Advertisement

Acceptance tests for validating ARIA requirements in widgets

  • Willian Massami WatanabeEmail author
  • Renata P. M. Fortes
  • Ana Luiza Dias
Long paper

Abstract

Accessibility refers to a quality requirement for web applications. However, current accessibility automatic evaluation tools cannot evaluate dynamic generated content that characterizes Ajax applications and RIAs. In this context, this paper describes an approach for evaluating Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) requirements, by using acceptance tests. The authors implemented a set of disabled user interaction scenarios as acceptance tests in order to verify keyboard accessibility in RIA and automatically evaluate ARIA conformance in widgets. The inclusion of disabled user interaction scenarios in the evaluation process is necessary to analyse ARIA requirements since dynamic changes are accommodated in the DOM structure. Two evaluation tool prototypes were developed and validated in separate case studies. The results show evidence that the proposed evaluation approach is capable of evaluating ARIA conformance in RIA widgets.

Keywords

Web accessibility ARIA Accessible Rich Internet Applications ARIA evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the ICMC-USP and UTFPR for the assistance while developing this research and FAPESP for the financial support.

References

  1. 1.
    Araújo, B.C., Rocha, A.C., Xavier, A., Muniz, A.I., Garcia, F.P.: Web-based tool for automatic acceptance test execution and scripting for programmers and customers. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Euro American Conference on Telematics and Information Systems, EATIS ’07, vol. 1, pp. 56:1–56:4. ACM, New York, NY (2007). doi: 10.1145/1352694.1352752
  2. 2.
    Borodin, Y., Bigham, J.P., Dausch, G., Ramakrishnan, I.V.: More than meets the eye: a survey of screen-reader browsing strategies. In: Proceedings of the 2010 International Cross Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), W4A ’10, vol. 1, pp. 13:1–13:10. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2010). doi: 10.1145/1805986.1806005
  3. 3.
    Brajnik, G.: Beyond conformance: the role of accessibility evaluation methods. In: Web Information Systems Engineering—WISE 2008 Workshops, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5176, pp. 63–80. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-85200-1_9. http://www.springerlink.com/content/p3l7030k62j65029/
  4. 4.
    Brajnik, G., Yesilada, Y., Harper, S.: Testability and validity of WCAG 2.0: the expertise effect. In: Proceedings of the 12th international ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS ’10, vol. 1, pp. 43–50. ACM, New York, NY (2010). doi: 10.1145/1878803.1878813
  5. 5.
    Cannizzo, F., Clutton, R., Ramesh, R.: Pushing the boundaries of testing and continuous integration. In: Proceedings of the Agile 2008, pp. 501–505. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2008). doi: 10.1109/Agile.2008.31. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1443221.1443547
  6. 6.
    Chen, A., Harper, S., Lunn, D., Brown, A.: Widget identification: A high-level approach to accessibility. World Wide Web 16(1), 73–89 (2013). doi: 10.1007/s11280-012-0156-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper, M.: 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, vol. 1, pp. 93–98. ACM, New York, NY (2007). doi: 10.1145/1243441.1243463
  8. 8.
    Doush, I.A., Alkhateeb, F., Maghayreh, E.A., Al-Betar, M.A.: The design of RIA accessibility evaluation tool. Adv. Eng. Softw. 57, 1–7 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2012.11.004. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965997812001512
  9. 9.
    Fernandes, N., Batista, A.S., Costa, D., Duarte, C., Carriço, L.: Three web accessibility evaluation perspectives for RIA. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, W4A ’13, vol. 1, pp. 12:1–12:9. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2013). doi: 10.1145/2461121.2461122
  10. 10.
    Fernandes, N., Costa, D., Neves, S., Duarte, C., Carriço, L.: Evaluating the accessibility of rich internet applications. In: Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, W4A ’12, vol. 1, pp. 13:1–13:4. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2012). doi: 10.1145/2207016.2207019
  11. 11.
    Fernandes, N., Lopes, R., Carriço, L.: On web accessibility evaluation environments. In: Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, W4A ’11, vol. 1, pp. 4:1–4:10. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2011). doi: 10.1145/1969289.1969295
  12. 12.
    Fowler, M., Foemmel, M.: Continuous integration, http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/continuousIntegration.html (2005)
  13. 13.
    Freire, A.P.: Disabled people and the web: user-based measurement of accessibility. Ph.D. thesis, University of York, Department of Computer Science, Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, York, England (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Freire, A.P., Fortes, R.P.M., Turine, M.A.S., Paiva, D.M.B.: An evaluation of web accessibility metrics based on their attributes. In: SIGDOC ’08: Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM International Conference on Design of Communication, vol. 1, pp. 73–80. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2008). doi: 10.1145/1456536.1456551
  15. 15.
    Freire, A.P., Goularte, R., Fortes, R.P.M.: Techniques for developing more accessible web applications: a survey towards a process classification. In: SIGDOC ’07: Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM International Conference on Design of Communication, vol. 1, pp. 162–169. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2007). doi: 10.1145/1297144.1297177
  16. 16.
    Freire, A.P., Russo, C.M., Fortes, R.P.M.: A survey on the accessibility awareness of people involved in web development projects in Brazil. In: W4A ’08: Proceedings of the 2008 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), vol. 1, pp. 87–96. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2008). doi: 10.1145/1368044.1368064
  17. 17.
    Gehtland, J., Almaer, D., Galbraith, B.: Pragmatic Ajax: A Web 2.0 Primer. Pragmatic Bookshelf (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gibson, B.: Enabling an accessible web 2.0. In: Proceedings of the 2007 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), W4A ’07, vol. 1, pp. 1–6. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2007). doi: 10.1145/1243441.1243442
  19. 19.
    Henry, S.L., Grossnickle, M.: Accessibility in the User–Centered Design Process. Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (2004). http://www.uaiaccess.com/accessucd (On-line book)
  20. 20.
    Hsia, P., Gao, J., Samuel, J., Kung, D., Toyoshima, Y., Chen, C.: Behavior-based acceptance testing of software systems: a formal scenario approach. In: Computer Software and Applications Conference, 1994. COMPSAC 94. Proceedings, Eighteenth Annual International, pp. 293 –298 (1994). doi: 10.1109/CMPSAC.1994.342789
  21. 21.
    IEEE, I.o.E.a.E.E.: IEEE standard for software verification and validation plans. IEEE Std 1012-1986, pp. I (1986). doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.1986.79647
  22. 22.
    Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Brown, S., Seale, J., Petrie, H., Lauke, P., Ball, S.: Accessibility 2.0: people, policies and processes. In: W4A ’07: Proceedings of the 2007 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), pp. 138–147. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2007). doi: 10.1145/1243441.1243471
  23. 23.
    Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Phipps, L., Petrie, H., Hamilton, F.: Forcing standardization or accommodating diversity? A framework for applying the wcag in the real world. In: W4A ’05: Proceedings of the 2005 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A), pp. 46–54. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2005). doi: 10.1145/1061811.1061820
  24. 24.
    Lazar, J., Feng, J.H., Hochheiser, H.: Research Methods in Human–Computer Interaction. Wiley, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leung, H.K.N., Wong, P.W.L.: A study of user acceptance tests. Softw Qual Control 6, 137–149 (1997). doi: 10.1023/A:1018503800709. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=599113.599137
  26. 26.
    Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L. (eds.): Usability Inspection Methods. Wiley, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    North, D.: Introducing BDD (2006). http://dannorth.net/introducing-bdd/
  28. 28.
    Reid, L.G., Snow-Weaver, A.: WCAG 2.0: a web accessibility standard for the evolving web. In: W4A ’08: Proceedings of the 2008 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), pp. 109–115. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2008). doi: 10.1145/1368044.1368069
  29. 29.
    Stephanidis, C.: The Universal Access Handbook. CRC Press Inc, Boca Raton, FL, USA (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tateishi, T., Miyashita, H., Naoshi, T., Saito, S., Ono, K.: DHTML accessibility checking based on static javascript analysis. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction. Applications and Services, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4556, pp. 167–176. Springer, Berlin(2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-73283-9_20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73283-9_20
  31. 31.
    Thiessen, P., Hockema, S.: WAI-ARIA live regions: eBuddy IM as a case example. In: Proceedings of the 2010 International Cross Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), W4A ’10, vol. 1, pp. 33:1–33:9. ACM, New York, NY (2010). doi: 10.1145/1805986.1806030
  32. 32.
    Velasco, C.A., Denev, D., Stegemann, D., Mohamad, Y.: A web compliance engineering framework to support the development of accessible rich internet applications. In: W4A ’08: Proceedings of the 2008 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), pp. 45–49. ACM, New York, NY (2008). doi: 10.1145/1368044.1368054
  33. 33.
    Vigo, M., Arrue, M., Brajnik, G., Lomuscio, R., Abascal, J.: Quantitative metrics for measuring web accessibility. In: W4A ’07: Proceedings of the 2007 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), pp. 99–107. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2007). doi: 10.1145/1243441.1243465
  34. 34.
    W3C: Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0. W3C Recommendation (1999). http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
  35. 35.
    W3C: Web content accessibility guidelines 2.0. W3C Recommendation (2008). http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
  36. 36.
    W3C: WAI-ARIA 1.0 authoring practices—an author’s guide to understanding and implementing accessible rich internet applications. W3C Working Draft (2013). http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices/
  37. 37.
    W3C: Accessible rich internet applications—version 1.0. W3C Recommendation (2014). http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/
  38. 38.
    Watanabe, T.: Experimental evaluation of usability and accessibility of heading elements. In: W4A ’07: Proceedings of the 2007 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), pp. 157–164. ACM, New York, NY (2007). doi: 10.1145/1243441.1243473
  39. 39.
    Watanabe, W.M., Neto, D.F., Bittar, T.J., Fortes, R.P.M.: WCAG conformance approach based on model-driven development and WebML. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication, SIGDOC ’10, vol. 1, pp. 167–174. ACM, New York, NY (2010). doi: 10.1145/1878450.1878479

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Willian Massami Watanabe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Renata P. M. Fortes
    • 2
  • Ana Luiza Dias
    • 2
  1. 1.Technological Federal University of the Paraná, Campus Cornélio ProcópioCornélio ProcópioBrazil
  2. 2.Institute of Mathematical and Computer SciencesUniversity of São PauloSão CarlosBrazil

Personalised recommendations