1 / 67

Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Ada

Candidate: Markel Vigo Echebarria Advisor: Julio Abascal González. Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective. Donostia , November 23rd 2009. Putting in context.

terris
Télécharger la présentation

Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Ada

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Candidate: Markel Vigo Echebarria Advisor: Julio AbascalGonzález Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective Donostia, November 23rd 2009

  2. Putting in context • About 10% of the world’s population lives with a disability • The WWW is not accessible • Web accessibility guidelines • A number of motivations for a barrierfree Web • Evidence shows “guidelines are not enough” • Interaction context has to be captured • Technological gap: automatic tools do not consider context • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  3. Outline • Motivation • Web Accessibility Evaluation • Web Accessibility Measurement 3.1Web Accessibility Quantitative Metric 3.2Deploying accessibility scores in Search Engines • Contextual Web Accessibility Assessment • Device-tailored Accessibility Assessment • User-tailored Accessibility Assessment • Conclusions • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  4. Motivation • Conformance to guidelines is a minimum requirement for developing accessible sites • Evaluation is a key stage • Automatic tools help developers • A comprehensive assessment requires expert involvement • Again, “guidelines are not enough” • Hypothesis: “we include user’s interaction context in the assessment process of web accessibility, results will better capture user experience” • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  5. Outline • Motivation • Web Accessibility Evaluation • Web Accessibility Measurement 3.1 Web Accessibility Quantitative Metric 3.2 Deploying accessibility scores in Search Engines • Contextual Web Accessibility Assessment • Device-tailored Assessment • User-tailored Assessment • Conclusions • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  6. 2. Web Accessibility Evaluation • There are a number of accessibility guideline sets • Focus on disability • Access devices • Application environment • A tool for coping with them requires • Evaluation engine independent of guidelines • A language to frame them • A set of guidelines has been studied to find patterns • General & desktop: WCAG 1.0, Section 508, IBM Accessibility Guidelines • Mobile devices: Mobile Web Best Practices 1.o • Target group of users: Elderly [Kurniawan & Zaphiris, 2005] • Specific environments: IMS guidelines for accessible learning applications • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  7. 2. Web Accessibility Evaluation • 21 patterns were found for XHTML test cases • 6 require checking XHTML elements • 11 require element and attributes • 4 of them are complex relationships • The Unified Guidelines Language (UGL) has been defined • XML-Schema that frames all test cases • Expressive • For evaluation purposes UGL are transformed into XQuery • Each test case has a corresponding XQuery template • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  8. 2. Web Accessibility Evaluation • a) input type=“img”alt • b) input name=“go”alt • Test-case 17: “a specific value of an attribute requires another non-empty attribute ” UGL UGL • <label> </label> • <analysis_type>check attribute</analysis_type> • <related_attribute> • <atb> </atb> • <analysis_type>value</analysis_type> • <content test = “ ”> </content> • <related_attribute> • <atb></atb> • <analysis_type>compulsory</analysis_type> • </related_attribute> • </related_attribute> • <label>input</label> • <analysis_type>check attribute</analysis_type> • <related_attribute> • <atb>name</atb> • <analysis_type>value</analysis_type> • <content test = "=">go</content> • <related_attribute> • <atb>alt</atb> • <analysis_type>compulsory</analysis_type> • </related_attribute> • </related_attribute> input type img = alt XQuery template • //???[@??? test “???” and not(@???)FAIL a) XQuery • //input[@type= “img” and not(@alt)] FAIL • //input[@name= “go” and not(@alt)] FAIL b) XQuery • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  9. 2. Web Accessibility Evaluation • An interactive web application for accessibility guidelines • A front-end for UGL guidelines • Creation, edition and sharing • Working jointly with an evaluation tool <checkpoints id="2" title="HTML elements and their attributes"> <priority>1</priority> <description/> <evaluation_type>auto-semi</evaluation_type> <techniques id="1"> <type>HTML</type><description>Compulsory</description> <test_case id="7"> <type>7</type> <evaluation_type>auto</evaluation_type> <evaluation_result>error</evaluation_result> <element> <label>IMG</label> <test_e>check attribute</test_e> <related_attribute> <atb>alt</atb> <test_a>compulsory</test_a> </related_attribute> </element> </test_case> </techniques> <techniques id="2”> <test_case id="8"> <type>8</type> <evaluation_type>auto</evaluation_type> <evaluation_result>error</evaluation_result> <element> <label>FRAME</label> <test_e>check attribute</test_e> <related_attribute> <atb>title</atb> <test_a>compulsory</test_a> <content analysis="not empty"/> UGL • Developers cannot be forced to use UGL • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  10. 2. Web Accessibility EvaluationGuidelines Management Framework 1. select textarea element “For each @id in textarea check there is a label where @for=@id” • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  11. 2. Web Accessibility EvaluationGuidelines Management Framework 2. select id attribute “For each @id in textarea check there is a label where @for=@id” • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  12. 2. Web Accessibility EvaluationGuidelines Management Framework 3. select label element “For each @id in textarea check there is a label where @for=@id” • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  13. 2. Web Accessibility EvaluationGuidelines Management Framework 4. select for attribute “For each @id in textarea check there is a label where @for=@id” • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  14. 2. Web Accessibility EvaluationGuidelines Management Framework 5. define element order “For each @id in textarea check there is a label where @for=@id” • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  15. 2. Web Accessibility EvaluationGuidelines Management Framework • Search for existing guidelines • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  16. 2. Web Accessibility EvaluationGuidelines Management Framework • Retrieve guidelines • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  17. 2. Web Accessibility EvaluationGuidelines Management Framework • Evaluate web content • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  18. 2. Web Accessibility Evaluation 2: guidelines are stored in a remote repository 1: user A creates, searches, shares guidelines 3: guidelines are transformed into UGL 4: UGL are decomposed into XQuery 5: user B selects guidelines and evaluates web page server · create · search · share · update browser 1 2 Guidelines repository Definition manager Evaluation component user A 3 Guidelines pre-processor · select guidelines · evaluate XQuery1 4 user B XQuery2 get XQuery2 5 ... XQueryi get XQueryn ... http://www.foo.com XQueryn • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  19. Summary for Evaluation • A declarative language to frame accessibility guidelines is defined • An interactive application allows non-expert users to manage guidelines • An evaluation engine works jointly with the management framework resulting in a cooperative tool for accessibility guidelines • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  20. Outline • Motivation • Web Accessibility Evaluation • Web Accessibility Measurement 3.1Web Accessibility Quantitative Metric 3.2 Deploying accessibility scores in Search Engines • Contextual Web Accessibility Evaluation • Device-tailored accessibility • User-tailored accessibility • Conclusions • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  21. 3. Web Accessibility Measurement • Most broadly accepted conformance scores are WCAG 1.0qualitative ones (0, A, AA, AAA) • Based on the assumption that if a test is violated in a level the page fails to meet such level • We need more than accept/reject measure quantitative metrics • Some scenarios require automatically obtained numeric scores • QA and measure of updates within Web Engineering • Accessibility Observatories • Information Retrieval • Adaptive hypermedia techniques • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  22. 3.1 Web Accessibility Quantitative Metric • Failure-rate is calculated for all WCAG 1.0 checkpoints • Leads to having normalized scores • The ratio between potential and actual errors piles up close to 0 • A hyperbole is applied to spread out these rates • An approach to the hyperbole • Impact of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints is quantified • The failure-rate for semi-automatic issues is estimated hyperbole approach • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  23. 3.1 Web Accessibility Quantitative Metric for i in each checkpoint in a guideline {P,O,U,R} loop for j in each type of checkpoint {auto,semi} loop for k in each priority{1,2,3} loop Ai,j=calculate_failure_rate()*priority_weight(k) end for end for Ai=(Ni,auto*Ai,auto+Ni,semi*Ai,semi)/Ni end for A=(NP*AP+NO*AO+NU*AU+NR*AR)/N WAQM algorithm • Evaluation is carried out against WCAG 1.0 • Failure-rates of each checkpoints are grouped according to their • WCAG 2.0 principle membership • reported problem type • WCAG 1.0 priorities • All subgroups are merged weighting them with the number of checkpoints in each subgroup • As a result A score for accessibility is obtained • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  24. 3.1 Web Accessibility Quantitative MetricValidation • Experts assessed the accessibility of 14 home pages • EvalAccess tool was used to evaluate and WAQM was applied • Strong positive correlation found between numeric expert assessment and WAQM r(14)=0.56, p<0.05 • Validation by experts • Testing reliability: reproducibility and consistency • 1363 pages from 15 sites were automatically evaluated with EvalAccess and LIFT tools • Very strong rank correlation between sites ρ(15)= 0.74 and between all pages ρ(1363)= 0.72 • No correlation was found between absolute values. A method for parameter tuning is proposed. • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  25. 3.1 Web Accessibility Quantitative MetricValidation Before tuning After tuning • Results with parameter tuning are more similar and balanced for absolute values EvalAccess LIFT • while keeping strong correlation for rankings based on scores ρ(1449)=0.64, p<.000 • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  26. Outline • Motivation • Web Accessibility Evaluation • Web Accessibility Measurement 3.1 Web Accessibility Quantitative Metric 3.2Deploying accessibility scores in Search Engines • Contextual Web Accessibility Assessment • Device-tailored Assessment • User-tailored Assessment • Conclusions • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  27. 3.1 Web Accessibility MeasurementDeploying accessibility scores in Search Engines • In a study with blind users (Ivory et al, 2004) concluded that it would be useful • WAQM was incorporated into Information Retrieval systems 5 1 • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  28. 3.1 Web Accessibility MeasurementDeploying accessibility scores in Search Engines • A study was conducted to observe how commercial search engines behave with respect to accessibility • Google and Yahoo! search were deployed and their results ranked according to accessibility scores • Compared with Google and Yahoo! without re-ranking • 12 queries from a corpus used for IR experiments were used • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  29. 3.1 Web Accessibility MeasurementDeploying accessibility scores in Search Engines • Results show that, • First 10 URLs provided by Yahoo and Google score pretty high • Reinforcing Pemberton’s (2003) statement on the visibility of accessible pages • Commercial search engines do not rank results according accessibility though • Yahoo! shows a tendency although results are not definitive • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  30. Summary for Measurement • WAQM produces numeric scores to measure accessibility • WAQM is valid and reliable • It is concluded that top 10 results produced by traditional search engines score high although not ranked according to accessibility • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  31. Outline • Motivation • Web Accessibility Evaluation • Web Accessibility Measurement 3.1 Web Accessibility Quantitative Metric 3.2 Deploying accessibility scores in Search Engines • Contextual Web Accessibility Assessment • Device-tailored Assessment • User-tailored Assessment • Conclusions • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  32. 4. Contextual Web Accessibility • Even if pages meet traditional accessibility guidelines users still find problems. • Selecting those guidelines that impact on the user is not enough • Multiple group membership is not supported by tools • Group guidelines do not capture individual needs • Guidelines contain unresolved references to user’s delivery context • Guidelines are dependent on user agents because UAAG are not met • 3 goals to capture interaction context • Goal 1. Application of multiple guideline sets • Goal 2. Overcome limitations of User Agents • Goal 3. Capture delivery context • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  33. 4. Contextual Web Accessibility • Capturing the interaction context and completing guidelines with it leads to personal web accessibility • Scenarios that would benefit frompersonal accessibility • END-USERS • Personalized Information Retrieval Systems • Adaptive navigation support • DEVELOPERS • Developing Websites for Specific Audiences and Devices • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  34. 4. ContextualWeb Accessibility Framework for personal accessibility • The framework for context-tailored assessment requires: • A vocabulary to univocally identify context features • Gathered info is put in a CC/PP profile • CC/PP vocabulary is limited but extensible • The 5 guideline sets (WCAG, IBM, MWBP, Elderly and Learning) have been analyzed in order to find their dependencies with respect to context • A vocabulary is created with those features that refer to context in accessibility guidelines • Same concepts from other vocabularies have been borrowed • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  35. 4. ContextualWeb Accessibility Framework for personal accessibility – creating a vocabulary for context profiles • Goal 2. With respect to ATs two types of dependencies are identified: • Negative dependencies: older versions may suffer accessibility problems even if guidelines are met false negatives • Positive dependencies: new features of ATs make some accessibility barriers obsolete false positives • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  36. 4. ContextualWeb Accessibility Framework for personal accessibility – creating a vocabulary for context profiles Goal 3. Those references that guidelines make to the delivery context are captured • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  37. 4. ContextualWeb Accessibility Framework for personal accessibility • Goal 1: Multiple guideline sets repository of UGL guidelines UGL repository • Goal 2:Overcome user agent limitations A detector of installed ATs Assistive Technologies Detector • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  38. 4. ContextualWeb Accessibility Framework for personal accessibility • Goal 3:Capture the Delivery Context • Device information retrieval from heterogeneous repositories • UAProf profiles: extended CC/PP profiles describing device features • WURFL profile: XML file containing device descriptions • Device Atlas: device description files Device Information Retriever Jena UAProf API WURLF Device Atlas JSON • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  39. 4. ContextualWeb Accessibility Framework for personal accessibility • Extracted information is put in a CC/PP profile using the defined vocabulary Device Atlas WURLF UAProf Assistive Technologies detector Device Information Retriever <software features/> <hardware features/> <assistivetechnologies/> CC/PP Profile • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  40. 4. ContextualWeb Accessibility Framework for personal accessibility –creating a vocabulary for context profiles <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:ccpp="http://www.w3.org/2000/07/04-ccpp#" xmlns:access="http://sipt07.si.ehu.es/profiles/2008/access-schema#"> <rdf:Descriptionrdf:about="http://sipt07.si.ehu.es/profiles/2008/user_0017"> <ccpp:componentrdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/07/04-ccpp#HardwarePlatform"/> <ccpp:componentrdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/07/04-ccpp#SoftwarePlatform"/> <ccpp:componentrdf:resource="http://sipt07.si.ehu.es/profiles/2008/access-schema#AT"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Descriptionrdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2000/07/04-ccpp#HardwarePlatform"> <access:CpuName>AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+</access:CpuName> <access:CpuConstructor>AuthenticAMD</access:CpuConstructor> <access:ramSize>1035172 kB</access:ramSize> <access:display>1024 x 768 pixels</access:display> <access:keyboard>AT Translated Set 2 keyboard</access:keyboard> <access:ColourCapable>Yes</access:ColourCapable> <access:ImageCapable>Yes</access:ImageCapable> <access:SoundOutputCapable>Yes</access:SoundOutputCapable > </rdf:Description> <rdf:Descriptionrdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2000/07/04-ccpp#SoftwarePlatform"> <access:OSName>Linux</access:OSName> <access:OSVendor>Unknown</access:OSVendor> <access:OSVersion>2.6.9-1.667</access:OSVersion> <access:user>root</access:user> <access:JavaVersion>1.4.2_10</access:JavaVersion> <access:JavaVendor>Sun Microsystems Inc.</access:JavaVendor> <access:JavaVendorURL>http://java.sun.com/</access:JavaVendorURL> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Descriptionrdf:about="http://sipt07.si.ehu.es/profiles/2008/access-schema#AT"> <access:ATName>Brltty</access:ATName> <access:ATVendor>The Brltty Team</access:ATVendor> <access:ATVersion>3.6.1</access:ATVersion> <access:ATType>Output</access:ATType> <access:ATIOtype>Braille</access:ATIOtype> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Descriptionrdf:about="http://sipt07.si.ehu.es/profiles/2008/access-schema#AT"> <access:ATName>K magnifier</access:ATName> <access:ATVendor>Kde Access Team</access:ATVendor> <access:ATVersion>1.0.0</access:ATVersion> <access:ATType>Output</access:ATType> <access:ATDescription>KDE Accessibility Magnifier</access:ATDescription> <access:ATIOtype>Magnifier</access:ATIOtype> </rdf:Description> • Automatically obtained CC/PP profile for personal accessibility access namespace hardware features software features assistive technologies • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  41. 4. ContextualWeb Accessibility Framework for personal accessibility • The Guidelines Manager based on the data of the CC/PP profile Device Atlas WURLF UAProf • Goal 1. Only those guidelines that affect to the user are downloaded • Goal 2. Guidelines with positive dependencies are not evaluated • Goal 2. Guidelines with negative dependencies will produce a failure • Goal 3. Guidelines are completed with delivery context data Device Information Retriever Assistive Technologies detector <software features/> <hardware features/> <assistivetechnologies/> CC/PP Profile UGL repository Guidelines Manager • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  42. 4. ContextualWeb Accessibility Guidelines & Profiles • Example: IMAGE_MAPS best practice • UGL is extended with semantic information <access:pntSupport>true</access:pntSupport> CC/PP excerpt 1. Matching • <test_case id="8"> • <evaluation_type>auto</evaluation_type> • <evaluation_result>error</evaluation_result> • <profile_feature type="access:pntSupport"/> • <value> </value> • <element> • <label>OBJECT</label> • <test_elem>check attribute</test_elem> • <related_attribute> • <atb>ismap</atb> • </related_attribute> • </element> • </test_case> UGL excerpt 2. Fill in slots true let $tmp:=web_doc.xml//OBJECT[@ismap] return if(not( ))then for $i in $tmp return <error>{$i/@line, $i/name()}</error> XQuery excerpt true • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  43. 4. ContextualWeb Accessibility Framework for personal accessibility Device Atlas WURLF UAProf • A set of context-tailored evaluation tests are produced • As a result, evaluation report is tailored to context Device Information Retriever Assistive Technologies detector <software features/> <hardware features/> <assistivetechnologies/> CC/PP Profile UGL repository <html> <head> <title>Test file<title> <body>foo Guidelines Manager XQuery1 Context-tailored report XQueryi XQueryn (X)HTML • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  44. 4. ContextualWeb Accessibility Applying metrics • WAQM is strongly tied to WCAG guidelines • A more flexible aggregation method that can be adapted to different interaction contexts is thus applied Traditional aggregation: where W: weights and E: evaluation results Logic Scoring Preferences: where ρ(d) are values selected upon the required logical relationship between evaluation results Successfully applied by Olsina & Rossi (2002) in web application Quality Assurance scenarios • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  45. Summary for Contextual Evaluation • An assessment framework that considers interaction context • How assistive technologies provide access to content and device features are of utmost importance • A metric that adapts to different contextual settings is defined • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  46. Outline • Motivation • Web Accessibility Evaluation • Web Accessibility Measurement 3.1 Web Accessibility Quantitative Metric 3.2 Deploying accessibility scores in Search Engines • Contextual Web Accessibility Assessment • Device-tailored Assessment • User-tailored Assessment • Conclusions • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  47. 5. Device-Tailored Web Accessibility - developers • Mobile Web Best Practices with different devices • Tool effectiveness • 10 pages were evaluated for different devices • D1<D2<D3 • Device-tailored vs traditional evaluation • Device-tailored evaluation statistically differs • Following Brajnik’s (2004) method for tool effectiveness • False positives of warnings are removed  increase in tool completeness • More false negatives of failures are found  increase tool correctness • Mobile Web Guidelines are developed in a low specifitylevel • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  48. 5. Device-Tailored Web Accessibility - developers • Device/paradigm behaviour • Logic Scoring Preferences was applied • 5 metrics: Navigation, Layout, Page Definition, Input and Overall • 102 web pages mobile vs desktop • D1<D2 • Higher scores are obtained for pages to be deployed in mobile devices • Better featured devices score higher • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  49. 5. Device-Tailored Web Accessibility - end users • Context: able-bodied users accessing the web with mobile devices • Access device: a PDA • Guidelines: mobileOK tests for mobile web conformance • 20 participants • Task: search by navigating • Usability measures • Effectiveness: completed task rate • Efficiency: task completion time • Satisfaction: Lewis’ after scenario questionnaire • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

  50. 5. Device-Tailored Web Accessibility - end users • Assessment metrics: device-tailored vs non-tailored • Correlation matrix: *:p<.05, **:p<.03, ***:p<.00 • Automatic Assessment of Contextual Web Accessibility from an Evaluation, Measurement and Adaptation Perspective

More Related