Application of traditional software testing methodologies to web accessibility

Shelly, Cynthia C.; Barta, Mike

doi:10.1145/1805986.1806002

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While accessibility tests can be conducted throughout the iterative process of the development of accessible sites, testing is more effective in the early stages of development (Shelly and Barta, 2010) where poorly functional prototypes cannot be easily tested with users due to technical and logistical issues. As a result of this, we assume that validity with respect to conformance should be enough for engineering accessible prototypes.…”

Section: Quality Assurance Within Web Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic web accessibility metrics: Where we are and where we can go

Vigo

Brajnik

2011

Interacting with Computers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe fact that several web accessibility metrics exist may be evidence of a lack of a comparison framework that highlights how well they work and for what purposes they are appropriate. In this paper we aim at formulating such a framework, demonstrating that it is feasible, and showing the findings we obtained when we applied it to seven existing automatic accessibility metrics. The framework encompasses validity, reliability, sensitivity, adequacy and complexity of metrics in the context of four scenarios where the metrics can be used. The experimental demonstration of the viability of the framework is based on applying seven published metrics to more than 1500 web pages and then operationalizing the notions of validity-as-conformance, adequacy and complexity. Our findings lead us to conclude that the Web Accessibility Quantitative Metric, Page Measure and Web Accessibility Barrier are the metrics that achieve the highest levels of quality (out of the seven that we examined). Finally, since we did not analyse reliability, sensitivity and validity-in-use, this paper provides guidance to address them in what are new research avenues.

show abstract

Section: Quality Assurance Within Web Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic web accessibility metrics: Where we are and where we can go

Vigo

Brajnik

2011

Interacting with Computers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, formative assessment can be conducted on an ongoing basis during the development. Optimally, the formative assessment process should be ongoing from the initiation of a project, and continue throughout the operational lifespan of the web page or site [6,21]. Both types of assessment can be accomplished by expert human evaluators, automated evaluation tools or, ideally, a combination of both, and can be integrated into the software development and quality assurance lifecycle.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking web accessibility evaluation tools

Vigo

Brown

Conway

2013

Proceedings of the 10th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of web accessibility evaluation tools is a widespread practice. Evaluation tools are heavily employed as they help in reducing the burden of identifying accessibility barriers. However, an over-reliance on automated tests often leads to setting aside further testing that entails expert evaluation and user tests. In this paper we empirically show the capabilities of current automated evaluation tools. To do so, we investigate the effectiveness of 6 state-of-the-art tools by analysing their coverage, completeness and correctness with regard to WCAG 2.0 conformance. We corroborate that relying on automated tests alone has negative effects and can have undesirable consequences. Coverage is very narrow as, at most, 50% of the success criteria are covered. Similarly, completeness ranges between 14% and 38%; however, some of the tools that exhibit higher completeness scores produce lower correctness scores (66-71%) due to the fact that catching as many violations as possible can lead to an increase in false positives. Therefore, relying on just automated tests entails that 1 of 2 success criteria will not even be analysed and among those analysed, only 4 out of 10 will be caught at the further risk of generating false positives.

show abstract

“…With the studies of Shelly and Barta (2010) we noticed that the combination of usability testing, automated validation, and heuristic evaluations bring more quality to the access to information and communication of people with disabilities through web applications. The combination of Acrolinx and aDesigne presented by Vázquez (2015) provided higher quality in alternative texts of web page media content, such as images, as they improve the translation of these content for people with visual impairments.…”

Section: Access To Information and Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Study on Discovering Accessibility Issues in the Software Development Process

Teran¹,

SILVA²,

MELO³

et al.

CONTECSI International Conference on Information Systems and Technology Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accessibility in computing, when well applied, allows for the inclusion of users and the breaking of barriers in the interaction process. However, approaches to support accessibility validation are commonly unknown or ignored. The goal of this study is to understand accessibility issues considered in the software development process. This understanding is the basis for overcoming existing challenges. We want to find out why software developers disregard accessibility issues to research how to minimize this problem. We can find research papers addressing specific accessibility issues, such as mobile or web systems, but not broadly covering these issues. This research has carried out a systematic literature mapping, a questionnaire with people involved in the software development cycle, and a mapping of tools for automated accessibility tests. These three ways of collecting data help get information about accessibility issues in different but still related contexts. The results indicate that although there are approaches to support developers, the tools are still limited regarding the type of platform, type of disability considered, or accessibility guidelines applied. In addition, tools are often focused on evaluation after software development, which makes the adjustment process more costly. The study's theoretical contribution is that accessibility rarely appears as a requirement in the early stages of software development. Despite recognizing its importance, according to the data collected, accessibility supposedly should be an intrinsic feature of the software, sometimes ignored by the development team for a set of reasons. Finally, the social contribution of the study is aimed at identifying the reasons why accessibility concerns are overlooked. With the identified problems, we can propose solutions such as training conscientious professionals with adequate knowledge in human-computer interaction to work in the software development process.

show abstract

Application of traditional software testing methodologies to web accessibility

Cited by 12 publications

References 8 publications

Automatic web accessibility metrics: Where we are and where we can go

Automatic web accessibility metrics: Where we are and where we can go

Benchmarking web accessibility evaluation tools

A Study on Discovering Accessibility Issues in the Software Development Process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About