The Transparency of Automatic Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools: Design Criteria, State of the Art, and User Perception

IF 2.5 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing Pub Date : 2022-08-17 DOI:10.1145/3556979
Marco Manca, Vanessa Palumbo, F. Paternò, C. Santoro
{"title":"The Transparency of Automatic Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools: Design Criteria, State of the Art, and User Perception","authors":"Marco Manca, Vanessa Palumbo, F. Paternò, C. Santoro","doi":"10.1145/3556979","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Several Web accessibility evaluation tools have been put forward to reduce the burden of identifying accessibility barriers for users, especially those with disabilities. One common issue in using accessibility evaluation tools in practice is that the results provided by different tools are sometimes unclear, and often diverging. Such limitations may confuse the users who may not understand the reasons behind them, and thus hamper the possible adoption of such tools. Hence, there is a need for tools that shed light on their actual functioning, and the success criteria and techniques supported. For this purpose, we must identify what criteria should be adopted in order for such tools to be transparent and to help users better interpret their results. In this paper, we discuss such issues, provide design criteria for obtaining user-centred and transparent accessibility evaluation tools, and analyse how they have been addressed by a representative set of open, license-free, accessibility tools. We also report on the results of a survey with 138 users of such tools, aimed at capturing the perceived usefulness of previously identified transparency requirements. Finally, we performed a user study with 18 users working in the Web design or accessibility fields with the goal of receiving more feedback about the transparency of a selected subset of accessibility tools.","PeriodicalId":54128,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing","volume":"47 1","pages":"1 - 36"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3556979","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Several Web accessibility evaluation tools have been put forward to reduce the burden of identifying accessibility barriers for users, especially those with disabilities. One common issue in using accessibility evaluation tools in practice is that the results provided by different tools are sometimes unclear, and often diverging. Such limitations may confuse the users who may not understand the reasons behind them, and thus hamper the possible adoption of such tools. Hence, there is a need for tools that shed light on their actual functioning, and the success criteria and techniques supported. For this purpose, we must identify what criteria should be adopted in order for such tools to be transparent and to help users better interpret their results. In this paper, we discuss such issues, provide design criteria for obtaining user-centred and transparent accessibility evaluation tools, and analyse how they have been addressed by a representative set of open, license-free, accessibility tools. We also report on the results of a survey with 138 users of such tools, aimed at capturing the perceived usefulness of previously identified transparency requirements. Finally, we performed a user study with 18 users working in the Web design or accessibility fields with the goal of receiving more feedback about the transparency of a selected subset of accessibility tools.
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
自动网页可访问性评估工具的透明度:设计标准、技术状况和用户感知
为了减轻用户(尤其是残障用户)识别无障碍障碍的负担,已经提出了几种Web可访问性评估工具。在实践中使用可访问性评估工具的一个常见问题是,不同工具提供的结果有时是不明确的,并且经常是分歧的。这些限制可能会使用户感到困惑,他们可能不理解这些限制背后的原因,从而阻碍了这些工具的可能采用。因此,需要一些工具来阐明它们的实际功能,以及所支持的成功标准和技术。为此目的,我们必须确定应该采用什么标准,以便使这些工具透明并帮助用户更好地解释其结果。在本文中,我们讨论了这些问题,提供了获得以用户为中心和透明的可访问性评估工具的设计标准,并分析了一组具有代表性的开放,免许可的可访问性工具是如何解决这些问题的。我们还报告了对138个此类工具用户的调查结果,旨在捕捉先前确定的透明度要求的感知有用性。最后,我们对18个在网页设计或可访问性领域工作的用户进行了一项用户研究,目的是获得更多关于可访问性工具子集的透明度的反馈。
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
ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing
ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: Computer and information technologies have re-designed the way modern society operates. Their widespread use poses both opportunities and challenges for people who experience various disabilities including age-related disabilities. That is, while there are new avenues to assist individuals with disabilities and provide tools and resources to alleviate the traditional barriers encountered by these individuals, in many cases the technology itself presents barriers to use. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS) is a quarterly peer-reviewed journal that publishes refereed articles addressing issues of computing that seek to address barriers to access, either creating new solutions or providing for the more inclusive design of technology to provide access for individuals with diverse abilities. The journal provides a technical forum for disseminating innovative research that covers either applications of computing and information technologies to provide assistive systems or inclusive technologies for individuals with disabilities. Some examples are web accessibility for those with visual impairments and blindness as well as web search explorations for those with limited cognitive abilities, technologies to address stroke rehabilitation or dementia care, language support systems deaf signers or those with limited language abilities, and input systems for individuals with limited ability to control traditional mouse and keyboard systems. The journal is of particular interest to SIGACCESS members and delegates to its affiliated conference (i.e., ASSETS) as well as other international accessibility conferences. It serves as a forum for discussions and information exchange between researchers, clinicians, and educators; including rehabilitation personnel who administer assistive technologies; and policy makers concerned with equitable access to information technologies.
期刊最新文献
Stress Detection of Autistic Adults during Simulated Job Interviews using a Novel Physiological Dataset and Machine Learning Measuring the Accuracy of Automatic Speech Recognition Solutions Helping or hindering: Inclusive Design of Automated Task Prompting for Workers with Cognitive Disabilities Supporting Social Inclusion with DIY-ATs: Perspectives of Kenyan Caregivers of Children with Cognitive Disabilities Digital Musical Instruments in Special Educational Needs Schools: Requirements from the Music Teachers’ Perspective and the Status Quo in Germany
×
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