Three web accessibility evaluation perspectives for RIA

ABSTRACT

With the increasing popularity of Rich Internet Applications (RIAs), several challenges arise in the area of web accessibility evaluation. A particular set of challenges emerges from RIAs dynamic nature: original static Web specifications can change dramatically before being presented to the end user; a user triggered event may provide complete new content within the same RIA. Whatever the evaluation alternative, the challenges must be met.

We focus on automatic evaluation using the current WGAG standards. That enables us to do extensive evaluations in order to grasp the accessibility state of the web eventually pointing new direction for improvement.

In this paper, we present a comparative study to understand the difference of the accessibility properties of the Web regarding three different evaluation perspectives: 1) before browser processing; 2) after browser processing (dynamic loading); 3) and, also after browser processing, considering the triggering of user interaction events.

The results clearly show that for a RIA the number of accessibility outcomes varies considerably between those tree perspectives. First of all, this variation shows an increase of the number of assessed elements as well as passes, warnings and errors from perspective 1 to 2, due to dynamically loaded code, and from 2 to 3, due to the new pages reached by the interaction events. This shows that evaluating RIAs without considering its dynamic components provides an erroneous perception of its accessibility. Secondly, the relative growth of the number of fails is bigger than the growth of passes. This signifies that considering pages reached by interaction reveals lower quality for RIAs. Finally, a tendency is shown for the RIAs with higher number of states also exposing differences in accessibility quality.

References

1. S. Abou-Zahra. Complete List of Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools, march 2006. Available from: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ERytools/complete.
2. S. Abou-Zahra and M. Squillace. Evaluation and report language (EARL) 1.0 schema. Last call WD, W3C, Oct. 2009. Available from: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-EARL10-Schema-20091029/.
3. L. R. G. V. B. Caldwell, M. Cooper. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. W3C Note, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), December 2008. from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.
4. M. Cooper. Accessibility of emerging rich web technologies: web 2.0 and the semantic web. In Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A), W4A '07, pages 93--98, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.
5. M. Cooper, L. G. Reid, G. Vanderheiden, and B. Caldwell. Techniques for WCAG 2.0 - Techniques and Failures for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. W3C Note, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), October 2010. Last accessed on November 26th, 2010, from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/.
6. M. Cooper, D. Sloan, B. Kelly, and S. Lewthwaite. A challenge to web accessibility metrics and guidelines: putting people and processes first. In Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, W4A '12, pages 20:1--20:4, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM.
7. I. A. Doush, F. Alkhateeb, E. A. Maghayreh, and M. A. Al-Betar. The design of ria accessibility evaluation tool. Advances in Engineering Software, 57(0):1--7, 2013.
8. N. Fernandes and L. Carriço. A macroscopic web accessibility evaluation at different processing phases. In Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, W4A '12, pages 18:1--18:4, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM.
9. N. Fernandes, D. Costa, S. Neves, C. Duarte, and L. Carriço. Evaluating the accessibility of rich internet applications. In Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, W4A '12, pages 13:1--13:4, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM.
10. N. Fernandes, R. Lopes, and L. Carriço. Evaluating web accessibility at different processing phases. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 18(3):159--181, 2012.
11. A. P. Freire, R, P. M. Fortes, M. A. S. Turine, and D. M. B. Paiva. An evaluation of web accessibility metrics based on their attributes. In Proceedings of the 26th annual ACM international conference on Design of communication, SIGDOC '08, pages 73--80, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
12. J. L. Fuertes, R. González, E. Gutiérrez, and L. Martínez. Hera-ffx: a firefox add-on for semi-automatic web accessibility evaluation. In W4A '09: Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibililty (W4A), pages 26--34, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM.
13. J. L. Fuertes, R. González, E. Gutiérrez, and L. Martínez. Developing hera-ffx for wcag 2.0. In W4A '11: Proceedings of the 2011 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibililty (W4A), New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM.
14. S. Harper and Y. Yesilada. Web Accessibility. Springer, London, United Kingdom, 2008.
15. S. L. Henry. WAI-ARIA Overview. W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), January 2011. Available from: http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria.
16. W. Kern. Web 2.0 -- End of Accessibility? Analysis of Most Common Problems with Web 2.0 Based Applications Regarding Web Accessibility. International Journal of Public Information Systems, 4(2):131--154, 2008.
17. R. Lopes and L. Carrico. Macroscopic characterisations of web accessibility, volume 16, pages 221--243, Bristol, PA, USA, Dec. 2010. Taylor & Francis, Inc.
18. R. Lopes, K. V. Isacker, and L. Carriç. Redefining assumptions: accessibility and its stakeholders. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Computers helping people with special needs: Part I, ICCHP'10, pages 561--568, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010. Springer-Verlag.
19. A. Mesbah and A. van Deursen. Invariant-based automatic testing of ajax user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE '09, pages 210--220, Washington, DC, USA, 2009. IEEE Computer Society.
20. S. Mirri, P. Salomoni, L. A. Muratori, and M. Battistelli. Getting one voice: tuning up experts' assessment in measuring accessibility. In Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, W4A '12, pages 16:1--16:4, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM.
21. T. Sullivan and R. Matson. Barriers to use: usability and content accessibility on the web's most popular sites. In CUU '00: Proceedings on the 2000 conference on Universal Usability, pages 139--144, New York, NY, USA, 2000. ACM.
22. E. Velleman, C. Meerveld, C. Strobbe, J. Koch, C. A. Velasco, M. Snaprud, and A. Nietzio. Unified Web Evaluation Methodology (UWEM 1.2), 2007. Available from: http://www.wabcluster.org/.
23. M. Vigo, M. Arrue, G. Brajnik, R. Lomuscio, and J. Abascal. Quantitative metrics for measuring web accessibility. In W4A '01: Proceedings of the 2001 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A), pages 99--107, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.
24. W. M. Watanabe, R, P. M. Fortes, and A. L. Dias. Using acceptance tests to validate accessibility requirements in ria. In Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, W4A '12, pages 15:1--15:10, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM.
25. Webkit. The webkit open source project, 2011. Available from: http://www.webkit.org/.
26. M. Zajicek. Web 2.0: hype or happiness? In Proceedings of the 2001 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A), W4A '07, pages 35--39, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.
27. X. Zhang, Y. Zhang, and J. Wu. Research and analysis of ajax technology effect on information system operating efficiency. In L. D. Xu, A. M. Tjoa, and S. S. Chaudhry, editors, Research and Practical Issues of Enterprise Information Systems II, Volume 1, IFIP TC 8 WG 8.9 International Conference on Research and Practical Issues of Enterprise Information Systems (CONFENIS 2007), October 14--16, 2007, Beijing, China, volume 254 of IFIP, pages 641--649. Springer, 2007.

Index Terms

• General and reference

  • Cross-computing tools and techniques

    • Performance

• Information systems

  • Information systems applications

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Management of computing and information systems

      • Software management

        • Software selection and adaptation

• Software and its engineering

  • Software creation and management

    • Software verification and validation

      • Empirical software validation

  • Software organization and properties

    • Extra-functional properties

      • Software performance

    • Software functional properties

      • Formal methods