7. 4 principles: structure and arrangement, content appropriateness, multimodal output, consistency

8. automatic guideline review tool: Magenta

11. Addressed

14. Using aggregation methods

15. Considering issue typology:

16. automatic issues (earl:automatic) yield earl:passed or earl:fail

17. recommendations

23. Experimental settings

24. 16 experienced blind users. Age M=43, sd=11

25. JAWS on Internet Explorer

27. Browsing by navigating

30. Goal: observe users with no/vague target in mind

31. Two sites with 10 links

32. Top ten search results for “Pisa” and “Firenze” keywords

33. Results were heterogeneous links wrt topic,

34. Following a pattern: wikipedia, local university, soccer team and so on

35. One site was manually annotated with accessibility scores and relevance scores

38. 9 users proceeded sequentially. Kendall τ=[0.8-1.0] at most p<0.03

39. In the page with annotations,

40. Only 2 users proceeded sequentially. Kendall τ=1.0 at most p<0.05

41. None followed the sequence of most accessible links

42. None followed the path based on relevance

43. Some proceeded dichotomously

44. However, when aggregating accessibility scores of visited pages, 7 points over the median are obtained

47. Goal: observe users with a specific target in mind

48. Two sites with 10 links

49. Top ten search results for “Accommodations in Pisa”

50. Results were homogeneous links wrt topic

51. One site was manually annotated with accessibility scores

52. Relevance was not considered

53. Two tasks: (1) given a telephone number (2) address

56. Only 2 users proceeded sequentially. Kendall τ=1.0 at most p<0.05

57. One user proceeded inversely. Kendal τ=-1.0 at most p<0.02

58. In the page with annotations,

59. Only 2 users proceeded sequentially. Kendall τ=1.0 at most p<0.05

60. One user followed the most accessible path. Kendal τ=1.0 at most p<0.02

64. “scores are useful”, “scores are interesting”

65. “accessibility scores seem correct”

68. “scores don’t convey the actual difference in accessibility level” “scores make navigation smoother and more instinctive”

71. “Scores are useful for the browsing task”

72. “Scores are useful for the searching task”

73. “Scores are correlated with actual accessibility level in browsing task”

76. Although there is not an agreement

77. “The perception of accessibility depends on each user and their particular computer settings”

78. There is no agreement on the type of scores they prefer

79. 50% for qualitative and quantitative

82. In the browsing scenario users change paradigm

83. From sequential browsing to random in the subset of most accessible links

84. Subjective scores are more balanced than in the searching scenario