Discoverability, Usability, and Readability

Discoverability, Usability, and Readability

Digitized archival material and its description can have a unique combination of digital and web accessibility challenges that necessitates a more holistic approach than web accessibility usually takes. For example, not only does the website need to function for Disabled users, but the files made available on or linked to from it also need to function for Disabled users. Likewise, not only do Disabled users need to be able to find materials on an archival website, but, when relevant, they should also be able to locate materials about disability/Disabled people within existing search structures. There are also a few existing proposed metrics for measuring accessibility in online contexts, but they are either centered in computer science methodologies and thus difficult to translate for archival workflows (Droutsas et al., 2025) or are intended as measurements tools for large-scale scientific research (Parmanto & Zeng, 2005). 

As such, I created the discoverability, usability, and readability (DUR) framework, which aims to help archivists begin distilling the broad and varied considerations that come into play when holistically assessing a web entity for accessibility. Discoverability is based around the idea that a user cannot use what they cannot first find; usability is based on the idea that all users have the right to use the materials they find; and readability takes the stance that users have the right to be able to read (and comprehend) the descriptive language used for each item they find or use.

Discoverability

According to the DUR framework, discoverability includes: 

1. "The presence of items users want to find;

2. Users' awareness that those items exist and are available;

3. The logic of the path from the archive's homepage to the item;

4. The ease of locating the item with a general web search;

5. The ease of doing a known-item [or unknown item] search in the archive's default search field;

6. The number of keywords included on the page;

7. The presence of multi-level description on the page (or at least linked to);

8. The ethical navigation of any restrictions required by applicable privacy guidelines or laws" (Pineo, 2025, p. 4).

Usability

According to the DUR framework, usability includes: 

1. 1. "Implementation of the most recent version of WCAG or equivalent standard;

   2. For existing systems, [manual] user testing/usability testing that centers Disabled users' perspectives to facilitate Disabled users' performance, task success, and overall satisfaction;

   3. For new systems, born-accessible, Disabled-led design practices that center Disabled users' perspectives;

   4. Multiple access points for all information (scores, recordings, etc.)" (Pineo, 2025, p. 5).

To conduct a manual assessment of the pages being analyzed, I used the following steps:

1. Check keyboard navigation (tab, arrows, rotor modes, etc.)

2. Check headings (missing/out of order)

3. Check language attribute

4. Check alt text 

5. Check links for description/redundancy

6. Use buttons & check descriptions if needed

7. Use tables (Do the tables need to be tables?)

8. Do search functions work? 

9. Are there skip links (main content/navigation)?

10. Are there CAPTCHAs? Flash players? Forms? Other entities? If so, navigate them! 

11. Check for carousels/autoplay (should be disabled)

12. If possible, repeat 1–11 with another screen reader

13. Complete iterative revisions to the object of study

Readability

According to the DUR framework, readability includes:

1. "Writing descriptive text as close to a fifth-grade level as possible;

2. Offering alternatives to written information, like videos or images;

3. Ensuring that text is easily comprehensible to as many users as possible" (Pineo, 2025, p. 7).

Carrying out a DUR analysis

Carrying out a DUR analysis is relatively straightforward, but to assist in its application, I've put together an example set of steps below. 

1. Decide which items in each DUR section are relevant to your website. 

2. Decide how you would like to evaluate each item. Particularly for usability and readability, automated tools can be a useful starting place for those new to web accessibility. Recommendations include:

   1. Usability

      1. WAVE, for WCAG 2.1 AA 

      2. AChecker.ca, for WCAG 2.2 AA

   2. Readability

      1. Flesch-Kincaid calculator

3. Create a tracking sytem for findings. I prefer to use spreadsheets, but any system works. Example spreadsheet

4. Calculate the average, mode, maximum, and minimum for numeric data. 

5. Identify any recurring themes in qualitative data, like notes. 

6. Identify the most frequent problems identified in each section of the analysis. 

   1. D: What logic or search problems emerged? Which populations might be impacted by those problems?

   2. U: What were the most common usability problems encountered? How did they impact the functionality of the page? Which populations might be impacted by that problem? 

   3. R: What were the average scores? Where were they highest? Lowest? Which populations might be impacted by that?

7. Present analysis. This might take the form of a write up, as an article, or it might take the form of a report submitted to someone at your institution.

8. If possible, make any changes needed to increase accessibility.

References

• Droutsas, N., Spyridonis, F., Daylamani-Zad, D., & Ghinea, G. (2025). Web accessibility barriers and their cross-disability impact in eSystems: A scoping review. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 92, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2024.103923 

• Parmanto, B., & Zeng, X. (2005). Metric for Web accessibility evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(13), 1394–1404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20233 

• Pineo, E. A. (2025). Discoverability, usability, and readability: A framework for assessing information access for Disabled users of online archives. Archival Science, 25(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-025-09495-9