PurposeWeb‐based research databases are common in today's libraries, but most librarians lack the ability to evaluate them for accessibility for persons with disabilities. Consequently, they rely upon resource providers to develop products that are ADA and Section 508 compliant. Are database vendors stepping up to the plate? As a follow‐up to a study reported in 2003, the purpose of this paper is to investigate accessibility of online databases from database vendors' perspectives.Design/methodology/approachResearchers used a web‐based questionnaire to gather information from vendors of online databases concerning the accessibility of their products. The questions covered general information about product accessibility, compliance with Section 508 standards, and product accessibility/usability testing.FindingsNearly all of the companies who participated in the survey consider their products to be mostly accessible to users of assistive technologies and are committed to improving product accessibility in the future. At the same time, few companies promote accessibility in their marketing efforts. Most companies test their products for accessibility, but few conduct usability tests with actual persons with disabilities.Research limitations/implicationsThis study covered a small sample of database vendors and relied on self‐reporting by representatives from database companies. Until usability testing becomes a standard practice, product testing by independent parties is necessary to complete the accessibility report cards for online library database providers.Practical implicationsLibrarians must be proactive in encouraging vendors to continue to provide products that are accessible and user‐friendly for everybody including persons with disabilities.Originality/valueThis is the second known study that examines online database accessibility and usability based on database vendors' perspectives.

No abstract

In 1999 librarians at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs evaluated the feasibility of canceling print subscriptions for journals available in full-text aggregators. Finding deficiencies in currency, coverage, graphics, and stability of online journals, they recommended caution in using titles available in aggregators as replacements for journal subscriptions. Today print subscriptions are giving way to online subscriptions through a variety of subscription models. Nevertheless, fulltext aggregators remain vital content providers. Using the journals featured in the 1999 study as a lens, this study investigates how the world of full-text content has changed over the past decade. Serials Review 2010; 36:152-160.

In 1999 librarians at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs evaluated the feasibility of canceling print subscriptions for journals available in full-text aggregators. Finding deficiencies in currency, coverage, graphics, and stability of online journals, they recommended caution in using titles available in aggregators as replacements for journal subscriptions. Today print subscriptions are giving way to online subscriptions through a variety of subscription models. Nevertheless, fulltext aggregators remain vital content providers. Using the journals featured in the 1999 study as a lens, this study investigates how the world of full-text content has changed over the past decade. Serials Review 2010; 36:152-160.