Web Accessibility Testing: When the Method Is the Culprit

  • Giorgio Brajnik
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4061)

Abstract

Testing accessibility of a web site is still an art. Lack of appropriate definitions of accessibility and of standard testing methods are some of the reasons why Web accessibility is so difficult to achieve.

The paper describes a heuristic walkthrough method based on barriers; it then discusses how methods like this can be evaluated, and it shows experimental data about validity and usefulness of the method when compared to standards review.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Brajnik, G.: Accessibility assessments through heuristic walkthroughs. In: HCI taly 2005 — Simposio su Human–Computer Interaction, Rome, Italy (September 2005), www.dimi.uniud.it/giorgio/publications.html#hcihw05
  2. 2.
    Brajnik, G.: Web accessibility testing with barriers walkthrough (March 2006a) (Visited March 2006) http://www.dimi.uniud.it/giorgio/projects/bw
  3. 3.
    Brajnik, G.: Simulazione euristica per la verifica dell’accessibilità (February 2006b) (Visited March 2006) http://www.dimi.uniud.it/wq/metodo-barriere.html
  4. 4.
    DRC. Formal investigation report: web accessibility. Disability Rights Commission (April 2004) (Visited January 2006) www.drc-gb.org/publicationsandreports/report.asp
  5. 5.
    European Committee for Standardization. In: Web accessibility certification workshop (March 2006), http://www.cenorm.be/cenorm/businessdomains/businessdomains/isss/about_isss/draft_cwas.asp
  6. 6.
    Italian Government. Requisiti tecnici e i diversi livelli per l’accessibilità agli strumenti informatici. G. U. n. 183 8/8/2005 (July 2005), http://www.pubbliaccesso.it/normative/DM080705.htm
  7. 7.
    Gray, W.D., Salzman, M.C.: Damaged merchandise: a review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human–Computer Interaction 130(3), 203–261 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henry, S.L., Grossnickle, M.: Accessibility in the User–Centered Design Process. Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (2004), On–line book http://www.UIAccess.com/AccessUCD
  9. 9.
    Hertzum, M., Jacobsen, N.E.: The evaluator effect: a chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. Int. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 1(4), 421–443 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Information and Communications Technology Industry Association. White paper on eAccessibility (October 2005), www.eicta.org/press.asp?level2=41&level1=6&level0=1&docid=564
  11. 11.
    Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Phipps, L., Petrie, H., Hamilton, F.: Forcing standardization or accomodating diversity? A framework for applying the WCAG in the real world. In: Harper, S., Yesilada, Y., Goble, C. (eds.) Int. Cross–Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility, W4A, Chiba, Japan, April 2005, pp. 46–54. ACM, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability engineering. Academic Press, Boston (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Italiano, P.: Disposizioni per favorire l’accesso dei soggetti disabili agli strumenti informatici, Legge del 9 gennaio 2004, n. 4 (January 2004), http://www.parlamento.it/parlam/leggi/04004l.htm
  14. 14.
    Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H.: Interaction design. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Slatin, J., Rush, S.: Maximum Accessibility: Making Your Web Site More Usable for Everyone. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    W3C/WAI. How people with disabilities use the web. World Wide Web Consortium — Web Accessibility Initiative (March 2004), http://w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/20040302.html

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giorgio Brajnik
    • 1
  1. 1.Dip. di Matematica e InformaticaUniversità di UdineItaly

Personalised recommendations