Advertisement

Combining Multiple Web Accessibility Evaluation Reports Using Semantic Web Technologies

  • José R. Hilera
  • Salvador Otón
  • Cristian Timbi-Sisalima
  • Juan Aguado-Delgado
  • Francisco J. Estrada-Martínez
  • Héctor R. Amado-Salvatierra
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 26)

Abstract

This work paper describes a process for automatic combination of testing reports for the accessibility of Web applications, obtained by different testing tools and applying different standards on Web accessibility. Interoperability is guaranteed using semantic Web technologies, which allow describing the reports by RDF (Resource Description Framework) triples. The reports refer to elements of a knowledge base consisting of vocabularies, ontologies and rules of inference, in which the conceptual relations between accessibility standards, as WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) or Section 508 among others, are formalized. A software prototype that uses the Apache Jena framework for implementing the process is presented.

Keywords

Interoperability Semantic Web Software testing Web accessibility 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the ESVI-AL Cooperation Network, and to the “Master on Software Engineering for the Web” of the University of Alcalá.

References

  1. 1.
    Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Guarino, L., Vanderheiden, G.: Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ (2008)
  2. 2.
    ISO/IEC 40500:2012, Information technology—W3C Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. International Organization for Standardization (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Web-based Intranet and Internet Information and Applications (1194.22). In: Guide to the Section 508 Standards. United States Access Board. https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards (2001)
  4. 4.
    Semantic Web. World Wide Web Consortium (2016). https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/
  5. 5.
    Reasoners and rule engines: Jena inference support. Apache Software Foundation. https://jena.apache.org/documentation/inference/ (2017)
  6. 6.
    Beckett, D., Berners-Lee, T., Prud’hommeaux, E., Carothers, G.: RDF 1.1 Turtle. World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/ (2014)
  7. 7.
    Brickley, D., Guha, R.V. (eds.): RDF Schema 1.1. World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ (2014)
  8. 8.
    Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Rudolph, S. (eds.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Primer (Second Edition). World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/ (2012)
  9. 9.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML, W3C Member Submission 21 May 2004. World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/ (2004)
  10. 10.
    Harris, S., Seaborne, A. (eds.): SPARQL 1.1 Query Language. World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/ (2013)
  11. 11.
    Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools List. Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/ (2016)
  12. 12.
    Abou-Zahra, S. (ed.): Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema, W3C Working Group Note 2 February 2017. World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Schema/ (2017)
  13. 13.
    Timbi-Sisalima C., Hilera J., Otón S., Ingavelez P.: Developing a RESTful API for a web accessibility evaluation tool. In: 18th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS’16), pp. 443–450. SCITEPRESS (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Timbi-Sisalima C., Martín-Amor, C., Otón, S., Hilera, J.R., Aguado-Delgado, J.: Comparative analysis of online web accessibility evaluation tools. In: 25th International Conference on Information Systems Development (ISD’16), pp. 562–573. University of Economics in Katowice, Poland (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    AChecker. Inclusive Design Research Centre. http://achecker.ca (2011)
  16. 16.
    Fiers, W., Kraft, M. (eds.): Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Rules Format 1.0 W3C Working Draft, 12 September 2017. World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/ (2017)
  17. 17.
    Hilera, J.R., Otón, S., Martin-Amor, C., Timbi-Sisalima, C.: Towards a service-based architecture for web accessibility federated evaluation. In: 9th International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions (ACHI’16), pp. 6–10. IARIA (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fernandes, N., Kaklanis, N., Votis, K., Tzovaras, D., Carriço, L.: An analysis of personalized web accessibility. In: 11th Web for All Conference (W4A’14), Article 19, 10 pages. ACM Press, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Votis, K., Lopes, R., Tzovaras, D., Carrico, L., Likothanassis, S.: A Semantic accessibility assessment environment for design and development for the web. In: International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction (UAHCI’09), pp. 803–813. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Craig, J., Cooper, M. (eds.): Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0. World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/ (2014)
  21. 21.
    Doush, I.A., Alkhateeb, F., Al Maghayreh, E., Al-Betar, M.A.: The design of RIA accessibility evaluation tool. Adv. Eng. Softw. 57, 1–7 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • José R. Hilera
    • 1
  • Salvador Otón
    • 1
  • Cristian Timbi-Sisalima
    • 2
  • Juan Aguado-Delgado
    • 1
  • Francisco J. Estrada-Martínez
    • 1
  • Héctor R. Amado-Salvatierra
    • 3
  1. 1.University of AlcaláAlcalá de HenaresSpain
  2. 2.Universidad Politécnica SalesianaCuencaEcuador
  3. 3.Galileo UniversityGuatemala CityGuatemala

Personalised recommendations