SlideShare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
SlideShare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.
Successfully reported this slideshow.
Activate your 14 day free trial to unlock unlimited reading.
A macroscopic web accessibility evaluation at different processing phases
A macroscopic web accessibility evaluation at different processing phases
1.
A macroscopic Web accessibility
evaluation at different
processing phases
Nádia Fernandes, Luís Carriço
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
2.
Motivation
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
2
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
3.
Introduction
• The Web is being used by all kinds of people;
• Web sites must be accessible;
• Modern Web development transcends static HTML;
• A more real evaluation is necessary.
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
3
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
4.
Previous work
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
4
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
5.
QualWeb evaluator
• Accessibility evaluation of Web
pages:
– using WCAG 2.0 ,
• 18 HTML techniques;
– at different processing
Before
phases
• BEFORE and AFTER
Browser processing;
After
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
5
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
6.
QualWeb evaluator: execution
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
6
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
7.
Some improvements...
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
7
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
8.
PhantomJs
• is a command-line tool that uses WebKit ,
• works like a WebKit-based Web browser (simulation);
• can be controlled using Javascript.
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
8
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
9.
Problems Solved!
1. It avoids data injection at the browser level;
2. Evaluated Web page before and after browser processing is
exactly the same;
3. Integration with a crawler.
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
9
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
10.
Research Question
How do the macroscopic properties emerging from Web
accessibility change in respect to the processing phase of
delivery?
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
10
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
11.
Experimental Study
• We evaluated a set of Web pages from a list provided by the
Portuguese Web Archive (version of 2008);
• We used the QualWeb evaluator.
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
11
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
12.
Metrics
• Results of the evaluation are presented in terms of:
– PASS, WARN, and FAIL (Applicable = PASS + WARN + FAIL)
• Metrics used:
– rate conservative =
– rate optimistic =
– rate strict =
• The results are between accessible (100%) and not accessible (0%).
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
12
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
13.
Results
• 24, 462 Web pages evaluated.
• Total Number of HTML elements:
– before processing - 24,918,720
– after processing - 41,967,072
– (Ratio ≈ 1.7).
• Average Number of HTML elements per page:
– before processing - 1010
– after processing – 1710
– (Ratio ≈1.7).
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
13
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
14.
The differences of an HTML
document between both
Processing Phases were observed.
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
14
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
15.
Results: Average Outcomes
• Successes
– before processing - 9 elements
– after processing - 87 elements
– (Ratio ≈ 9.7).
• Failures
– before processing - 46 elements
– after processing – 176 elements
– (Ratio ≈ 3.8).
• Warnings
– before processing - 262 elements
– after processing – 451 elements
– (Ratio ≈ 1.7).
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
15
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
16.
Results: rates Before and After processing
• Conservative rate:
– The average quality increases after
processing.
– Accessibility quality between 60% and 90%
disappeared after processing.
• Optimistic rate:
– The average quality decreases after
processing.
– Some results lower than 20% disappeared
after processing.
– Decrease of higher accessibility quality,
leading to a lower accessibility average.
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
16
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
17.
Results: rates Before and After processing
• Strict rate:
– The average increased after processing.
– Results higher than 85% disappeared
after processing.
– Worse pages before processing get higher
scores after processing.
– Better pages before processing are
ranked lower after processing.
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
17
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
18.
Limitations
1. Techniques coverage
2. Dynamic content
3. Automatic evaluation
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
18
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
19.
Discussion
• Evaluations before processing clearly is not the best option!
• We used/percept/interact with the after processed version.
• Considering the rates…
– Web pages possess higher uniformity
– That can be explained with reusable code
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
19
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
20.
Discussion
• Impact on Designing Accessible Web Pages
– Importance of sharing reusable code;
– High quality reusable code produce better quality pages.
• Impact on the Perception of Accessibility
– Each metric identify different perspectives;
– It is important that evaluations assess what user perceive.
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
20
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
21.
Conclusion
• We presented a large-scale study of accessibility on the Web.
• We were able to characterize some accessibility properties of the
Web, pointing some differences between processing phases.
• The results obtained on the evaluation of pages after browser
processing tend to be more homogeneous than before.
• Considering that the end-user interacts with the after processed
pages then most studies about Web quality should be redone.
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
21
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
22.
Future Work
1. Enlarge the coverage of WCAG 2.0 implemented tests
2. Evaluate Rich Internet applications
3. Perform a comparative set of studies
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
22
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
23.
nadiaf@di.fc.ul.pt
9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility –
23
16/17th April 2012 – Lyon, France.
0 likes
Be the first to like this
Views
Total views
1,318
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
You have now unlocked unlimited access to 20M+ documents!
Unlimited Reading
Learn faster and smarter from top experts
Unlimited Downloading
Download to take your learnings offline and on the go
You also get free access to Scribd!
Instant access to millions of ebooks, audiobooks, magazines, podcasts and more.
Read and listen offline with any device.
Free access to premium services like Tuneln, Mubi and more.