Comparing accessibility evaluation plug-ins

Tânia Frazão, Carlos M. Duarte
{"title":"Comparing accessibility evaluation plug-ins","authors":"Tânia Frazão, Carlos M. Duarte","doi":"10.1145/3371300.3383346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article reports the results of a study comparing evaluation accessibility plugins extensions for the Chrome web browser. Eight of the most well-known tools among developers were chosen. All tools are free or available under an open-source license, and work with the Chrome browser. The tools were compared based on their feature set, their usability and their evaluation results of ten of the Alexa top websites. We found that individual tools still provide limited coverage of the success criteria; the coverage of success criteria varies quite a lot from evaluation engine to evaluation engine; what are the most and least covered success criteria in automated evaluations. After analysing the results, we highly recommend to use more than one tool (with a different engine) and to complement automated evaluation with manual checking.","PeriodicalId":93137,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 17th International Web for All Conference","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 17th International Web for All Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3371300.3383346","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

This article reports the results of a study comparing evaluation accessibility plugins extensions for the Chrome web browser. Eight of the most well-known tools among developers were chosen. All tools are free or available under an open-source license, and work with the Chrome browser. The tools were compared based on their feature set, their usability and their evaluation results of ten of the Alexa top websites. We found that individual tools still provide limited coverage of the success criteria; the coverage of success criteria varies quite a lot from evaluation engine to evaluation engine; what are the most and least covered success criteria in automated evaluations. After analysing the results, we highly recommend to use more than one tool (with a different engine) and to complement automated evaluation with manual checking.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较可访问性评估插件
本文报告了一项比较评估Chrome web浏览器的可访问性插件扩展的研究结果。开发者们从中选出了8个最知名的工具。所有工具都是免费的,或者在开源许可下提供,并且可以与Chrome浏览器一起使用。这些工具是根据它们的功能集、可用性和对十个Alexa顶级网站的评估结果进行比较的。我们发现单个工具仍然提供有限的成功标准覆盖;成功标准的覆盖范围在不同的评估引擎之间差异很大;自动化评估中涉及最多和最少的成功标准是什么?在分析结果之后,我们强烈建议使用多个工具(使用不同的引擎),并通过手动检查来补充自动评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Session details: Visual accessibility The case for 'health related impairments and disabilities' PDF readability enhancement on mobile devices Session details: Google doctoral consortium - Presentation session Web accessibility testing for Singapore government e-services
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1