Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 111–132 | Cite as

An extensible environment for guideline-based accessibility evaluation of dynamic Web applications

Long paper

Abstract

During the last decade, Web site accessibility and usability have become increasingly important. Consequently, many tools have been developed for automatic or semi-automatic evaluation of Web site accessibility. Unfortunately, most of them have not been updated over time to keep up with the evolution of accessibility standards and guidelines, thus soon becoming obsolete. Furthermore, the increasing importance of CSS in the definition of modern Web page layout, and the increasing use of scripting technologies in dynamic and interactive Web sites, has led to new challenges in automatic accessibility evaluation that few of the existing tools are able to face. This paper describes MAUVE, a software environment for Web site accessibility and usability evaluation. The tool is characterized by the possibility to specify and update the guidelines that should be validated without requiring changes in the tool implementation. It is based on an XML-based language for Web Guidelines Definition. It allows checking both HTML and CSS to detect accessibility issues and is able to validate dynamic sites as well, based on the use of a set of plugins for the most popular browsers.

Keywords

Guidelines Guideline specification language Accessibility Validator Dynamic Web page 

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Bundesministerium der Justiz: Barrierefreie-Informationstechnik-Verordnung (DE). http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bitv_2_0/BJNR184300011.html
  3. 3.
    Centro Nazionale per l’Informatica nella Pubblica Amministrazione: Stanca Act. http://www.pubbliaccesso.gov.it/normative/law_20040109_n4.htm
  4. 4.
    Boletín Oficial del Estado: Reglamento sobre las condiciones básicas para el acceso de las personas con discapacidad a las tecnologías, productos y servicios relacionados con la sociedad de la información y medios de comunicación social (ES). http://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2007-19968
  5. 5.
    Ministère du Budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique: Référentiel Général d’Accessibilité pour les Administrations (FR). http://references.modernisation.gouv.fr/rgaa-accessibilite
  6. 6.
    United Nations: Factsheet on Persons with Disabilities. http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=18
  7. 7.
    U.S. Census Bureau: Americans with Disabilities: 2010. http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf
  8. 8.
    Communication department of the European Commission: European Day for People with Disabilities. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1296_en.htm
  9. 9.
    W3C: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
  10. 10.
    W3C: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/
  11. 11.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO/IEC 40500:2012. http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=58625
  12. 12.
    Gay, G., Li, CQ.: AChecker: Open, Interactive, Customizable, Web Accessibility Checking. In: International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility—W4A 2010, pp. 1–2 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Test Accesibilidad Web. http://www.tawdis.net/
  14. 14.
    Fernandes, N., Kaklanis, N., Votis, K., Tzovaras, D., Carriço1, L.: An Analysis of Personalized Web Accessibility. In: Proceedings of the 11th Web for All Conference, Article No. 19, ACM, New York, NY, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beirekdar, A., Vanderdonckt, J., Noirhomme-Fraiture: A Framework and a Language for Usability Automatic Evaluation of Web Sites by Static Analysis of HTML Source Code. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computer-Aided Design of User Interfaces, pp. 337–348 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beirekdar, A., Vanderdonckt, J., Noirhomme-Fraiture, M.: Kwaresmi—knowledge-based Web automated evaluation with REconfigurable guidelineS optimization. In: Forbrig, P., Limbourg, Q., Urban, B., Vanderdonckt, J. (eds.) DSV-IS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2545, pp. 362–376. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Takata, Y., Nakamura, T., Seki, H.: Accessibility Verification of WWW Documents by an Automatic Guideline Verification Tool. In: Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arrue, M., Vigo, M., Abascal, J.: Including Heterogeneous Web Accessibility Guidelines in the Development Process, Engineering Interactive Systems 2008, LNCS, vol. 4940, pp. 620–637. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aizpurua, A., Arrue, M., Vigo, M., Abascal, J.: Exploring Automatic CSS Accessibility Evaluation. In: Proceedings of 9th International Conference, ICWE 2009, pp. 16–29 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leporini, B., Paternò, F., Scorcia, A.: Flexible tool support for accessibility evaluation. Interact. Comput. 18(5), 869–890 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brown, A., Jay, C., Chen, A.Q., Harper, S.: The uptake of Web 2.0 technologies, and its impact on visually disabled users. J. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 11, 185–199 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fuertes, J.L., González, R., Gutiérrez, E., Martínez, L.: Hera-FFX: a Firefox add-on for semi-automatic web accessibility evaluation. In: W4A ‘09 Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A) pp. 26–35 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen, A.Q., Harper, S., Lunn, D., Brown, A.: Widget identification: a high-level approach to accessibility. World Wide Web 16, 73–89 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fernandes, N., Costa, D., Neves, S., Duarte, C., Carriço, L.: Evaluating the accessibility of rich internet applications, W4A ‘12 Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Unicorn-W3C’s Unified Validator. http://validator.w3.org/unicorn/
  27. 27.
    Jsoup: Java HTML Parser. http://jsoup.org/
  28. 28.
    The Validator.nu HTML Parser. http://about.validator.nu/htmlparser/
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Leporini, B., Paternò, F.: Applying web usability criteria for vision-impaired users: does it really improve task performance? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 24(1), 17–47 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    The Transparent Language Popularity Index. http://lang-index.sourceforge.net/
  32. 32.
    Richards G., Lebresne S., Burg B., Vitek J.: An Analysis of the Dynamic Behavior of JavaScript Programs. In: PLDI ‘10 Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, ACM, pp. 1–12 (2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
    Leitner, M., Strauss, C.: Organizational Motivations for Web Accessibility Implementation—A Case Study. Computers Helping People with Special Needs, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6179, pp. 392–399 (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Reis A., Barroso J., Gonçalves R.: Supporting Accessibility in Higher Education Information Systems. Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Applications and Services for Quality of Life, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8011, pp. 250–255 (2013)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brajnik, G.: Comparing accessibility evaluation tools: a method for tool effectiveness. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 3(3–4), 252–263 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HIIS LaboratoryCNR-ISTIPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations