Model Based Simulation and Evaluation of Mobile and Web 2.0 Applications for Users with Special Needs

  • Philip Ackermann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7703)


The accessibility of modern Web 2.0 applications for people with disabilities continues to be a problem [1,2,3]. Recent research has shown that even the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 only cover half of the accessibility problems that users encounter when interacting with those kind of web applications [4].

Those guidelines do not consider the fact that people with disabilities use special interaction patterns when interacting with web applications [5]. Analysing these interaction patterns and integrating them into the development process of web applications by providing tool support seems promising to help improving the accessibility of those web applications and also to reduce the time and costs for user trials [6,7].

The purpose of this thesis is to simulate interaction patterns of people with disabilities and to analyse how those interaction patterns have effects on the time and efficiency to complete given tasks in web applications. It will also analyse how effective this simulation will be in helping to design web applications, both accessible and usable.

To achieve this, a model based simulation framework will be designed that take into account different models involved in the interaction of users with web applications. A software tool will be developed that implements these models and the simulation.


Web Accessibility Web Usability User Interactions Web Simulation Interaction Patterns Model Based Simulation 


  1. 1.
    Pappas, L., Schwerdtfeger, R., Cooper, M.: WAI-ARIA 1.0 Primer - An introduction to rich Internet application accessibility challenges and solutions, W3C Working Draft 16 September 2010. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium, W3C (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zajicek, M.: Web 2.0: hype or happiness? In: Proceedings of the 2007 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, W4A 2007, pp. 35–39. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chadwick-Dias, A., Bergel, M., Tullis, T.S.: Senior Surfers 2.0: A Re-examination of the Older Web User and the Dynamic Web. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) HCI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4554, pp. 868–876. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Power, C., Freire, A., Petrie, H., Swallow, D.: Guidelines are only half of the story: accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the web. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2012, pp. 433–442. ACM, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Petrie, H., Power, C., Swallow, D.: I2web deliverable 3.1: User requirements analysis in ubiquitous web 2.0 applications (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schrepp, M.: GOMS analysis as a tool to investigate the usability of web units for disabled users. Universal Access in the Information Society 9(1), 77–86 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trewin, S., John, B.E., Richards, J., Swart, C., Brezin, J., Bellamy, R., Thomas, J.: Towards a tool for keystroke level modeling of skilled screen reading. In: Proceedings of the 12th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS 2010, pp. 27–34. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Allaire, J.: Macromedia flash mx-a next-generation rich client. Technical report, Macromedia (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duhl, J.: White paper: Rich internet applications. Technical report, IDC (Sponsored by Macromedia and Intel) (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schrepp, M.: On the efficiency of keyboard navigation in web sites. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 5(2), 180–188 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 2010, pp. 1–10. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skeels, M.M., Grudin, J.: When social networks cross boundaries: a case study of workplace use of facebook and linkedin. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work, GROUP 2009, pp. 95–104. ACM, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wentz, B., Lazar, J.: Usability evaluation of email applications by blind users. J. Usability Studies 6(2), 8:75–8:89 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Trewin, S., Richards, J., Bellamy, R., John, B.E., Thomas, J., Swart, C., Brezin, J.: Toward modeling auditory information seeking strategies on the web. In: Proceedings of the 28th of the International Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA 2010, pp. 3973–3978. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Francisco-Revilla, L., Crow, J.: Interpretation of web page layouts by blind users. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, JCDL 2010, pp. 173–176. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ackermann, P., Velasco, C.A., Power, C.: Developing a semantic user and device modeling framework that supports ui adaptability of web 2.0 applications for people with special needs. In: Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, W4A 2012, pp. 12:1–12:4. ACM, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Le Hors, A., Le Hégaret, P., Wood, L., Nicol, G., Robie, J., Champion, M., Byrne, S.: Document Object Model (DOM) Level 3 Core Specification. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium, W3C (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wentz, B., Lazar, J.: Are separate interfaces inherently unequal?: an evaluation with blind users of the usability of two interfaces for a social networking platform. In: Proceedings of the 2011 iConference, iConference 2011, pp. 91–97. ACM, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Biswas, P.: Inclusive User Modeling - A simulator to design Accessible User Interfaces. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tonn-Eichstädt, H.: Measuring website usability for visually impaired people-a modified goms analysis. In: Proceedings of the 8th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS 2006, pp. 55–62. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bellamy, R., Kogan, S., Street, R.: Deploying CogTool: Integrating Quantitative Usability Assessment into Real-World Software Development. In: Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 691–700 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Engelbrecht, K.P., Kruppa, M., Möller, S., Quade, M.: Memo workbench for semi-automated usability testing. In: INTERSPEECH 2008, pp. 1662–1665 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Takagi, H., Asakawa, C., Fukuda, K., Maeda, J.: Accessibility designer: visualizing usability for the blind. SIGACCESS Access. Comput. (77-78), 177–184 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hickson, I.: HTML5 - A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML, W3C Working Draft 25 May 2011. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium, W3C (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip Ackermann
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT, Schloss BirlinghovenSankt AugustinGermany

Personalised recommendations