Transition of accessibility evaluation tools to new standards

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Transition of accessibility evaluation tools to new standards

Full text

Pdf (806 KB)

Source

International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility archive
Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibililty (W4A) table of contents

Madrid, Spain

SESSION: Tools and guidelines table of contents

Pages 36-44

Year of Publication: 2009

ISBN:978-1-60558-561-1

Authors

Amaia Aizpurua	University of the Basque Country, Donostia, Spain
Myriam Arrue	University of the Basque Country, Donostia, Spain
Markel Vigo	University of the Basque Country, Donostia, Spain
Julio Abascal	University of the Basque Country, Donostia, Spain

Sponsors

: The Mozilla Foundation
SIGACCESS: ACM Special Interest Group on Accessible Computing
: Zakon Group
: Google
Microsoft : Microsoft

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 24, Downloads (12 Months): 98, Citation Count: 0

Additional Information:

abstract references index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1535654.1535662 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

While automatic tools are not intended to replace human judgement they are crucial in order to develop accessible web sites. The release of WCAG 2.0 entails that the existing plethora of accessibility review tools will have to be updated. This paper presents an evaluation framework for making the transition from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 in a less painful way. A framework is thus proposed that allows developers to create new guidelines, and update or reuse the existing ones. A case study to test its feasibility has been carried out by incorporating WCAG 2.0 guidelines into the framework. The results are satisfactory, since 55% of the automatic and 16% of the semi-automatic ones could be expressed using the framework. Therefore, it is demonstrated that even if the framework does not fully support the transition process, at least it makes it less burdensome. Moreover, by analyzing WCAG 2.0 we have learnt how to extend the existing tools in order to provide greater coverage and thus increase their effectiveness.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Chisholm, W., Vanderheiden, G., and Jacobs, I. (Eds.). (1999, May 5). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. (W3C Recommendation). Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
	2	Freed, G., Rothberg, M., and Wlodkowski, T. (2003). Making Educational Software and Web Sites Accessible. Available at http://ncam.wgbh.org/cdrom/guideline/
	3	Sri Kurniawan , Panayiotis Zaphiris, Research-derived web design guidelines for older people, Proceedings of the 7th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility, October 09-12, 2005, Baltimore, MD, USA [doi>10.1145/1090785.1090810]
	4	Rabin, J., and McCathieNevile, C. (Eds.). (2008, July 29). Mobile Web Best Practices (W3C Recommendation). http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/
	5	Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Guarino Reid, L., and Vanderheiden, G. (Eds.). (2008, December 11). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (W3C Recommendation). Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
	6	Melody Y. Ivory , Marti A Hearst, The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.33 n.4, p.470-516, December 2001 [doi>10.1145/503112.503114]
	7	Giorgio Brajnik, Comparing accessibility evaluation tools: a method for tool effectiveness, Universal Access in the Information Society, v.3 n.3, p.252-263, October 2004 [doi>10.1007/s10209-004-0105-y]
	8	Ivory, M. Y., Mankoff, J., and Le, A. (2003). Using Automated Tools to Improve Web Site Usage by Users with Diverse Abilities. Information Technology and Society 1(3), 195--236. SIQSS.
	9	Brajnik, G. (2000). Automatic web usability evaluation: what needs to be done? In Proceedings of the 6th Human Factors and the Web Conference.
	10	Abou-Zahra, S. (Ed.). (2006). Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools. Available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/selectingtools
	11	Xiong, J., Farenc, C., and Winckler, M. (2007). Analyzing Tool Support for Inspecting Accessibility Guidelines During the Development Process of Web Sites. WISE Workshops 2007. LNCS 4832, 470--480. Springer.
	12	Brinck, T., Hermann, D., Minnebo, B., and Hakim, A. (2002). AccessEnable: A Tool for Evaluating Compliance with Accessibility Standards. In Automatically Evaluating the Usability of Web Sites, CHI'02 Workshop.
	13	Beirekdar, A., Vanderdonckt, J., and Noirhomme-Fraiture, M. (2002). KWARESMI - Knowledge-based Web Automated Evaluation with Reconfigurable Guidelines Optimization. In Proceedings of 9th International Workshop on Design, Specification, and Verification of Interactive Systems DSV-IS 2002. 362--376.
	14	Beirekdar, A., Vanderdonckt, J., and Noirhomme-Fraiture, M. (2002). A Framework and a Language for Usability Automatic Evaluation of Web Sites by Static Analysis of HTML Source Code. Chapter 29, Conference on Computer-Aided Design of User Interfaces, CADUI'02, 337--348. Kluwer.
	15	Vanderdonckt, J., and Bereikdar, A. (2005). Automated Web Evaluation by Guideline Review. Journal of Web Engineering. Rinton Press 4(2), 102--117. Rinton Press.
	16	Barbara Leporini , Fabio Paternò , Antonio Scorcia, Flexible tool support for accessibility evaluation, Interacting with Computers, v.18 n.5, p.869-890, September, 2006 [doi>10.1016/j.intcom.2006.03.001]
	17	Julio Abascal , Myriam Arrue , Inmaculada Fajardo , Nestor Garay , Jorge Tomás, The use of guidelines to automatically verify Web accessibility, Universal Access in the Information Society, v.3 n.1, p.71-79, March 2004 [doi>10.1007/s10209-003-0069-3]
	18	Myriam Arrue , Markel Vigo , Julio Abascal, Including Heterogeneous Web Accessibility Guidelines in the Development Process, Engineering Interactive Systems: EIS 2007 Joint Working Conferences, EHCI 2007, DSV-IS 2007, HCSE 2007, Salamanca, Spain, March 22-24, 2007. Selected Papers, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008 [doi>10.1007/978-3-540-92698-6_37]
	19	Yoshiaki Takata , Takeshi Nakamura , Hiroyuki Seki, Accessibility Verification of WWW Documents by an Automatic Guideline Verification Tool, Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'04) - Track 4, p.40098.1, January 05-08, 2004
	20	Luque, V., Delgado, C., Gaedke, M., and Nussbaumer, M. (2005). WCAG Formalization with W3C Techniques. Web Engineering. LNCS 3579, 615--617. Springer.
	21	Vanderdonckt, J. (1999). Development milestones towards a tool for working with guidelines. Interacting with Computers 12(2), 81--118. Elsevier.
	22	Abascal, J., and Nicolle, C. (2001). Why Inclusive Design Guidelines? In J. Abascal, C. Nicolle (Eds.), Inclusive Design Guidelines for HCI, Chapter 1, 3--13. Taylor & Francis.
	23	Mariage, C., Vanderdonckt, J., and Pribeanu, C. (2005). State of the Art of Web Usability Guidelines. In Proctor, R. and Vu, K. (Eds.). The Handbook of Human Factors in Web Design, Chapter 38, 688--700. Lawrence Erlbaum.
	24	IBM Accessibility Center: Developer guidelines for Web Accessibility. Available at http://www-306.ibm.com/able/guidelines/web/accessweb.html
	25	Grammenos, D., Akoumianakis, D., and Stephanidis, C (2000). Integrated support for working with guidelines: the Sherlock guideline management system. Interacting with Computers 12(3), 281--311. Elsevier.
	26	Leporini, B., Paternò, F., and Scorcia, A. (2006). An Environment for Defining and Handling Guidelines for the Web. ICCHP'06. LNCS 4061, 176--183. Springer.