UPHOLDING RANGANATHAN’S LAWS IN THE DIGITAL AGE: THE ETHICAL IMPERATIVE OF WEB ACCESSIBILITY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34256/Keywords:
Ranganathan, Five laws of Library Science , Web Accessibility, WCAG, Information Seeking Behaviour, Digital Equity, , Social Model of DisabilityAbstract
This article discusses the gap between philosophical foundations of librarianship, as conceptualized by S.R. Ranganathan's Five Laws, and technical instantiation of digital accessibility. It contends that failure to implement Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) is a prima facie infringement of these fundamental library precepts. A tripartite theoretical framework, integrating the Social Model of Disability (Oliver, 2013), Wilson's (1999) macro-model of information behavior, and Ellis's (1989) micro-model of information-seeking strategies, was developed in an effort to bridge this gap. The approach was a conceptual analysis of mapping WCAG criteria to Ranganathan's laws. Wilson's model was instantiated to place web inaccessibility as a causal intervening variable—a system barrier in the information environment of the user preventing need satisfaction. Ellis's model gave the fine-grained lens to examine how particular accessibility failures impair discrete information-seeking tasks. The analysis illustrates that technical WCAG failures act as disabling barriers in the information context, directly inhibiting the user-oriented goals of Ranganathan's laws. The research concludes that WCAG conformance is the required technical application of library philosophy to digital services. It claims that accessibility of the web is a fundamental ethical responsibility, essential to satisfying the profession's mandate for equal access. The blending of these models creates a strong framework for examining and responding to accessibility as an essential element of information delivery, transcending technical checklists to a systemic, user-centered orientation.
Downloads
References
ALA Standards and Guidelines by Topic | ALA. (n.d.). Retrieved September 21, 2025, from https://www.ala.org/tools/standards-and-guidelines/by-topic#accessdis
Barnes, C. (2012). The Social Model of Disability: Valuable or Irrelevant. 12–29.
Carr, P. L. (2014). Reimagining the Library as a Technology: An Analysis of Ranganathan’s Five Laws of Library Science within the Social Construction of Technology Framework. The Library Quarterly, 84(2), 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1086/675355
Case, D. O., & Given, L. M. (2016). Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Coombs, N. (2015). Make online teaching accessible with inclusive course design. Disability Compliance for Higher Education, 20(11), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/dhe.30063
Ellcessor, E. (2016). Restricted Access: Media, Disability, and the Politics of Participation. NYU Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt18040rg
ELLIS, D. (1989). A BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH TO INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM DESIGN. Journal of Documentation, 45(3), 171–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026843
Foster, A. (2005). A non-linear model of information seeking behaviour. Inf. Res. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-non-linear-model-of-information-seeking-behaviour-Foster/8dd12f6311ae538ef19ec18f722bdec8461068ad
Friend, F. J. (n.d.). The Future of Libraries in the Work of S.R. Ranganathan.
Goggin, G., & Newell, C. (2002). Digital Disability: The Social Construction of Disability in New Media. https://doi.org/10.5771/9780742577015
Headquarters, I. (2019). IFLA Annual Report 2018. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). https://repository.ifla.org/handle/20.500.14598/312
Hidaya, A. S. (2020). TEORI S.R. RANGANATHAN FIVE LAWS OF LIBRARY SCIENCE DALAM PENGEMBANGAN KOLEKSI PERPUSTAKAAN. Fihris: Jurnal Ilmu Perpustakaan Dan Informasi, 15(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.14421/fhrs.2020.151.18-30
Jaeger, P. T. (2008). User-Centered Policy Evaluations of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: Evaluating E-Government Web Sites for Accessibility for Persons With Disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 19(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207308315274
Lazar, J., Dudley-Sponaugle, A., & Greenidge, K.-D. (2004). Improving web accessibility: A study of webmaster perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.018
Lazar, J., Goldstein, D., & Taylor, A. (2015). Ensuring Digital Accessibility Through Process and Policy. Morgan Kaufmann.
Lazar, J., Olalere, A., & Wentz, B. (2012). Investigating the accessibility and usability of job application web sites for blind users. Journal of Usability Studies Archive, 7, 68–87.
Nalinakshi, R. (2019). Relevance of Dr. S.R. Ranganathan’s Five Laws of Library Science in the 21st Century: A Clear Perspective. Asian Journal of Information Science and Technology, 9(2), 111–114. https://doi.org/10.51983/ajist-2019.9.2.265
Nielsen, J. (2012). Usability 101: Introduction to Usability. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability/
Noruzi, A. (n.d.). Application of Ranganathan’s Laws to the Web: The Five Laws of the Web [Text]. Webology. Retrieved September 20, 2025, from https://www.webology.org/2004/v1n2/a8.html
Oliver, M. (2013). The social model of disability: Thirty years on. Disability & Society, 28(7), 1024–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.818773
Power, C., Freire, A., Petrie, H., & Swallow, D. (2012). Guidelines are only half of the story: Accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the web. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207736
Ranganathan, S. R. (1931). The Five Laws of Library Science. Madras Library Association.
Riley-Huff, D. A. (2012). Chapter 4: Web Accessibility and Universal Design. Library Technology Reports, 48(7), 29–35.
Rutter, R., Lauke, P. H., Waddell, C., Thatcher, J., Henry, S. L., Lawson, B., Kirkpatrick, A., Heilmann, C., Burks, M. R., Regan, B., & Urban, M. (2006). Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance. Apress.
Satija, M. P. (2003). The Five Laws in Information Society and Virtual Libraries Era. Journal of Information and Knowledge, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2003/v40i2/48902
Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability Rights and Wrongs. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203640098
Sloan, D., Heath, A., Hamilton, F., Kelly, B., Petrie, H., & Phipps, L. (2006). Contextual web accessibility—Maximizing the benefit of accessibility guidelines. Proceedings of the 2006 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A) Building the Mobile Web: Rediscovering Accessibility? - W4A, 121. https://doi.org/10.1145/1133219.1133242
W3C Issues Improved Accessibility Guidance for Websites and Applications. (2018, June 5). W3C. https://www.w3.org/press-releases/2018/wcag21/
Williamson, K., Schauder, D., & Bow, A. (2000). Information Seeking by Blind and Sight Impaired Citizens: An Ecological Study. Information Research, 1–25.
Wilson, T. D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3), 249–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007145
Wilson, T. D. (2006). Revisiting user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation, 62(6), 680–684. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410610714912
Zabel, D., & Rimland, E. (2007). Ranganathan’s Relevant Rules. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 46(4), 24–26. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.46n4.24
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Indian Library Association
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
