Status Quo and Lessons Learned from a Persona-Based Presentation Metaphor of WCAG
  • Alexander HenkaEmail author
  • Gottfried Zimmermann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10514)


In this paper, we examine how personas need to be designed to transport the information of accessibility resources like the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) in a user-centered way, while preserving their vivid nature. We discuss the benefits and issues, e.g., that using only impairments as a tie is not sufficient and comes with side-effects. We conducted a study to state the status quo of linking WCAG to personas by measuring the user experience of a system highlighting this connection, to the WCAG Quick Reference. Furthermore, this work highlights some issues when deploying those resources in lectures for teaching accessibility, pin-points some solutions to overcome these issues and reports on our lessons learned on the usage of this user-centered presentation metaphor of WCAG.


Personas HCI Accessibility WCAG Presentation metaphor Meaning making Creating tension PersonaBrowser 


  1. 1.
    Swallow, D., Power, C., Petrie, H., Bramwell-Dicks, A., Buykx, L., Velasco, C.A., Parr, A., Connor, J.: Speaking the language of web developers: evaluation of a web accessibility information resource (WebAIR). In: Miesenberger, K., Fels, D., Archambault, D., Peňáz, P., Zagler, W. (eds.) ICCHP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8547, pp. 348–355. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-08596-8_54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Petrie, H., Power, C., Swallow, D.: i2web deliverable 3.2: requirements for web developers and web commissioners in ubiquitous Web 2.0 design and development (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brajnik, G.: Beyond Conformance: The Role of Accessibility Evaluation Methods. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-85200-1_9 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dias, A.L., de Mattos Fortes, R.P., Masiero, P.C.: HEUA: a heuristic evaluation with usability and accessibility requirements to assess web systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th Web for all Conference, New York, NY, USA, pp. 18:1–18:4 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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, New York, NY, USA, pp. 43–50 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cooper, M., Sloan, D., Kelly B., Lewthwaite, S.: A challenge to web accessibility metrics and guidelines: putting people and processes first. In: Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, New York, USA, pp. 20:1–20:4 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Brown, S., Seale, J., Petrie, H., Lauke, P., Ball, S.: Accessibility 2.0: people, policies and processes. In: Proceedings of the 2007 International Cross-disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), New York, pp. 138–147 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brajnik, G.: Web accessibility testing: when the method is the culprit. In: Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, W.L., Karshmer, A.I. (eds.) ICCHP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4061, pp. 156–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11788713_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bowker, G.C., Star, S.L.: Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cooper, A.: The Inmates are Running the Asylum. Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc., Indianapolis (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Henka, A., Zimmermann, G.: Persona based accessibility testing. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) HCI 2014. CCIS, vol. 435, pp. 226–231. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-07854-0_40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zimmermann, G., Vanderheiden, G.: Accessible design and testing in the application development process: considerations for an integrated approach. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 7(1-2), 117–128 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Adlin, T., Pruitt, J.: The Persona Lifecycle. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Massanari, A.L.: Designing for imaginary friends: information architecture, personas and the politics of user-centered design. New Media Soc. 12(3), 401–416 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stiegler, A., Zimmermann, G.: Gamification and accessibility. In: Zhou, J., Salvendy, G. (eds.) ITAP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9193, pp. 145–154. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-20892-3_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Blomquist, A., Arvola, M.,: Personas in action: ethnography in an interaction design team. In: Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 197–200 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cooper, A., Reimann, R., Cronin, D., Noessel, C.: About Face: The Essentials of Interaction Design. Wiley, Indianapolis (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bailey, C., Pearson, E.: Development and trial of an educational tool to support the accessibility evaluation process. In: Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, New York, NY, USA, pp. 2:1–2:10 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loitsch, C., Weber, G., Voegler, J.: Teaching accessibility with personas. In: Miesenberger, K., Bühler, C., Penaz, P. (eds.) ICCHP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9758, pp. 453–460. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-41264-1_62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schulz, T., Skeide Fuglerud, K.: Creating personas with disabilities. In: Miesenberger, K., Karshmer, A., Penaz, P., Zagler, W. (eds.) ICCHP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7383, pp. 145–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-31534-3_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wöckl, B., Yildizoglu, U., Buber, I., Aparicio Diaz, B., Kruijff, E., Tscheligi, M.,: Basic senior personas: a representative design tool covering the spectrum of European older adults. In: Proceedings of the 14th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, New York, NY, USA, pp. 25–33 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van Isacker, K., Slegers, K., Gemou, M., Bekiaris, Evangelos: A UCD approach towards the design, development and assessment of accessible applications in a large scale European integrated project. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) UAHCI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5614, pp. 184–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02707-9_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lopes, R., Votis, K., Carricco, L., Tzovaras, D., Likothanassis, S.: Towards the universal semantic assessment of accessibility. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 147–151 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ponsard, C., Beaujeant, P., Vanderdonckt, J.: Augmenting accessibility guidelines with user ability rationales. In: Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2013. LNCS, vol. 8117, pp. 579–586. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40483-2_41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    W3C. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.
  26. 26.
    Laugwitz, B., Held, T., Schrepp, M.: Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In: Holzinger, A. (ed.) USAB 2008. LNCS, vol. 5298, pp. 63–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    MOOCs for Accessibility Partnership (2017).
  28. 28.
    Schrepp, M.: User Experience Questionnaire Handbook (2017).
  29. 29.
    Henka, A., Stiegler, A., Zimmermann, G.: Using video game patterns to raise the intrinsic motivation to conduct accessibility evaluations. In: Rebelo, F., Soares, M. (eds.) Advances in Ergonomics in Design. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 485. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-41983-1_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Responsive Media Experience Research Group (REMEX)Stuttgart Media UniversityStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations