, link, link, link . . ..”16n First: Javascript:submitrecordflag(‘first’,’/company/

companies/Maincareers.jsp’)n Back to Search Results: http://www.company.com/

company/companies /Maincareers.jsp?BV_sessionI
D=@@@@1493205465.1017437931@@@@&BV_
EngineID=ccccadcchk

Figure 12 (see page 24) shows an excellent example
of an accessible job application/resumé builder page.
Many of the fields have additional information specifically provided for screen reader use in the form of alt
text, greatly simplifying completion by the applicant.
This additional information is alt text cleverly “hidden”
as a clear image behind the fields to not be distracting
in the “images on” view. This way the information only
appears when a screen reader is in use or when images
are turned off on the browser.

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

Table 4: Summary of Simulated Application Process: Corporate Sites
Screen reader/Keyboard navigation barriers encountered
Home Page:
Careers link
accessible

Company

Careers page

Resumé
builder

Search Page

Search Results

Other
Many informative links on Careers pageinaccessible

Company 1
Company 2*Home page link to Careers page inaccessible—can be accessed via site map*

Company 3*All links inaccessible on central job
opportunities page—dead end!

*

Company 4
Excellent site, many accessible features

Company 5
Company 6

Company 7

Company 8*All essential links on careers page areinaccessible. Must use site map to access search or resumé pages*

Intermediate “help” contents pageinaccessible

Company 9Company 10* Careers page difficult to navigate tofrom home page*

Company 11*Auto-submit list occurs before main
search –confusing to screen reader users*

Company 12
Overall* Some alternate search screens lack alt
text for submit buttons

*

11/12

9/12

6/12

7/12

7/12

Minimally accessible: basic information and links are accessible via screen reader and keyboard. (Other links
and buttons may lack alt text and other accessibility issues may still exist.)
Essential submit button image missing alternative text (i.e. search, go, continue, submit)
Essential image link missing alternative text
“Combo box” menu automatically submits on change not keyboard accessible—item is submitted as soon as
item is selected (impossible to get beyond first item in menu)
Inadequately labeled tables
Frames issue—can’t access essential areas of page with keyboard

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

17

Figure 6: Main Careers Page of a Fortune 500
Company

This is an example of an image-heavy careers page.
n All 27 careers-related links are images, all of which arelacking alt text.
n Luckily the site map link does have alt text and mostlinks are accessible from that page.

18

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

Figure 7: Main Careers Page of a Fortune 500
Company

This is the career page of a Fortune 500 company.
n Although the search and apply link is accessible, allof the primary links lack alt text (“Working at . .,”“Campus recruiting,” “Search jobs,” “Career development,” etc.). Alt text that could be applied to thesewould be as simple as duplicating the text used in theimage.

n Note that the site index link (upper right hand cor-ner), which presents many of the inaccessible links
available from this page accessibly, is itself inaccessible due to the lack of identifying alt text.
n The photographs of employees are links to a description of their experiences as employees—informationthat is unavailable to a screen reader without alt text
descriptions.
n All the headers/titles/descriptions that describe thecontents of the lists are images lacking alt text.

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

19

Figure 8: Job Opportunities Page of a
Fortune 500 Company

This is the job opportunities page of a Fortune 500
company through which all career traffic is routed.
n Note that all links listed along the left hand side of
the screen are images and none of the images contain alt text. This page is a complete dead end for anon-sighted user.

20

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

Figure 9: Job Search Results Page of a Fortune 500 Company
n The “Careers quickpick” title is an image without an alt tag.
n The “quickpick”combo box is a problematic auto-submit listn All navigation buttons lack alt text.

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

21

Figure 10: Corporate Job Search Page

This is an interesting example of a nearly accessible corporate
job search page.
n The required fields denoted by the red asterisk images are
identified with alt text “this field is required” (an item that isfrequently forgotten in many of the other sites)
n The critical “OK” and “Cancel” image buttons lack alt text.

22

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

Figure 11: Example of an Accessible Job Search Page

This page is an excellent example of an accessible job search page.
n Note that all the images (i.e. the question mark icons) have alternative text.
n The designers actually include truly descriptive tags—instead of simply“help” it is “click here for help on...” .
n The page also includes useful hints as to how to navigate it with only keyboard commands and offers a link to a screen reader.

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

23

Figure 12: Example of an Accessible Job Application/
Resumé Builder Page

This site is an excellent example of what can be done to make a resumé builder page more accessible.
n Many of the fields have additional information specifically provided forscreen reader use in the form of alt text.
n Note the helpful address and phone number alt text that only appears

when a screen reader is in use or when images are turned off on thebrowser.

24

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

Conclusion

In summary, none of the job board pages (home, job
search, signup, or resumé submittal pages) evaluated by Bobby were found to be accessible (without atleast one Priority One error). The corporate E-recruiting fared slightly better, with eight of the 31 home pages
passing without priority one errors, but only three of
29 sites (10%) career pages and five of 29 job search
pages (17%) passed. Only one of the 11 corporate resumé submittal pages that Bobby was able to access wasfound to be without priority one errors.
The results of the simulated application process using
information available to screen readers and keyboard
navigation was slightly more encouraging, but still far
from ideal. Overall, about half of the job board andcorporate pages evaluated were accessible to a screen
reader user with keyboard navigation. However, it isimportant to remember that this is a multi-step process and each step must be accessible for an applicant
to actually apply for a position online. Using these criteria, only three of the nine job boards and three ofthe 12 corporate sites were accessible enough to workthrough the entire process of registration, job searching, resumé submittal, and application. For the majority
of inaccessible pages, fixing the screen reader and keyboard navigation issues would be quite simple. Creating
alternative text for the submit image buttons and links
would address many of the major roadblocks encountered in the inaccessible sites.
Individual pages could frequently be navigated, andmany allowed a user to set up search criteria or complete resumé or registration forms, but then at a criticalpoint were totally inaccessible—most often an image
button that had to be clicked to submit the information
had no identifying alt text for a screen reader to access.
Fully a third of all job board pages and nearly a third of
the corporate career-related pages examined contained
submit buttons with this problem. To complicate mat-ters, there were often multiple unidentified buttons (i.e.
submit, cancel, go back). Without alt text the screen
reader user would have no idea as to which button to
select except by trial and error, typically losing the data
entered if the guess was incorrect.
The majority of the problems encountered were the lackof alt text, especially in the case of the critical image
buttons, which submitted the information from various
forms. Correcting most of the problems encounteredwould be fairly simple and would not require a significant commitment of time or finances on the part ofbusinesses.
It is important to note that making these changes will
not make the entire site accessible for all users withdisabilities, but it would be a step that would vastly improve accessibility for those using screen readers andaccessing sites using keyboard commands. The majorityof these sites contained other image links that lacked alt
text and other issues identified by Bobby as problematicthat were not evaluated.
Almost all the literature on online recruiting and job
postings agrees that the Web is rapidly becoming the
medium of choice for many, if not most, companies(Densford, 2000; iLogos Research 2002; Society for
Human Resource Management, 2001; Useem, 1999;
White, 2001). Given the growth of online recruiting,combined with the frequent access problems discoveredin this study, there is a very real potential for certain
populations of disabled individuals to be all but cut off
from this most promising avenue for job searches andapplications. None of the accessibility issues encountered were insurmountable, and most could be easily
altered to significantly improve accessibility. It is vitalto ensure that career recruiting sites on the World Wide
Web are made accessible so all individuals, regardlessof their situation, have access to this wealth of jobs
available on the Internet.

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

25

Website Lists
Top 10 Job Boards9
n CareerBuilder.com
n Monster.com
n JobsOnline.com
n Jobs.com
n Dice.com
n HotJobs.com
n Salary.com
n FlipDog.com
n Net-Temps.com
n Vault.com

Top 14 Corporate Web Recruiters10
n EDS
n Fidelityn General Electricn Guidantn IBM
n Inteln Johnson & Johnson
n Lucent Technologies
n Microsoft
n Pfizern Price Waterhouse Coopers
n Procter & Gamble
n Sun Microsystems
n United Parcel Service

Fortune 500 Companies Evaluated11
n Exxon Mobiln Wal-Mart Storesn General Motors
n Ford Motorn Citigroupn AT&Tn Verizon Communicationsn Philip Morris
n J.P. Morgan Chasen Bank of America Corp.
n SBC Communicationsn Boeing
n ChevronTexacon Duke Energy
n Krogern Chevron9

As defined as the largest number of unique visitors in the month ofJanuary 2001 according to Neilsen/Netratings (White, 2001)
10

References

Brewer, J. (2000). Overview of the Web Accessibility Initiative.
Retrieved November 28, 2001 from http://www.w3.org/Talks/
WAI-Intro/Overview.html
Densford, L. (2000, November). Web recruiting: Tips from the masters.
Benefit News. Retrieved from http://www.benefitnews.com/tech/detail.cfm?id=728
How online recruiting changes the hiring game. (2001, February 22).
Philadelphia: Wharton Center for Human Resources, Universityof Pennsylvania. Retrieved May 30, 2001, from http://knowledge.
wharton.upenn.edu/articles.cfm?catid=10&articleid=314
iLogos Research. (2002). Global 500 website recruiting, 2002 survey.
Author. Retrieved April 8, 2002, from https://www.ilogos.com/
iLogosReport2002/secureJackson-Sanborn,E., Odess-Harnish, K. and Warren, N. (2001,
May 30). Website accessibility: a study of ADA compliance(working paper). Retrieved November 27, 2001 from http://
www.ils.unc.edu/ils/research/reports/accessibility.pdf
Rosenwald, M. (2000, November 26). Online recruiting surviving volatility. The Boston Globe, p. G2.
Rowland, C. & Smith, T. (1999). Website accessibility. The power of
independence (Summer Edition), 1-1. Logan, UT: Utah State
University Outreach Division, Center for Persons with Disabilities.
Rowland, C. (2000) Accessibility of the Internet in postsecondary education: Meeting the challenge. Presentation from the Universal
Web Accessibility Symposium 2000, WebNet World Conference
on the WWW and Internet, San Antonio. Retrieved on October 9,2001 from http://www.webaimorg/articles/whitepaperSams, L. & Yates-Mercer, P. (2000). The Web for students and staff
with disabilities: visual impairment, dyslexia and motor impairment [Report of a survey of Higher Education Lecturers’
Awareness of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)]. Retrieved
November 30, 2001, from http://www.disinhe.ac.uk/library/article.asp?id=39
Schmetzke, A. (2001). Web page accessibility on University of
Wisconsin campuses: 2001 Survey Data. Retrieved from http://library.uwsp.edu/aschmetz/Accessible/UW-Campuses/
Survey2001/contents2001.htm
Society for Human Resource Management (2001). Search Tactics Poll
(report from the SHRM Survey Program). Alexandria, VA: Author.
Retrieved August 20, 2001, from: http://www.careerjournal.com/
special/20010405-shrmpoll.pdf
Useem, J. (1999). For sale online: You. Fortune, 140(1), 67-78.
White, R. (2001, March 18). More job seekers, firms use the Net but
effectiveness of the websites remains unclear. Los Angeles Times,(Home Edition), W-1.

Densford, 2000

11

Fortune 500 list from: http://www.fortune.com/indexw.jhtml?channel=l
ist.jhtml&list_frag=list_3column_fortune500_list.jhtml&list=15&_requestid=53134

26

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

Related Reports, Publications,and Cornell Online Resources
Reports and Publications

Brannick, A. and Bruyère, S. (1999). The ADA at Work:
Implementation of the employment provisions of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Bruyère, S. (1999). Working Effectively with Human Resource
Professionals Using the Employment Provisions of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. New York: The Hatherleigh Company.
Bruyère, S. (2000). Disability Employment Policies and Practices in
Private and Federal Sector Organizations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations Extension
Division, Program on Employment and Disability.
Bruyère, S., and Erickson, W. (2001). E-Human Resources: A Reviewof the Literature and Implications for People with Disabilities.
Ithaca: NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor
Relations, Extension Division, Program on Employment andDisability.
Bruyère, S., & Horne, R. (1999). Disability Employment Policies
and Practices in U.S. Federal Government Agencies. Reportby the Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults
with Disabilities. Ithaca: NY: Cornell University, School ofIndustrial and Labor Relations, Extension Division, Program on
Employment and Disability.
Bruyère, S., Erickson, W., & VanLooy, S. (2000). HR’s role in managing disability in the workplace. Employment Relations Today,
Autumn, 47-66.
Bruyère, S., Erickson, W., & Horne, R. (2002). Survey of the Federal
Government on Supervisor Practices in Employment of People with
Disabilities. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial
and Labor Relations Extension Division, Program on Employment
and Disability.

Information about publications is available from theCornell University web site at www.ilr.cornell.edu/ped

Online Resources

Online resources on accommodations for HR professionals:
http://www.hrtips.org
Online resources on accommodations for person with
communication disabilities:
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/ped/accessforall/

For Further Information on the
ADA and IT Accessibility
call 1-800-949-4232 or go to:
http://www.adata.org

A Review of Selected E-Recruiting Websites: Disability Accessibility Considerations

27

Contact Information

For Further information about this reportcontact:
William Erickson, Research Specialist
Program on Employment & Disability
222 ILR Conference Center,
Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY 14853
phone: (607) 255-1540
fax: (607) 255-3274
TTY: (607) 255-2891
email: wae1@cornell.edu
For Further information about related
reports and the Program on Employment
and Disability contact:
Susanne M. Bruyère, Ph.D., CRC, Director
Program on Employment and Disability
School of Industrial & Labor Relations,
Extension Division,
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853-3901 USA
phone: (607) 255-7727
fax: (607) 255-2763
TTY/TDD: (607) 255-2891
email: smb23@cornell.edu