A Study on Web Accessibility in Perspective of Evaluation Tools


(*) Corresponding author


Authors' affiliations


DOI's assignment:
the author of the article can submit here a request for assignment of a DOI number to this resource!
Cost of the service: euros 10,00 (for a DOI)

Abstract


The paper presents the findings of the results of the analysis of 127 web accessibility evaluation tools. The research was conducted with the objective to investigate the development and implementation of novel web accessibility tools to maintain constant accessibility of websites. The papers also attempt to investigate the evaluation tools with different dimensions like, automation, crawling, technologies, guidelines, reporting, server capabilities and licensing. The methods used in this study were observation and content analysis of different evaluation tools. The finding indicates that most of the evaluation tools are designed based on HTML technologies and based on WCAG 1.0 guideline. They seem to be taking advantage of the Internet and other Web facilities to provide reporting services to correct the violations. These indicate that the website developers have taken steps to address the guidelines to implement. In order to improve efficiency of the tools, the paper recommends that tool developers should focus on improving crawling capacity of site evaluation; they must engage with the industry mandates. The tools also need to assist website developers with access to affordable privileges. So that, developers can able to use tools and they can develop more accessible websites for disabled people.
Copyright © 2013 Praise Worthy Prize - All rights reserved.

Keywords


Accessibility; W3C; WCAG; Disabilities; Evaluation

Full Text:

PDF


References


Barreto, A.. Visual impairments. In Web Accessibility, Springer, 3–13, (2008).

ISO (2003). ISO/TS 16071:2003: Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Guidance on accessibility for human-computer interfaces. Tech. rep., International Organization for Standardization.

US Congress (1998). Section 508 Amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. http://www.section508.gov/.

Keates, S. & Clarkson, P.J.. Countering design exclusion through inclusive design. In CUU ’03: Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Universal usability, 69–76, (2003.

Markel Vigo.,Giorgio Brajnik.,January.,”Automatic web accessibility metrics: Where we are and where we can go”.,Interacting with computers., Publisher : Elsevier.,Issue :23 .,vol :2.,PP 137-155., 2011.

Henry, S.L. (2005). Essential components of web accessibility. Last accessed on June 22nd, 2010, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/components.php.

Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Chisholm, W., Reid, L.G. & Vanderheiden, G. (2008). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.

Treviranus, J., Richards, J. & Spellman, J. (2009). Authoring tool accessibility guidelines (ATAG) 2.0. W3C working draft, W3C, http://www.w3. org/TR/2009/WD-ATAG20-20091029/.

Ford, K., Richards, J., Allan, J. & Spellman, J. (2009). User agent accessibility guidelines (UAAG) 2.0. W3C working draft, W3C, http://www. w3.org/TR/2009/WD-UAAG20-20090723/

Yesilada, Y., Brajnik, G. & Harper, S. How much does expertise matter?: a barrier walkthrough study with experts and non-experts. In Assets ’09: Proceedings of the 11th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility, 203–210, (2009).

Brajnik, G. Validity and reliability of web accessibility guidelines. In Proceedings of the 11th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility, Assets ’09, 131–138, (2009).

Brajnik, G., Yesilada, Y. & Harper, S. Testability and validity of wcag 2.0: the expertise effect. In Proceedings of the 12th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility, ASSETS ’10, 43–50, . (2010).

Lunn, D., Bechhofer, S. & Harper, S.. The sadie transcoding platform. In W4A ’08: Proceedings of the 2008 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A), 128–129, (2008).

Abou-Zahra, S. & Squillace, M. (2009). Evaluation and report language (EARL) 1.0 schema. Last call WD, W3C, http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-EARL10-Schema-20091029/.

Markel Vigo.,Justin Brown.,Vivienne Conway., , Benchmarking Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools : Measuring the Harm of Sole Reliance on Automated Tests.,22nd International world wide web conference.,Publisher : ACM., May 13-15.,2013.

Nadia Fernandes., Luis Corrico.,A macroscopic Web accessibility evaluation at different processing phases.,W4A 2012-Communication.,Publisher : ACM., April 16-17.,2012.

Rahmat, H., Zulzalil, H., Deriving objective navigational measures for web usability, (2013) International Review on Computers and Software (IRECOS), 8 (1), pp. 144-151.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



Please send any question about this web site to info@praiseworthyprize.com
Copyright © 2005-2022 Praise Worthy Prize