The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which established accessibility as an enforceable civil right, is a case in point. As ADA was implemented, many of its citizens with ‘‘disabilities’’ began to experience an unprecedented level of independence. The removal of architectural barriers, for example, enabled wheelchair users to move about more freely and to participate in many aspects of public life hitherto beyond their reach. The social construction of disability is not limited to the physical environment. With the Internet assuming an increasingly central role in our society, access to the virtual realm is becoming equally important. Access to the Internet and its resources newly defines the distinction between the haves and have-nots in our society. People who for economic reasons cannot connect to the Internet, or those who can connect, but because of design barriers are unable to access its resources, are at risk of becoming disfranchised. It is the latter group with which this special theme issue is concerned: people with ‘‘print disabilities’’, such as those who are blind or visually impaired, who rely on screen readers or other assistive devices to access online information. Libraries’ primary task is to meet the information needs of all users. To the extent that libraries employ accessible, barrier-free technology to accomplish this task, they create conditions under which those who use screen readers or other assistive devices to navigate the online environment are on equal terms with those who use standard equipment. When librarians fail to select accessible resources, ‘‘true’’ disability, with all its negative ramifications, is created.

The past few years have witnessed a growing awareness in the professional library community about the importance of accessible Web design. Numerous publications on this topic have appeared in the pertinent literature, and there are presently few library conferences where the topic is completely ignored. A growing number of colleges and universities are adopting policies that require institutional Web pages to be free of access barriers. Unfortunately, the current thrust for online accessibility focuses mainly on Web pages; the accessibility of other Web-based resources, for which institutional Web pages function as gateways and which constitute major components of the larger educational online environment, is rarely addressed. This phenomenon is not only reflected in the pertinent literature, it is corroborated by my own experience, along with anecdotal evidence solicited from numerous colleagues at other libraries: concern for accessibility for people with disabilities typically does not enter into the process by which electronic information resources, such as indexes and databases, are selected. This may have several reasons: . While Web pages are typically created in-house, most other online resources, such as electronic indexes and databases, are contracted from external sources. Aside from the limited customization options available for some resources, libraries have no direct control over the design of the latter.

. Whereas it is relatively easy to assess the accessibility of individual Web pages, it takes considerably more effort to evaluate the far more complex set of dynamic pages that make up the interfaces of indexes and databases. This is particularly true at present, when models for evaluating the accessibility of these complex resources are not readily available. . With very few exceptions, published vendor-independent studies about the accessibility of commercial online information products are virtually non-existent. Faced with such dearth of information, librarians simply do not consider accessibility when making selection decisions.

This themed issue aims to bridge the current information gap concerning the accessibility of the various electronic resources that make up the current online library environment. It is hoped that this information will help librarians to make informed procurement decisions that are guided, among others, by consideration for accessibility. Vendors may also benefit from the studies in this issue. The authors not only identify accessibility problems; they often also suggest specific remedies.

The selection in this issue begins with an article by Lewis and Klauber, which describes the experience of a legally blind librarian who accesses the Internet with screen-reading and screen-enlarging software. Following this introductory article, two contributions, by Axtell and Dixon and by Johns respectively, explore the accessibility of two major online catalogs: Endeavor’s WebVoyage and epixtech’s iPac. The following four studies focus on indexes and databases: in three independent studies, Bowman, Byerley and Chambers, and Riley respectively investigate the interfaces of some of the more popular resources provided by some of the major vendors: EBSCOhost, Gale (Infotrac), LEXIS/NEXIS (Academic Universe), OCLC/FirstSearch, ProQuest and Wilson. McCord et al. explore the accessibility of online resources in the medical field, while Horwath, in addition to evaluating EBSCOhost, looks at two online reference heavy-weights: Britannica Online and The Oxford English Dictionary. Also, Coonin takes on the rapidly increasing realm of e-journals. As is the case with any study involving information technology, the findings reported in this Issue may be outdated by the time they appear in print. However, this does not render these studies useless. By demonstrating approaches to assessing the accessibility of online resources, they have blazed a trail that may be followed by others seeking to gain comparable information on newer versions. I would like to thank the publishers of LHT for acknowledging the importance of the accessibility theme addressed in this Issue. I am particularly indebted to Michael Seadle, the editor of LHT, for the enthusiasm with which he has supported my idea for this themed issue as well as for his responsiveness and constructive guidance throughout the guestediting process.

Axel Schmetzke

Previously published in: Library Hi Tech, Volume 20, Number 2, 2002  less