Abstract
The objective of Web accessibility evaluation is to verify that all users are able to use the Web, this means that they can perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with it (Henry 2018a). Since the manual verification of the fulfilment of guidelines that specify accessibility requirements can often turn out to be difficult and cumbersome, it is crucial to have appropriate computer tools available to assist this activity. There exist numerous applications that perform diverse types of automatic accessibility evaluations. On the other hand, on-site and remote evaluations with users can also be supported by specific tools. Even manual evaluations may be supported by crowdsourcing-based tools. All these innovations may have crucial importance in the advancement of Web accessibility. This chapter studies the need for tools in this field, reviews the main characteristics of the tools used for Web accessibility evaluation, and reflects upon their future.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Transcoding methods also depend on the availability of metadata [See Part 4: “User Interface Adaptation for Accessibility” for more information on transcoding].
References
Abascal J, Nicolle C (2001) Why inclusive design guidelines? In: Nicolle C, Abascal J (eds) Inclusive design guidelines for HCI, Taylor & Francis, London, pp 3–13
Abou-Zahra S, Henry SL (eds) (2011) WAI/W3C evaluation and report language (EARL) overview. https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/earl/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Abou-Zahra S, Steenhout N, Keen L (eds) (2017) Selecting web accessibility evaluation tools. https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/tools/selecting/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Abou-Zahra S (2008) Web accessibility evaluation. In: Harper S, Yesilada Y (eds) Web accessibility: a foundation for research. Springer, London, pp 79–106
AccessIT (2017) Accessibility compliance and remediation methodology (ACRM) http://www.dor.ca.gov/Access-IT/documents/ACRM%2005102017.docx. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
AChecker (2011) Web accessibility checker. https://achecker.ca/checker/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Aizpurua A (2017) Contributions to web accessibility: device-tailored evaluation, user-tailored interface generation and the interplay with user experience. PhD Dissertation, University of the Basque Country/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
Albert W, Tullis T, Tedesco D (2010) Beyond the usability lab: conducting large-scale online user experience studies. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco
Andreasen MS, Nielsen HV, Schrøder SO, Stage J (2007) What happened to remote usability testing?: An empirical study of three methods. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘07). ACM, New York, pp 1405–1414. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240838
Arrue M, Valencia X, Pérez JE, Moreno L, Abascal J (2018) Inclusive web empirical studies in remote and in-situ settings: a user evaluation of the RemoTest platform. Int J Hum–Comput Interact. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1473941
Arrue M, Vigo M, Abascal J (2008) Including heterogeneous web accessibility guidelines in the development process. In: Gulliksen J, Harning MB, Palanque P, van der Veer GC, Wesson J (eds) Engineering Interactive Systems EHCI 2007. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4940. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 620–637
Atterer R, Wnuk M, Schmidt A (2006) Knowing the user’s every move: user activity tracking for website usability evaluation and implicit interaction. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on world wide web. ACM, New York, pp 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1145/1135777.1135811
aXe (2018) Easy accessibility testing with aXe. https://www.axe-coreorg/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Basques K (2018) What’s new in DevTools (Chrome 60). https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/05/devtools-release-notes#lighthouse. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
BBC (2018) BBC digital guidelines accessibility standards and guidelines. http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/accessibility/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Brady E, Bigham J (2015) Crowdsourcing accessibility: human-powered access technologies. Found Trends Hum-Comput Interact 8(4):273–372. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000050
Brajnik G (2004) Comparing accessibility evaluation tools: a method for tool effectiveness. Univ Access Inf Soc 3(3):252–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-004-0105-y
Brajnik G (2008a) A comparative test of web accessibility evaluation methods. In: Proceedings of the 10th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility. ACM, New York, pp 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1145/1414471.1414494
Brajnik G (2008b) Beyond conformance: the role of accessibility evaluation methods. In: Hartmann S, et al (eds) Web information systems engineering WISE 2008. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5176. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 63–80
Brajnik G (2009) Barrier walkthrough. https://users.dimi.uniud.it/~giorgiobrajnik/projects/bw/bwhtml. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Caldwell B, Cooper M, Reid LG, Vanderheiden G (2008) WAI/W3C web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 20. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Chisholm W, Vanderheiden G, Jacobs I (eds) (1999) WAI/W3C web content accessibility guidelines 10 http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
CKEditor (2018) Accessibility checker. https://ckeditor.com/cke4/addon/a11ychecker. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Claypool M, Le P, Wased M, Brown D (2001) Implicit interest indicators. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on intelligent user interfaces. ACM, New York, pp 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/359784.359836
CTIC (2018a) TAW web accessibility test. https://www.tawdisnet/?lang=en#. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
CTIC (2018b) TAW monitor. https://www.tawdisnet/proj#c2. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
de Santana VF, Baranauskas MCC (2015) WELFIT: A remote evaluation tool for identifying web usage patterns through client-side logging. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 76:40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.12.005
Eclipse (2018) ACTF aDesigner. http://www.eclipseorg/actf/downloads/tools/aDesigner/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Egger E, Abou-Zahra S (2016) WAI/W3C web accessibility evaluation tools list. https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Etgen M, Cantor J (1999) What does getting WET (web event-logging tool) mean for web usability. In Proceedings of 5th human factors and the web conference, NIST, Gaithersburg, 3 June 1999
Gajos KZ, Reinecke K, Herrmann C (2012) Accurate measurements of pointing performance from in situ observations. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 3157–3166. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208733
Gay GR, Li CA (2010) Open, interactive, customizable, web accessibility checking. In: Proceedings of the 7th international cross disciplinary conference on web accessibility. ACM, New York, p 2. https://doi.org/10.1145/1805986.1806019
Google (2018) Google analytics. http://www.google.com/analytics/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Hallam-Baker PM, Behlendor B (2018) W3C extended log file format. https://www.w3.org/TR/WD-logfile. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Hammontree M, Weiler P, Nayak N (1994) Remote usability testing. Interactions 1(3):21–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/182966.182969
Harper S, Bechhofer S (2007) SADIe: Structural semantics for accessibility and device independence. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact (TOCHI) 14(2):10. https://doi.org/10.1145/1275511.1275516
Harper S, Yesilada Y (eds) (2008) Web accessibility: a foundation for research. Springer, London
Henry SL (2007) Just ask: integrating accessibility throughout design. http://uiaccess.com/accessucd/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Henry SL (ed) (2018a) WAI/W3C introduction to web accessibility web accessibility initiative WAI (W3C). https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-intro/#what. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Henry SL (ed) (2018b) WAI/W3C evaluating web accessibility overview. https://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/Overview. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Henry SL, McGee L (eds) (2018) Accessibility. https://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
HIIS Lab/ISTI-CNR (2018) MAUVE multiguideline accessibility and usability validation environment. http://mauve.isti.cnr.it/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Hong JI, Heer J, Waterson S, Landay JA (2001) WebQuilt: a proxy-based approach to remote web usability testing. ACM Trans Inf Syst 19(3):263–285. https://doi.org/10.1145/502115.502118
Hurst A, Hudson S E, Mankoff J, Trewin S (2008) Automatically detecting pointing performance. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on intelligent user interfaces. ACM, New York, pp 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/1378773.1378776
IBM (2017) IBM accessibility checklist. https://www.ibm.com/able/guidelines/ci162/accessibility_checklist.html. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Ivory MY, Hearst MA (2001) The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR) 33(4):470–516. https://doi.org/10.1145/503112.503114
Kacmarcik G, Leithead T (eds) (2018) W3C UI events. https://www.w3.org/TR/uievents/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Keates S, Hwang F, Langdon P, Clarkson P J, Robinson P (2002) Cursor measures for motion-impaired computer users. In Proceedings of the 5th international ACM conference on assistive technologies. ACM, New York, pp 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1145/638249.638274
Kirkpatrick A, O’Connor J, Campbell A, Cooper M (2018) WAI/W3C web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 21. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Loop11 (2018) Loop11. http://www.loop11.com/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Luque V, Delgado C, Gaedke M, Nussbaumer M (2005) Web composition with WCAG in mind. In: Proceedings of the 2005 international cross-disciplinary workshop on web accessibility (W4A). ACM, New York, pp 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1145/1061811.1061819
MacKenzie I S, Kauppinen T, Silfverberg M (2001) Accuracy measures for evaluating computer pointing devices. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/365024.365028
Mariage C, Vanderdonckt J, Pribeanu C (2005) State of the art of web usability guidelines. In: Proctor R, Vu K (eds) The handbook of human factors in web design. Erlbaum, Lawrence, pp 688–700
Paganelli L, Paternò F (2002) Intelligent analysis of user interactions with web applications. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on intelligent user interfaces. ACM, New York, pp 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1145/502716.502735
Paternò F, Schiavone AG (2015) The role of tool support in public policies and accessibility. Interactions 22(3):60–63. https://doi.org/10.1145/2745395
Petrie H, Hamilton F, King N, Pavan P (2006) Remote usability evaluations with disabled people. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 1133–1141. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124942
Schiavone AG, Paternò F (2015) An extensible environment for guideline-based accessibility evaluation of dynamic Web applications. Univ Access Inf Soc 14(1):111–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0399-3
Scholtz J, Laskowski S, Downey L (1998) Developing usability tools and techniques for designing and testing websites. In: Proceedings of the 4th conference on human factors and the web, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, 5 June 1998
Section 508 (2018) Website policies. https://www.section508.gov/content/accessibility. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Song S, Bu J, Wang Y, Yu Z, Artmeier A, Dai L, Wang C (2018) Web accessibility evaluation in a crowdsourcing-based system with expertise-based decision strategy. In: Pearson E, Sorge V (eds) W4A, ACM, pp 23:1–23:4. ISBN: 978-1-4503-5651-0
Takagi H, Asakawa C, Fukuda K, Maeda J (2002) Site-wide annotation: reconstructing existing pages to be accessible. In: Proceedings of the fifth international ACM conference on assistive technologies. ACM, New York, pp 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1145/638249.638265
Takagi H, Itoh T, Kawanaka S, Kobayashi M, Asakawa C. (2008) Social accessibility: achieving accessibility through collaborative metadata authoring. In: Proceedings of the 10th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility. ACM, New York, pp 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1145/1414471.1414507
TECED (2017) Accessibility evaluation methodology. http://teced.com/services/web-accessibility/accessibility-evaluation-methodology/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
TechSmith (2018) Morae. http://www.techsmith.com/moraehtml. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Tenon (2018) LLC simplify your accessibility. https://tenon.io/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Thatcher J, Burks MR, Heilmann C, Henry SL, Kirkpatrick A, Lauke PH, Lawson B, Regan B, Rutter R, Urban M, Waddell CD (2006) Web accessibility: web standards regulatory compliance. Apress, New York
Valencia X (2017) A web transcoding framework based on user behaviour evaluation. Dissertation, University of the Basque Country
Valencia X, Pérez JE, Muñoz U, Arrue M, Abascal J (2015) Assisted interaction data analysis of web-based user studies. In: Abascal J, Barbosa S, Fetter M, Gross T, Palanque P, Winckler M (eds) Human-computer interaction—INTERACT 2015. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 9296. Springer, Cham, pp 1–19
Vanderdonckt J (1999) Development milestones towards a tool for working with guidelines. Interact Comput. Elsevier 12(2):81–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(99)00019-3
Velleman E, Abou-Zahra S (eds) (2014) W3C/WAI Eval TF WAI/W3C website accessibility conformance evaluation methodology (WCAG-EM) 10. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Vigo M, Brown J, Conway V (2013) Benchmarking web accessibility evaluation tools: measuring the harm of sole reliance on automated tests. In: Proceedings of the 10th international cross-disciplinary conference on web accessibility. ACM, New York, pp 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2461121.2461124
Vigo M, Arrue M, Brajnik G, Lomuscio R, Abascal J (2007a) Quantitative metrics for measuring web accessibility. In: Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary conference on web accessibility. ACM, New York, pp 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1145/1243441.1243465
Vigo M, Brajnik G (2011) Automatic web accessibility metrics: where we are and where we can go. Interact Comput 23(2):137–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.01.001
Vigo M, Harper S (2017) Real-time detection of navigation problems on the World ‘Wild’ Web. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 101:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.12.002
Vigo M, Kobsa, A, Arrue M, Abascal J (2007b) User-tailored web accessibility evaluations. In: Proceedings of the 18th conference on hypertext and hypermedia (HT ‘07). ACM, New York, pp 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1145/1286240.1286267
WEBaccessibility (2018) Continuous accessibility testing. https://webaccessibility.com/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
WebAIM (2018) WAVE web accessibility evaluation tool. http://wave.webaim.org/. Accessed 1 Aug 2018
Yesilada Y, Brajnik G, Vigo M, Harper S (2012) Understanding web accessibility and its drivers. In: Proceedings of the international of the 2012 cross-disciplinary conference on web accessibility. ACM, New York, pp 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207016.2207027
Acknowledgements
The authors are members of the EGOKITUZ/ADIAN research team, supported by the Basque Government, Department of Education, Universities and Research under grant (IT980-16).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Abascal, J., Arrue, M., Valencia, X. (2019). Tools for Web Accessibility Evaluation. In: Yesilada, Y., Harper, S. (eds) Web Accessibility. Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7440-0_26
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7440-0_26
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-7439-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-7440-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)