A WYSIWYG Editor to Support Accessible Web Content Production

  • Hedi Carlos Minin
  • Javier Jiménez Alemán
  • Carolina SacramentoEmail author
  • Daniela Gorski Trevisan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9175)


In a world where lay users on web languages and standards are responsible to produce content to web, it’s essential the presence of tools which support the creation of accessible content. This paper proposes to make Web accessibility concepts more understandable to these users with the incorporation of WCAG 2.0 accessibility guidelines in HTML WYSIWYG editors they use. For that we designed and prototyped such Editor and performed preliminaries usability tests with target users. Results shown that accessibility warnings were easy to understand and to apply but difficult to perceive them.


Accessibility guidelines WYSIWYG HTML editor WCAG 2.0 ATAG 1.0 



The Brazilian Students-Agreement Program Graduate (PEC-PG).


  1. 1.
    W3C: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (2008).
  2. 2.
    W3C: Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (2000).
  3. 3.
    Brajnik, G., Yesilada, Y., Harper, S.: Is accessibility conformance an elusive property? a study of validity and reliability of WCAG 2.0. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 4(2), 28 (2012). Article 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lazar, J., et al.: Potential pricing discrimination due to inaccessible web sites. In: Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6946, pp. 108–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hanson, V.L., Richards, J.T.: Progress on website accessibility? ACM Trans. Web 7(1), 30 (2013). Article 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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: SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2012), pp. 433–442. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bittar, T.J., Amaral, L.A., Faria, F.B., Fortes, R.P.M.: Supporting the developer in an accessible edition of web communications: a study of five desktop tools. In: Workshop on Information Systems and Design of Communication (ISDOC 2012), pp. 3–9. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    López, J.M., Pascual, A., Menduiña, C., Granollers, T.: Methodology for identifying and solving accessibility related issues in web content management system environments. In: The International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A 2012), Article 32, 8 p. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iglesias, A., Moreno, L., Martínez, P., Calvo, R.: Evaluating the accessibility of three open-source learning content management systems: a comparative study. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 22(2), 320–328 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Casa de Oswaldo Cruz.
  11. 11.
    Todos @Web: Prêmio Nacional de Acessibilidade.
  12. 12.
    Sacramento, C.C., Silva, C.S., Conceição, F.I., Moraes, F.L.D., Castro, I.M., Zorzanelli, L.P., Barros, Y.S.: Portal da Casa de Oswaldo Cruz e o Prêmio Nacional de Acessibilidade na Web. In: 13th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Brazilian Computer Society, Foz do Iguaçu (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Top 5 Latest Javascript and HTML5 WYSIWYG Advanced HTML Editors.
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Porter, J.R., Kientz, J.A.: An empirical study of issues and barriers to mainstream video game accessibility. In: The 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS 2013), Article 3, 8 p. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    About CKEditor.
  18. 18.
    Modelo de Acessibilidade em Governo Eletrônico.
  19. 19.
    Lewis, C.: Using the ‘thinking aloud’ method in cognitive interface design. Technical report, IBM, RC-9265 (1982)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brooke, J.: SUS: a quick and dirty usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., McClelland, I.L., Weerdmeester, B. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry, pp. 189–194. CRC Press, London (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P., Miller, J.: Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud. 4(3), 114–123 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hedi Carlos Minin
    • 1
  • Javier Jiménez Alemán
    • 1
  • Carolina Sacramento
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Daniela Gorski Trevisan
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidade Federal FluminenseNiteróiBrazil
  2. 2.Fundação Oswaldo CruzRio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations