No abstract

The spelling of "Nichols and Stitch, 2005" has been changed to "Nichols and Stich, 2005" match the entry in the references list. Please provide revisions if this is incorrect. AQ16The reference "Mori, 1970" is cited in the text but is not listed in the references list. Please either delete in-text citation or provide full reference details. AQ17The reference "Lasseter, 1987" is cited in the text but is not listed in the references list.Please either delete in-text citation or provide full reference details. AQ18The reference "Cosmides and Tooby, 2000" is cited in the text but is not listed in the references list. Please either delete in-text citation or provide full reference details. AQ19Please provide the missing page number for the "Berk et al., 2006" references list entry. AQ20Please provide the last page for the "Botvinick and Cohen, 1998" references list entry. AQ21Please provide the missing city name for the "Clark, 2008" references list entry. AQ22Please provide the missing workshop held date and place for the "Garau et al., 2004" references list entry. AQ23Please provide the missing city name for the "Garvey, 1990" references list entry. AQ24Please provide the missing volume number for the "Gatzia and Sotnak, 2013" references list entry. AQ25Please provide the last page for the "Gray et al., 2007" references list entry. AQ26Please provide the missing page number for the "Jent et al., 2011" references list entry. AQ27Please provide the missing city name for the "Lakoff and Johnson, 1999" references list entry. AQ28Please provide the missing city name for the "Metzinger, 2010" references list entry.

Abstract:In this paper we attempt to gauge the implementation of web accessibility guidelines in a range of Irish websites by undertaking a follow-up study in 2005 to one conducted by McMullin three years earlier (McMullin, 2002). Automatic testing against version 1.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 1.0) using WebXact online revealed that accessibility levels had increased among the 152 sites sampled over the three-year period. Compliancy levels of A, AA and AAA had risen from the 2002 levels of 6.3%, 0% and 0% respectively to 36.2%, 8.6% and 3.3% in 2005. However, manual checks on the same sites indicated that the actual compliance levels for 2005 were 1.3%, 0% and 0% for A, AA and AAA. Of the sites claiming accessibility, either by displaying a W3C or 'Bobby' compliance logo, or in text on their accessibility statement page, 60% claimed a higher level than the automatic testing results indicated. When these sites were further manually checked it was found that all of them claimed a higher level of accessibility compliance than was actually the case. As most sites in the sample were not compliant with the WCAG 1.0 for the entire set of disabilities, the concept of 'partial accessibility' was examined by identifying those websites that complied with subsets of the guidelines particular to different disabilities. Some disability types fared worse than others. In particular blindness, mobility impairment and cognitive impairment each had full support from at most 1% of the websites in the study. Other disabilities were better supported, including partially-sighted, deaf and hearing impaired, and colour blind, where compliance was found in 11%, 23% and 32% of the websites, respectively.

A qualitative inquiry of reviews of films featuring digital humanlike characters was performed by sampling user comments from three online reviewer aggregator sites: the Internet Movie Database, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. The movies chosen for analysis were: Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001), The Polar Express (2004), and Beowulf (2007, all produced using CGI animation, together with A Scanner Darkly (2006a) whose visuals are depicted by rotoscoping using Bob Sabiston's Rotoshop software. Our analysis identified individual differences in the viewing experience, particularly in relation to the uncertain ontology of the humanlike characters created using CGI (CGI-Humans). We found examples of reviews indicating an inability to distinguish between real and CGI-Human actors, observations of characters transiently exhibiting realism before returning to their artifice, and of characters being viewed as eerie (analogous to the uncanny valley) thus illustrating a complex and dynamic response to this phenomenon. In some situations character uncanniness was related to the presence of an atypical feature such as movement of the eyes. Whilst specifically for Beowulf, perceptions became more problematic when there was familiarity with the actor playing the CGI-Human character, with some reviewers describing difficulties in categorising the character as either real or animated. CGI-Human performances were also characterised by a lack of, or inappropriate social interaction. Online reviewers did not perceive characters depicted using Rotoshop (Rotoshop-Humans) as eerie and rotoscoping was found to preserve, and possibly enhance, the natural social interactions between actors recorded from the live-action film used as the source for the animation. Our inquiry also identified user motivations for viewing these movies and the importance placed by reviewers on the form of display when viewing the CGI films. We situate our interpretation of these findings in relation to Walton's make-believe theory (Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts, 1990) revealing its application to our understanding of the viewing experience of animated films featuring digital humans.

No abstract