The relationship between accessibility and usability of websites

Petrie, Helen; Kheir, Omar

doi:10.1145/1240624.1240688

Cited by 203 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides this, only 50.4% of the problems found by the disabled were covered by WCAG 2.0 [49,50], which means even those websites that meet standards may not be accessible [51,52]. Basically, guidelines do not address some problems at the high levels like the structural complexity of pages or color combinations for website components.…”

Section:  Selection Of Accessibility Standards And/or Guidelines Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Automated Web Accessibility Evaluation: A Comparative Study

Abduganiev¹

2017

IJITCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-With each passing day, the Web is becoming increasingly important in our lives. Hence, the need of making it more accessible to everyone, especially for the disabled and elderly spurred a great interest in automated tools, the total registered number of which has been continuously increasing and reached from forty-five software bids in 2014 to ninety-three in 2017. The purpose of this empirical research is to assess and compare eight popular and free online automated Web accessibility evaluation tools (AWAETs) such as AChecker, Cynthia Says, EIII Checker, MAUVE, SortSite, TAW, Tenon and WAVE with regard to the WCAG 2.0 conformance. As a result, significant differences were observed in terms of tool's coverage (a maximum of 32.4%), completeness (ranges between 10% and 59%), correctness (an average of 70.7%), specificity (reaches 32%), inter-reliability (lies between 1.56% and 18.32%) and intra-reliability (the acceptable score), validity, efficiency and capacity. These eight criteria can help to determine a new role played by modern AWAETs as dependent methods in Web accessibility evaluation. Moreover, consequences of relying on AWAETs alone are quantified and concluded that applying such approaches is a great mistake since subjective and less frequent objective success criteria (SC) failed to be automated. However, using a good combination of AWAETs is highly recommended as overall results in all the mentioned quality criteria are maximized and tools could definitely validate and complete each other. Ultimately, integrating automated methods with the others is ideal and preferably at an early stage of the website development life cycle. The study also provides potential accessibility barriers that make websites inaccessible, challenges AWAETs are currently facing, nineteen pros and fourteen cons and fifteen improvement recommendations for the existing and next generation of AWAETs. Fundamentally, achieving the objectives of this study was possible due to the elaboration and implementation of a new five-phased methodology named as -5PhM-for-AWAEMs‖ for successful selection, evaluation and/or comparison of AWAEMs. In addition to providing detailed descriptions of the estimation process, this methodology represents eleven key criteria for effective selection of suitable AWAEMs and necessary numbers of web pages and expert evaluators for acceptable, normal or ideal assessment.

show abstract

Section:  Selection Of Accessibility Standards And/or Guidelines Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Automated Web Accessibility Evaluation: A Comparative Study

Abduganiev¹

2017

IJITCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most frequent disabled groups involved are blind users. Studies that have included blind participants have almost exclusively had them perform CVP [8,12,19,20,22]. While it seems the standard protocol to use, it is a method that adds additional workload to the users in vocalizing their thoughts about their actions and the problems they encounter while trying to undertake a task.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of studies have compared these two types of verbal protocol with sighted participants, in terms of the information gathered [3,17] and the number of problems revealed [25,26]. However, a comparison of these protocols when used with blind participants has not yet been performed, in spite of the fact that there are a number of studies which have used verbal protocols with blind participants [8,12,19,20,22]. CVP may add additional effort particularly for blind participants, as the mental effort of using the web for blind users with screen readers is typically greater than understanding the web visually.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Concurrent and Retrospective Verbal Protocols for Blind and Sighted Users

Savva

Petrie

Power

2015

Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Verbal protocols are widely used in user studies for evaluating websites. This study investigated the effectiveness and efficiency of concurrent and retrospective verbal protocols (CVP and RVP) for both blind and sighted participants, as well as participant workload and attitudes towards these methods. Eight blind and eight sighted participants undertook both protocols in a website evaluation. RVP was more effective as measured by problems encountered for both groups, although it was no more efficient than CVP. The severity of problems identified by both protocols was equivalent. As measured on the NASA TLX, participants found RVP found more demanding than CVP. Sighted participants found rating problems during CVP more disruptive than blind participants. These results show that RVP is a more useful protocol for practitioners and researchers even though it takes more time and is more demanding for participants. It is equally applicable for both blind and sighted participants.

show abstract

“…There are also many studies related to specific users [18,19,20]. With the increasing needs in HCI for disabled users, One HCI study proposes a new evaluation method based on the website evaluation processes of disabled users to overcome the limitations of previous techniques [18].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With the increasing needs in HCI for disabled users, One HCI study proposes a new evaluation method based on the website evaluation processes of disabled users to overcome the limitations of previous techniques [18]. A similar study formed two assessment groups comprising six disabled and six non-disabled people and analyzed the correlations between the accessibility and usability of a website in terms of the interaction between it and the users [19]. Both studies report that there are significantly differences between blind and sighted people.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Content Analysis for Website Usefulness Evaluation: Utilizing Text Mining Technique

Kwon¹,

Jeong²

2015

Journal of Internet Computing and Services

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the increasing influence of online media, company websites have become important communication channels between companies and customers. Companies use their websites as a marketing tool for a variety of purposes, including enhancing their image and selling products or services. Many researchers have examined the criteria, methods, and tools for website evaluation, but most have focused on usability. Prior content analyses have focused not on text content but on website components, an approach likely to produce subjective evaluations. This study attempts to objectively evaluate company websites by utilizing text mining. We analyze the usefulness of company websites by presenting visualized outputs from a business perspective, allowing practitioners to easily understand the results of the website evaluation and use them in decision making. To demonstrate our method empirically, we selected a company with a number of affiliates in Korea and analyzed the text content of their websites to assess their usefulness using natural language processing and graphics packages in R. Practitioners can easily employ our objective evaluation method, and researchers can use it to gain a new perspective on website evaluation.

show abstract

The relationship between accessibility and usability of websites

Cited by 203 publications

References 9 publications

Towards Automated Web Accessibility Evaluation: A Comparative Study

Towards Automated Web Accessibility Evaluation: A Comparative Study

Comparing Concurrent and Retrospective Verbal Protocols for Blind and Sighted Users

A Content Analysis for Website Usefulness Evaluation: Utilizing Text Mining Technique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About