Evaluating Accessibility-in-Use
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Evaluating Accessibility-in-Use

  • 2,762 views
Uploaded on

Evidence suggests that guidelines employed in conformance testing do not catch all the accessibility barriers encountered by users on the Web. Since accessibility is strongly tied to the users’ ...

Evidence suggests that guidelines employed in conformance testing do not catch all the accessibility barriers encountered by users on the Web. Since accessibility is strongly tied to the users’ experience there is a subjective perception of accessibility barriers and their severity. What is more, not only intangible qualities characterise the way in which these barriers are perceived, but also navigation styles, age, onset, expertise and abilities play a key role. In order to overcome the limitations of conformance testing and catch the problems that emerge during the interaction we propose a user-interaction-driven method to automatically report accessibility problems. To do so, we initially isolate the problematic situations faced by users and the tactics employed in such situations. These tactics are considered behavioural markers of cognitive processes that indicate problematic situations; the presence of tactics denotes the presence of problems. Then, we design and deploy algorithms to automatically detect the exhibition of these tactics and consequently detect problematic situations. WebTactics, a tool that unobtrusively detects and reports the problematic situations undergone by visually disabled users illustrates the method we propose.

More in: Design , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
2,762
On Slideshare
793
From Embeds
1,969
Number of Embeds
14

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 1,969

http://eightbar.co.uk 1,777
http://flavors.me 74
http://dalelane.co.uk 68
https://twitter.com 21
http://ranksit.com 7
http://eightbar.co.uk. 5
http://andypiper.flavors.me 4
http://cloud.feedly.com 4
http://es.flavors.me 2
http://de.flavors.me 2
http://newsblur.com 2
http://pt.flavors.me 1
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1
http://news.google.com 1

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • ethno
  • ethno

Transcript

  • 1. Evaluating Accessibility-in-UseMarkel Vigo1 & Simon Harper2 University of Manchester (UK)1: @markelvigo2: @sharpicW4A 2013markel.vigo@manchester.ac.uksimon.harper@manchester.ac.ukhttp://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.701482
  • 2. EvidenceGuidelines cover around 53% of the problemsencountered by usersPower et al. 2012Guidelines are only half of the story: accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the webCHI 2012, 433-442W4A 201313 May 2013 2
  • 3. ProblemThe perception of users about accessibilitybarriers is difficultly measurable andgeneralisableW4A 201313 May 2013 3
  • 4. Paradox– Some barriers are not perceived– Some barriers are encountered but overcome– Barrier free pages can cause a great hindranceW4A 201313 May 2013 4
  • 5. Accessibility-in-use“the effects that real accessibility problems haveon the quality of interaction as perceived by realusers when interacting with real pages forachieving real goals”Vigo and Brajnik, 2011Automatic web accessibility metrics: where we are and where we can goInteracting with Computers 23 (2), 137-155W4A 201313 May 2013 5
  • 6. What do we propose:Step 1. Observation & Identificationof Coping Strategies61. ObservationW4A 201313 May 2013Cognitive markers that indicateproblematic situations
  • 7. What do we propose:Step 2. Development of algorithmsto detect strategies71. Observation 2. AlgorithmsW4A 201313 May 2013
  • 8. What do we propose:Step 3. Deployment in the wild81. Observation 2. Algorithms 3. DeploymentW4A 201313 May 2013
  • 9. Case studyStep 1. Observation and analysis• 2 independent studies/datasets generatedfrom ethnographic studies and user tests• 24 screen reader and screen magnifierusers• 17 coping strategies were identified9 W4A 201313 May 2013
  • 10. Case studyStep 2. Implement algorithms– Asking for assistance– Impulsive clicking– Exploration tactics– Narrowing down search– Gaining orientation– Re-doing– Not operating– Giving up10 W4A 201313 May 2013
  • 11. 11WebTacticst1(){..}DBUser Website Manager/Researcher1.1 Detectionalgorithms areinjected onto webpages.1.2 Each algorithm keeps track of determinedsequences of events and actions.3. This event isasynchronously sentto a remote location.2. When the use of atactic is detected anotification is triggered.4. Reports from users areviewed by interested parties.ti(){..}tn(){..}id timestamp URL tacticccgu1331569030153 1333922552190 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/ t5ccgu1331569030153 1333922556391 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/ t1W4A 201313 May 2013Case studyStep 3. Deployment: WebTactics
  • 12. Contributions• A method to observe accessibility-in-use• Our approach allows to capture theproblems that emerge in the wild• WebTacticsW4A 201313 May 2013 12
  • 13. Follow up13Contact@markelvigo | markel.vigo@manchester.ac.ukPresentation DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.701482Source codehttps://bitbucket.org/mvigo/copeW4A 201313 May 2013