Abstract
Automatic support for web accessibility validation needs to evolve for several reasons. The increasingly recognised importance of accessibility implies that various stakeholders, with different expertise, look at it from different viewpoints and have different requirements regarding the types of outputs they expect. The technologies used to support Web application access are evolving along with the associated accessibility guidelines. We present a novel tool that aims to provide flexible and open support for addressing such issues. We describe the design of its main features, including support for recent guidelines and tailored results presentations, and report on first technical and empirical validations that have provided positive feedback.
- Abascal, J., Arrue, M., & Valencia, X. (2019). Tools for web accessibility evaluation. Web Accessibility (pp. 479--503). London: Springer.Google Scholar
- Abduganiev, S. G. (2017). Towards automated web accessibility evaluation: a comparative study. Int. J. Inform. Technol. Comput. Sci, 9(9), 18--44.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Arrue, M., Vigo, M., & Abascal, J. (2008). Including heterogeneous Web accessibility guidelines in the development process. IFIP International Conference on Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 620--637). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ballantyne, M., Jha, A., Jacobsen, A., Hawker, J. S., & El-Glaly, Y. N. (2018). Study of Accessibility Guidelines of Mobile Applications. 17th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (pp. 305--315). ACM.Google Scholar
- Beirekdar, A., Vanderdonckt, J., & Noirhomme-Fraiture, M. (2002). Kwaresmi--Knowledge-based Web Automated Evaluation with REconfigurable guidelineS optiMIzation. (Springer, Ed.) DSV-IS, 2545, 362--376.Google Scholar
- Beirekdar A., Keita M., Noirhomme M., Randolet F., Vanderdonckt J., Mariage C. (2005) Flexible Reporting for Automated Usability and Accessibility Evaluation of Web Sites. In: Costabile M.F., Paternò F. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2005. INTERACT 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3585. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
- Brajnik, G. (2004). Comparing accessibility evaluation tools: a method for tool effectiveness. Universal access in the information society, 3(3--4), 252--263.Google Scholar
- Brajnik, G., & Vigo, M. (2019). Automatic Web Accessibility Metrics. Where we were and where we went. (Springer, Ed.) Web Accessibility, 505--521.Google Scholar
- Consortium, W. W. (2018). Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/Google Scholar
- EU Commission. (2016, October 26). Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/2102/ojGoogle Scholar
- Fernandes, N., Kaklanis, N., Votis, K., Tzovaras, D., & Carriço, L. (2014). An analysis of personalized web accessibility. Proceedings of the 11th Web for All Conference (p. 19). ACM.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Fuertes, J. L., González, R., Gutiérrez, E., & Martínez, L. (2009). Hera-FFX: a Firefox add-on for semi-automatic web accessibility evaluation. Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibililty (W4A) (pp. 26--35). ACM.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Gay, G., & Li, C. Q. (2010). AChecker: open, interactive, customizable, web accessibility checking. Proceedings of the 2010 International Cross Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A) (p. 23). ACM.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Gulliksen, J., Von Axelson, H., Persson, H., & Göransson, H. (2010). Accessibility and public policy in Sweden. Interactions, 17(3), 26--29.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ivory, M. Y., & Hearst, M. A. (2001, December). State of the Rt in Automating Usability Evaluation of User Interfaces. ACM Computing Surveys, 33(4), 470--516.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Lazar, J., & Olalere, A. (2011). Investigation of best practices for maintaining section 508 Compliance in US federal web sites. International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 498--506). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Aliaksei Miniukovich, Michele Scaltritti, Simone Sulpizio, and Antonella De Angeli. 2019. Guideline-Based Evaluation of Web Readability. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Paper 508, 1--12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300738Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Mirri, S., Muratori, L. A., & Salomoni, P. (2011). Monitoring accessibility: large scale evaluations at a geo political level. The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (pp. 163--170). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Lourdes Moreno, Rodrigo Alarcon, Isabel Segura-Bedmar, and Paloma Martínez. 2019. Lexical simplification approach to support the accessibility guidelines. In Proceedings of the XX International Conference on Human Computer Interaction (Interaccion '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 14, 1--4. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3335595.3335651Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Mucha, J., Snaprud, M., & Nietzio, A. (2016). Web page clustering for more efficient website accessibility evaluations. International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (pp. 259--266). Springer.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Jacob Nielsen, Success Rate: The Simplest Usability Metric, https://www.nngroup.com/articles/success-rate-the-simplest-usability-metric/Google Scholar
- Nietzio, A., Eibegger, M., Goodwin, M., & Snaprud, M. (2011). Towards a score function for WCAG 2.0 benchmarking. Proceedings of W3C Online Symposium on Website Accessibility Metrics. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/paper11Google Scholar
- Paternò, F., & Schiavone, A. G. (2015). The role of tool support in public policies and accessibility. Interactions, 22(3), 60--63.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 (pp. 433--442). ACM.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Schiavone, A. G., & Paternò, F. (2015). An extensible environment for guideline-based accessibility evaluation of dynamic Web applications. Universal access in the information society, 14(1), 111--132.Google Scholar
Index Terms
Flexible Automatic Support for Web Accessibility Validation
Recommendations
Interdependent components of web accessibility
W4A '05: Proceedings of the 2005 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A)Increasingly, the Web is providing unprecedented access to information and interaction for people with disabilities. However, the Web will not be equally accessible, allowing people with disabilities to access and contribute to the Web, until:• ...
Web accessibility guidelines for the 2020s
W4A '16: Proceedings of the 13th International Web for All ConferenceW3C has completed the 2.0 versions of its three web accessibility guidelines addressing authoring, content, and user agents. It now is working to address new needs created by ongoing evolution of the Web. Using a user needs-focused approach it is ...
Evaluating web site accessibility: validating the WAI guidelines through usability testing with disabled users
NordiCHI '08: Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: building bridgesThe purpose of the reported study has been to validate empirically the usefulness of using the WAI accessibility guidelines WCAG 1.0 as a heuristic for website accessibility. Through controlled usability tests of two websites with disabled users (N=7) ...






Comments