Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methodology for heuristic evaluation of the accessibility of statistical charts for people with low vision and color vision deficiency

  • Long Paper
  • Published:
Universal Access in the Information Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Statistical charts have an important role in conveying, clarifying and simplifying information and have a significant presence in fields such as education, scientific research or journalism. Despite numerous advances in the field of digital accessibility, charts are still a challenge for people with low vision and color vision deficiency (CVD) and create barriers that hinder their accessibility. The research presented in this paper aims is to create a heuristic set of indicators to evaluate the accessibility of statistical charts focusing on the needs of people with low vision and CVD. The set of heuristics presented has been developed based on the methodology by Quiñones et al. (Comput Stand Interfaces 59:109–129, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2018.03.002), which consists of 8 stages: (1) a state of the art literature review; (2 and 3) analysis and description of the most relevant information obtained from this research; (4, 5, and 6) selection and specification of a first set of heuristics relating them to existing heuristics; (7) validation; and (8) refining the set to obtain a final list of heuristics. A first set of heuristics (17 indicators) has been developed and applied on two heuristic evaluations, and has been amplified to 18 indicators. The final set covers the needs of the user profiles with low vision as well as the needs of the CVD and poor contrast sensitivity users. This research is a first step to widen accessibility requirements to statistical charts and to take into consideration users with low vision and CVD, often forgotten in accessibility research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The checklist is also available at http://stephanieevergreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/DataVizChecklist_Feb2018.pdf.

  2. https://www.aph.org/products/aphont/.

  3. https://lpc.univ-amu.fr/en/eido-font.

  4. https://d3js.org/.

  5. https://vega.github.io.

  6. https://vega.github.io/vega-lite/.

  7. Available at http://colorbrewer2.org.

  8. https://docs.fluidproject.org/infusion/development/index.html.

  9. The full list of analyzed charts from university websites is available at: http://www.ub.edu/adaptabit/charts-accessibility/universities/.

  10. The full list of analyzed charts from newspapers is available at: http://www.ub.edu/adaptabit/charts-accessibility/press/.

  11. Data available at: https://www.ub.edu/adaptabit/charts-accessibility/press/heuristics_validation.xlsx.

References

  1. UNECE: Making data meaningful. Part 2: a guide to presenting statistics. United Nations, Geneva. https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/writing/MDM_Part2_English.pdf (2009). Accessed 3 Dec 2019

  2. McCathieNevile, C., Koivunen, M.: Accessibility features of SVG. W3C. https://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SVG-access-20000807/ (2000). Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  3. Meeks, E., Cesal, A., Pettit, M.: Introducing the Data Visualization Society. Medium. https://medium.com/datavisualization-society/introducing-the-data-visualization-society-d13d42ab0bec (2019). Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  4. Miller, S., Hughes, D.: The quant crunch: how the demand for data science skills is disrupting the job market. Burning Glass Technologies. Boston, Massachusetts. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/429131 (2017). Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  5. Allan, J., Kirkpatrick, A., Henry, S.L.: Accessibility requirements for people with low vision. W3C World Wide Web Consortium, Editor's Draft. https://w3c.github.io/low-vision-a11y-tf/requirements.html (2019). Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  6. Sarsenbayeva, Z., Van Berkel, N., Luo, C., Kostakos, V., Goncalves, J.: Challenges of situational impairments during interaction with mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the 29th Australian Conference on Computer–Human Interaction (OZCHI’17), pp. 477–481. ACM, New York (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3152771.3156161

  7. Reinecke, K., Flatla, D.R., Brooks, C.: Enabling designers to foresee which colors users cannot see. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16), pp. 2693–2704. ACM, New York (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858077

  8. Yesilada, Y., Brajnik, G., Harper, S.: Barriers common to mobile and disabled web users. Interact Comput 23(5), 525–542 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Statista: Percentage of all global web pages served to mobile phones from 2009 to 2018. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241462/global-mobile-phone-website-traffic-share/ (2019). Accessed 7 Dec 2019

  10. Alcaraz Martínez, R., Ribera, M., Granollers, T.: La accesibilidad de los gráficos estadísticos para personas con baja visión y visión cromática deficiente: revisión de alcance y perspectivas. Interacción: revista digital de AIPO, 1 (2020)

  11. WHO: Blindness and vision impairment. Fact sheets. World Health Organization, Geneva. https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blindness-and-visual-impairment (2018). Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  12. W3C: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/ (2018). Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  13. ISO: ISO/IEC 40500:2012 Information technology—W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 (2012)

  14. ETSI: ETSI EN 301 549 accessibility requirements for ICT products and services. European Telecommunications Standards Institute. https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/02.01.02_60/en_301549v020102p.pdf (2018). Accessed 13 Dec 2019

  15. Boudreau. D.:Supporting the design phase with accessibility heuristics evaluations. https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/153358/Web%20Accessibility%20Quick%20Checklist%20for%20Designers.pdf (2019). Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  16. Koivunen, M., McCathieNevile, C.: Accessible graphics and multimedia on the Web. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)/MIT. https://www.w3.org/2001/05/hfweb/heuristics.htm (2001). Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  17. Brajnik, G.: Barrier walkthrough. https://users.dimi.uniud.it/~giorgio.brajnik/projects/bw/bw.html (2011). Accessed 19 June 2020

  18. Gould, B., O’Connell, T., Freed, G.: Effective Practices for Description of Science Content within Digital Talking books. “Guidelines for Describing STEM Images”. WGBH National Center for Accessible Media, WGBH Educational Foundation, Boston. http://ncam.wgbh.org/experience_learn/educational_media/stemdx (2008). Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  19. DIAGRAM Center: Image description guidelines. http://diagramcenter.org/table-of-contents-2.html (2015). Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  20. Evergreen, S.: Presenting Data Effectively: Communicating Your Findings for Maximum Impact. SAGE, Thousand Oaks (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Evergreen, S., Metzner, C.: Design principles for data visualization in evaluation. In: Azzam, T., Evergreen, S. (eds.) Data Visualization, Part 2. New Directions for Evaluation 2013(140):5–20 (2013)

  22. Sanjines, S.C.P.: Does it make a difference? data visualizations and the use of research and evaluation reports. Dissertation, University of Hawai’i at Manoa (2018). https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/62374/2018-05-phd-sanjines.pdf

  23. Splendiani, B.: A proposal for the inclusion of accessibility criteria in the authoring workflow of images for scientific articles. Dissertation, University of Barcelona (2015). http://hdl.handle.net/10803/386242

  24. Splendiani, B., Ribera, M.: Accessible images in computer science journals. Procedia Comput. Sci. 27, 9–18 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.02.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Simon, S., Becker, B.A., Hamouda, S., McCartney, R., Sanders, K., Sheard, J.: Visual portrayals of data and results at ITiCSE. In: ITiCSE '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pp 51–57 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3304221.3319742

  26. Nielsen, J.: How to conduct a heuristic evaluation. NN/g Nielsen Norman Group. Articles (1994). https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-to-conduct-a-heuristic-evaluation/

  27. Sim, G., Read, J.C., Cockton, G.: Evidence based design of heuristics for computer assisted assessment. Proc. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2009, 204–216 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nielsen, J.: Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. In: Proceedings ACM CHI'94 Conf. (Boston, MA, April 24–28), pp. 152–158 (1994)

  29. Weiss, E.: Making Computers-People Literate. Pfeiffer, San Francisco (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Perlman, G.: Practical usability evaluation. In: CHI ’97 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 168–169. Association for Computing Machinery, Atlanta (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hub, M., Čapková, V.: Heuristic evaluation of usability of public administration portal. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Computer Science, pp. 234–239 (2010)

  32. Van Greunen, D., Yeratziotis, A., Pottas, D.: A three-phase process to develop heuristics. In: Proceedings of the 13th Anual Conference on WWW Applications, Johannesburg (2011)

  33. Rusu, C., Roncagliolo, S., Rusu, V., Collazos, C.: A methodology to establish usability heuristics. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Advances in Computer–Human Interactions, ACHI2011, pp. 59–62 (2011)

  34. Lechner, B., Fruhling, A., Petter, S., Siy, H.: The chicken and the pig: user involvement in developing usability heuristics. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems (2013)

  35. Franklin, F., Breyer, F., Kelner, J.: Heurísticas de usabilidade para sistemas colaborativos remotos de realidade aumentada. In Proceedings of XVI Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Reality, pp. 53–62 (2014)

  36. Hermawati, S., Lawson, G.: A user-centric methodology to establish usability heuristics for specific domains. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Ergonomics & Human Factors, pp. 80–85 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1201/b18293

  37. Jiménez, C., Allende Cid, H., Figueroa, I.: PROMETHEUS: procedural methodology for developing heuristics of usability. IEEE Lat. Am. Trans. 15(3), 541–549 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/TLA.2017.7867606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Quiñones, D., Rusu, C., Rusu, V.: A methodology to develop usability/user experience heuristics. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 59, 109–129 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2018.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. W3C: Understanding WCAG 2.1. https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/ (2018). Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  40. Guarino, L., Snow-Weaver, A.: WCAG 2.0 for designers: beyond screen readers and captions. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction. Applications and Services. UAHCI 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5616, pp. 674–682. Springer, Berlin (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02713-0_71

  41. Szpiro, S.F.A., Hashash, S., Zhao, Y., Azenkot, S.: How People with low vision access computing devices: understanding challenges and opportunities. In: ASSETS'16 Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 171–180 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2982142.2982168

  42. Feria, M.: Consejos para la confección de gráficos científicos. Cuadernos de la Fundación Dr Antonio Esteve 20, 45–56 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Elzer, S., Carberry, S., Chester, D., Demir, S., Green, N., Zukerman, I., Trnka, K.: Exploring and exploiting the limited utility of captions in recognizing intention in information graphics. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’05), pp. 223–230 (2007)

  44. Yu, H., Agarwal, S., Johnston, M., Cohen, A. Are figure legends sufficient? Evaluating the contribution of associated text to biomedical figure comprehension. J. Biomed. Discov. Collab. 4(1) (2009). https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5333-4-1

  45. Cohen, W.W., Wang, R., Murphy, R.F.: Understanding captions in biomedical publications. In: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 499–504 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1145/956750.956809

  46. Knaflic, C.N.: Storytelling with Data: A Data Visualization Guide for Business Professionals. Wiley, New Jersey (2015)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  47. Elzer, S., Schwartz, E., Carberry, S., Chester, D., Demir, S., Wu, P.: Accessible bar charts for visually impaired users. In: Proceedings of the IASTED International Conf. on Telehealth/Assistive Technologies, pp. 55–60 (2008)

  48. Elzer, S., Carberry, S., Chester, D., Demir, S., Green, N., Zukerman, I., Trnka, K.: Exploring and exploiting the limited utility of captions in recognizing intention in information graphics. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics, pp. 223–230 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3115/1219840.1219868

  49. Mittal, V.O., Carenini, G., Moore, J.D., Roth, S.: Describing complex charts in natural language: a caption generation system. Comput. Linguist. 24(3), 431–467 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Agarwal, S., Yu, H.: FigSum: automatically generating structured text summaries for figures in biomedical literature. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Anual Symposium of the American Medical Information Association (AMIA). American Medical Information Association, San Francisco, CA, pp. 6–10 (2009)

  51. W3C: Complex images. In Web accessibility tutorials: guidance on how to create websites that meet WCAG. https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/complex/ (2019). Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  52. Costa, J.: La esquemática: visualizar la información. Paidós, Barcelona (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  53. WebAIM: Screen reader user survey #2 results. https://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey2/ (2009). Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  54. WebAIM: Screen reader user survey #6 results. https://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey6/ (2015). Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  55. Ault, H.K., Deloge, J.W., Lapp, R.W., Morgan, M.J., Barnett, J.R.: Evaluation of long descriptions of statistical graphics for blind and low vision web users. In: 8th International Conference, ICCHP 2002, pp. 517–526 (2002)

  56. Corio, M., Lapalme. G.: Integrated generation of graphics and text: a corpus study. In: Proceedings of the COLING-ACL Workshop on Content Visualization and Intermedia Representations (CVIR’98), pp. 63–68 (1998)

  57. Corio, M., Lapalme, G.: Generation of texts for information graphics. In: Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (EWNLG’99), pp. 49–58 (1999)

  58. Legge, G.E.: Psychophysics of Reading. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Legge, G.E.: Reading digital with low vision. Visible Lang. 50(2), 102–125 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Bernard, M., Liao, C.H., Mills, M.: The effects of font type and size on the legibility and reading time of online text by older adults. In: Proceedings of the ACM/SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI2001), pp. 175–176 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1145/634067.634173

  61. Rubin, G.S., Feely, M., Perera, S., Ekstrom, K., Williamson, E.: The effect of font and line width on reading speed in people with mild to moderate vision loss. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 26(6), 545–554 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Bernard, J.B., Aguilar, C., Castet, E.: A new font, specifically designed for peripheral vision, improves peripheral letter and word recognition, but not eye-mediated reading performance. PLoS One 11(4) (2016). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152506

  63. Tinker, M.A.: The Legibility of Print. Iowa State University Press (1963)

  64. Calabrese, A., Bernard, J.B., Hoffart, L., Faure, G., Barouch, F., Conrath, J., Castet, E.: Small effect of interline spacing on maximal reading speed in low-vision patients with central field loss irrespective of scotoma size. Investig. Opthalmol. Vis. Sci. 51(2), 1247–1254 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Blackmore-Wright, S., Georgeson, M.A., Anderson, S.J.: Enhanced text spacing improves reading performance in individuals with macular disease. PLoS One 8(11) (2013). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080325

  66. Russell-Minda, E.: The legibility of typefaces for readers with low vision: a research review. J. Vis. Impair. Blind. 101(7), 402–415 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0710100703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Henry, S.L.: Developing text customisation functionality requirements of PDF reader and other user agents. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (ICCHP 2012), pp. 602–609 (2012)

  68. Pavazza, S., Pap, K.: The alternative way of creating infographics using SVG technology. Acta Graphica 23(1–2), 45–56 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Herman, I., Dardailler, D.: SVG linearization and accessibility. Comput. Graph. Forum 21(4), 777–786 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. W3C: SVG Accessibility/ARIA roles for charts. https://www.w3.org/wiki/SVG_Accessibility/ARIA_roles_for_charts (2015). Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  71. W3C: WAI-ARIA graphics module. https://www.w3.org/TR/graphics-aria-1.0/ (2018). Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  72. Ware, C., Beatty, J.C.: Using colour as a tool in discrete data analysis. Tech. Rep. CS-85-21, Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont., Canada (1985)

  73. Mackinlay, J.: Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. ACM Trans. Graph. (TOG) 5, 110–141 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Olson, J.M., Brewer, C.A.: An evaluation of color selections to accommodate map users with color-vision impairments. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 87(1), 103–134 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Brewer, C.A.: Designing Better Maps: A Guide for GIS Users. ESRI Press, Redlands (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  76. Albers, D., Correll, M., Gleicher, M.: Task-driven evaluation of aggregation in time series visualization. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, pp. 551–560 (2014)

  77. Adnan, M., Just, M., Baillie, L.: Investigating time series visualizations to improve the user experience. In: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 5444–5455 (2016)

  78. Correll, M., Albers, D., Franconeri, S.: Comparing averages in time series data. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1095–1104 (2012)

  79. Joyce, A.: Tooltip Guidelines. NN/g Nielsen Norman Group. Articles. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/tooltip-guidelines (2019). Accessed 4 Dec 2019

  80. Van Achterberg, M.: Designing and coding for low vision. Technica11y: discussing challenges in technical accessibility. https://www.technica11y.org/designing-and-coding-for-low-vision (2019). Accessed 3 Dec 2019

  81. Kramer, G.: Auditory Display: Sonification, Audification, and Auditory Interfaces. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  82. Cohen, R.F., Yu, R., Meacham, A., Skaff, J.: PLUMB: displaying graphs to the blind using an active auditory interface. In: Proceedings of the 7th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 182–183 (2005)

  83. Evreinova, T.G.: Non-visual interaction with graphs assisted with directional-predictive sounds and vibrations: a comparative study. Univers. Access. Inf. 7(1–2), 93–102 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-007-0105-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Alty, J.L., Rigas, D.: Exploring the use of structured musical stimuli to communicate simple diagrams: the role of context. Int. J. Hum. Compt. Stud. 62(1), 21–40 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Treviranus, J., Mitchell, J., Clark, C.: Sonification, Floe: the inclusive learning design handbook. https://handbook.floeproject.org/Sonification.html (2018). Accessed 3 Dec 2019

  86. Doush, I.A., Pontelli, E., Simon, D., Cao, S.T., Ma, O.: Making Microsoft ExcelTM accessible: multimodal presentation of charts. In: Proceedings of the 11th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 147–154. ACM, New York (2009)

  87. Petrie, H., Kheir, O.: The relationship between accessibility and usability of websites. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2007. ACM, New York (2007). https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240688

  88. Moreno, L., Martínez, P., Ruiz-Mezcua, B.: A bridge to web accessibility from the usability heuristics. In: Holzinger, A., Miesenberger, K. (eds.) HCI and Usability for e-Inclusion. USAB 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5889. Springer, Berlin (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10308-7_20

  89. Casare, A.R., Silva, C.G., Martins, P.S., Moraes, R.L.O.: Usability heuristics and accessibility guidelines: a comparison of heuristic evaluation and WCAG. In: SAC '16 Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing Pages, pp. 213–215 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2851613.2851913

  90. Likert, R.: A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 22(140), 1–55 (1932)

    Google Scholar 

  91. Pearse, N.: Deciding on the scale granularity of response categories of Likert type scales: the case of a 21-point scale. Elecron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 9(2), 159–171 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  92. Sullivan, G.M., Artino, A.R.: Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 5(4), 541–542 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Sauro, J., Lewis, J.R.: Quantifying the User Experience: Practical Statistics for User Research. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  94. Alcaraz Martínez, R., Ribera, M., Granollers, T.: Avaluació de l'accessibilitat per a persones amb baixa visió dels gràfics estadístics dels llocs web de les universitats públiques catalanes. Anuario de Psicología/UB J. Psychol. 50(1) (2020). https://doi.org/10.1344/anpsic2020.50.1

  95. Alcaraz Martínez, R., Ribera, M., Granollers, T., Pascual, A.: Accesibilidad para personas con baja visión de los gráficos estadísticos en la prensa digital: una propuesta metodológica basada en indicadores heurísticos. Prof. Inform. 29(5) (2020). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.sep.15

  96. Chacón Barbero, J.: Accesibilidad de los diferentes sistemas operativos móviles. In: IV Jornadas de Usuarios de Tecnología para personas con discapacidad visual (2012)

  97. White, J.: WCAG 2.1 meets STEM: application, interpretation, and opportunities for further standard development. J. Learn. Disabil. 22(1) (2018)

  98. 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: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings, pp. 433–442 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207736

  99. Nielsen, J.: Severity ratings for usability problems. NN/g Nielsen Norman Group. Articles. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-to-rate-the-severity-of-usability-problems/ (1994). Accessed 22 June 2020

  100. Alcaraz Martínez, R., Ribera, M.: An evaluation of accessibility of COVID-19 statistical charts of governments and health organisations for people with low vision. Prof. Inform. 29(5) (2020). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.sep.14

  101. Paddison, C., Englefield, P.: Applying heuristics to accessibility inspections. Interact. Comput. 16(3), 507–521 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2004.04.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has been done in the framework of the PhD Programme in Engineering and Information Technology of the Universitat de Lleida (UdL). This research has been partially supported by the Spanish project PID2019-105093GB-I00 (Mineco/Feder, UE); Cerca Programme/Generalitat de Catalunya; and by Mineco Grant RTI2018-095232-B-C21 and SGR 1742.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departament de Biblioteconomia, Documentació i Comunicació Audiovisual, Universitat de Barcelona, Melcior de Palau, 140, 08014, Barcelona, Spain

    Rubén Alcaraz Martínez

  2. Departament de Matemàtiques i Informàtica. Universitat de Barcelona. Institut de Matemàtiques de la Universitat de Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes 585, 08007, Barcelona, Spain

    Mireia Ribera Turró

  3. Departament d’Informàtica i Enginyeria Industrial, Universitat de Lleida, Jaume II, 69, 25001, Lleida, Spain

    Toni Granollers Saltiveri

Authors
  1. Rubén Alcaraz Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mireia Ribera Turró
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Toni Granollers Saltiveri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rubén Alcaraz Martínez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alcaraz Martínez, R., Turró, M.R. & Granollers Saltiveri, T. Methodology for heuristic evaluation of the accessibility of statistical charts for people with low vision and color vision deficiency. Univ Access Inf Soc 21, 863–894 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00816-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00816-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation