The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Correlating Navigation Barriers on Web 2.0 with Accessibility Guidelines
Open accessAbstract
The constant emergence of new resources and interaction possibilities brought by web 2.0 brings a constant urge of keeping in track how those new elements can affect the interaction of people with disabilities and how far current re-search has managed to address existing problems. This paper presents the results of an empirical study designed to gather navigation barriers affecting blind people when interacting with some widely used web widgets – such as Popup windows, Auto Suggest Lists, etc. The aim is to correlate those barriers with WCAG 2.0 and ARIA guidelines. From this point of view, it is possible to determine which barriers are being covered by current guide-lines and which ones are still on the wild. As conducting users’ evaluations are really costly, the more barriers can be eliminated beforehand, the more useful those sessions can be.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Further, the often technical perspective of WCAG 2.0 is criticised as not centred on actual user needs (Cooper et al., 2012; Pereira and Archambault, 2018; Rømen and Svanæs, 2011) and as difficult to evaluate (Brajnik et al., 2012, 2011).”
From How compliance with web accessibility standards shapes the experiences of users with and without disabilities (2023) · cites this paper as Pereira and Archambault, 2018
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Guidelines are only half of the story: accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the web
Power, C., Freire, A., Petrie, H., & Swallow, D. (2012) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2207676.2207736 · Cited by 327 · cited 1×
“As already shown in several researches [2, 3, 11, 12, 14, 17], relying only in accessibility guidelines is not enough to ensure an accessible website, especially if taking into account the growth on web 2.”
Widget identification: a high-level approach to accessibility
Chen, A. Q., Harper, S., Lunn, D., & Brown, A. (2013) · World Wide Web · doi:10.1007/s11280-012-0156-6 · Cited by 26
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Abu Doush, I., Alkhateeb, F., Al Maghayreh, E., Al-Betar, M.A.: The design of RIA accessibility evaluation tool. Adv. Eng. Softw. 57, 1–7 (2013) · DOI
- Brajnik, G.: Validity and reliability of web accessibility guidelines. In: Proceedings of the 11th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility ISSU, pp. 131–138 (2009) · DOI
- Brajnik, G., Yesilada, Y., Harper, S.: Testability and validity of WCAG 2.0. In: Proceedings of the 12th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility - ASSETS 2010, p. 43. ACM Press (2010) · DOI
- Brown, A., Jay, C., Harper, S.: Audio presentation of auto-suggest lists. In: Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibililty (W4A), pp. 58–61 (2009) · DOI
- Brown, A., Jay, C., Harper, S.: Tailored presentation of dynamic web content for audio browsers. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 70(3), 179–196 (2012) · DOI
- Chen, A.Q.: Widget identification and modification for web 2.0 access technologies (WIMWAT). ACM SIGACCESS Access. Comput. 96, 11–18 (2010) · DOI
- Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Revised edition (1993) · DOI · Paper page
- Fernandes, N., Costa, D., Neves, S., Duarte, C., Carriço, L.: Evaluating the accessibility of rich internet applications. In: Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility - W4A 2012, p. 13. ACM Press (2012) · DOI
- Fortes, R.P.M., Antonelli, H.L.: Avaliação de Acessibilidade e Usabilidade em RIA. In: Anais do XXII Simpósio Brasileiro de Sistemas Multimídia e Web, vol. 3, Minicursos, Teresina, Piauí, 8 a 11 de novembro 2016 (2016)
- Leuthold, S., Bargas-Avila, J.A., Opwis, K.: Beyond web content accessibility guidelines: design of enhanced text user interfaces for blind internet users. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 66(4), 257–270 (2008) · DOI · Paper page
- Power, C., Petrie, H., Swallow, D., Murphy, E., Gallagher, B., Velasco, C.A.: Navigating, discovering and exploring the web: strategies used by people with print disabilities on interactive websites. In: Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2013. LNCS, vol. 8117, pp. 667–684. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40483-2_47 · DOI
- Rømen, D., Svanæs, D.: Validating WCAG versions 1.0 and 2.0 through usability testing with disabled users. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 11(4), 375–385 (2012) · DOI · Paper page
- Vigo, M., Harper, S.: Real-time detection of navigation problems on the World ‘Wild’ Web. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 101, 1–9 (2016) · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vollenwyder, B., Petralito, S., Iten, G. H., Brühlmann, F., Opwis, K., & Mekler, E. D. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102956 · Cited by 62
Salient beliefs influencing the intention to consider Web Accessibility
Vollenwyder, B., Iten, G. H., Brühlmann, F., Opwis, K., & Mekler, E. D. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.016 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Pereira, L. S., & Archambault, D.
- Affiliations
- Université Paris 8 (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Pereira, Letícia Seixas
- Venue
- Lecture Notes in Computer Science
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
- Published
- 2018
- Pages
- 13-21
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- 1611-3349
- OpenAlex
- W2811127443
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 1.73
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Keywords
- web accessibility, Web 2.0, blind users, visual impairment, WCAG 2.0, aria, web widget
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
