evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

WebThai2Access — Co-Tested Web Accessibility Checker for Thai-Language Sites

Thailand · Surat Thani · See the Thailand profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 68% 56/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Thai and UK researchers built WebThai2Access, a 15-criterion WCAG-based checklist tool for Thai-language sites, then validated it against real user experience across 120 participants — 30 each of developers, hearing-impaired, visually impaired and elderly users.

120 participants (30 per group)
Study participants (study period (2017–2019))
±5% 95% confidence interval
Prediction accuracy — hearing-impaired users (study period)
±2% 95% confidence interval
Prediction accuracy — elderly users (study period)
±0% 95% confidence interval
Prediction accuracy — visually impaired users (study period)
WebThai2Access — Co-Tested Web Accessibility Checker for Thai-Language Sites

Details

Maturity
Pilot
Promoter
Suratthani Rajabhat University & University of Southampton
Period
2017–2019
Keywords
higher education, assistive technology, web accessibility

Context

As of the late 2010s, Thai web developers had little accessibility guidance available in their own language, and existing WCAG-based checkers were not adapted to Thai-script content, according to researchers at Suratthani Rajabhat University.

Objectives

Angkananon, Plodaksorn and Wald (University of Southampton, UK) set out to build the Thai Evaluation Criteria — a 15-point WCAG 2.0-based checklist — and a companion tool, WebThai2Access, modelled on the UK's Web2Access platform, letting developers self-test Thai-language sites.

Activities

The tool and criteria were validated with 120 participants across four groups of 30: web developers, hearing-impaired users, visually impaired users and elderly users.

Results

Developers rated the 15 criteria as reliable and usable; for the three disabled and elderly user groups, the study reports 95% confidence intervals of ±5% (hearing-impaired), ±2% (elderly) and ±0% (visually impaired) around the tool's accessibility predictions, indicating the developer-facing checklist reasonably predicted the real barriers each user group experienced.

Conclusions

Published results describe a validated research prototype rather than a nationally deployed service — no adoption or usage-scale figures for WebThai2Access itself are reported in the available literature.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — As an academic checklist-based tool built on an existing open model (Web2Access), development and validation costs are modest relative to building a bespoke automated scanning platform.
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years) — Research and validation ran across roughly 2017–2019, culminating in peer-reviewed publication; no post-2019 deployment timeline is documented.
Staffing & skills
Angkananon, Plodaksorn and Wald — Suratthani Rajabhat University and University of Southampton (UK) researchers

Conditions for success

  • Basing the tool on an existing validated model (the UK's Web2Access platform)
  • Testing with real developers plus three distinct disabled/elderly user groups rather than developers alone
  • Publishing statistically quantified confidence intervals on prediction accuracy

Common failure modes

  • No evidence of continued deployment, maintenance or institutional adoption beyond the original research validation
  • No usage-scale figures reported for real-world use of the tool

Where it fits

Governance type
university research project
Scale
research validation study (120 participants)
Income level
upper-middle-income

Replication kit

Reusable artefacts from this practice — as published by their sources.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful