WebinSitu: a comparative analysis of blind and sighted browsing behavior
Abstract
Web browsing is inefficient for blind web users because of persistent accessibility problems, but the extent of these problems and their practical effects from the perspective of the user has not been sufficiently examined. We conducted a study in situ to investigate the accessibility of the web as experienced by web users. This remote study used an advanced web proxy that leverages AJAX technology to record both the pages viewed and the actions taken by users on the web pages that they visited. Our study was conducted remotely over the period of one week, and our participants used the assistive technology and software to which they were already accustomed and had already configured according to preference. These advantages allowed us to aggregate observations of many users and to explore the practical effects on and coping strategies employed by our blind participants. Our study reflects web accessibility from the perspective of web users and describes quantitative differences in the browsing behavior of blind and sighted web users.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Several factors contribute to the difference in interaction times between SRUs and non-SRUs, including the duration of the auditory responses.
“Several factors contribute to the difference in interaction times between SRUs and non-SRUs [7,70], including the duration of the auditory responses.”
From Understanding and Improving Drilled-Down Information Extraction from Online Data Visualizations for Screen-Reader Users (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
Cites
WebInSight: making web images accessible
Bigham, J. P., Kaminsky, R. S., Ladner, R. E., Danielsson, O. M., & Hempton, G. L. (2006) · Proceedings of the 8th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility · doi:10.1145/1168987.1169018 · Cited by 161 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Investigating the accessibility of web images has often been used as an easy measure of web accessibility [6].”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
More than meets the eye: a survey of screen-reader browsing strategies
Borodin, Y., Bigham, J. P., Dausch, G., & Ramakrishnan, I. V. (2010) · Proceedings of the 2010 International Cross Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A) · doi:10.1145/1805986.1806005 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Self-citationCaption Crawler: Enabling Reusable Alternative Text Descriptions using Reverse Image Search
Guinness, D., Cutrell, E., & Morris, M. R. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3174092 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Das, M., Gergle, D., & Piper, A. M. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359293 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Sahib, N. G., Tombros, A., & Stockman, T. (2012) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21696 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Coping tactics employed by visually disabled users on the web
Vigo, M., & Harper, S. (2013) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.08.002 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
The Effects of "Not Knowing What You Don't Know" on Web Accessibility for Blind Web Users
Bigham, J. P., Lin, I., & Savage, S. (2017) · Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3132525.3132533 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Self-citationFan, D., Fay Siu, A., Rao, H., Kim, G. S.-H., Vazquez, X., Greco, L., O'Modhrain, S., & Follmer, S. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · doi:10.1145/3557899 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
“Empirical studies have sought to characterize screen reader users’ browsing strategies, challenges, and coping mechanisms or workarounds to recommend solutions that improve both web accessibility and usability for BVI users [19, 23, 25, 46, 48, 72, 77, 87, 112, 120].”
BackgroundIdentifying Behavioral Strategies of Visually Impaired Users to Improve Access to Web Content
Lunn, D., Harper, S., & Bechhofer, S. (2011) · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · doi:10.1145/1952388.1952390 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
BlindSense: An Accessibility-inclusive Universal User Interface for Blind People
Khan, A., Khusro, S., & Alam, I. (2018) · Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research · doi:10.48084/etasr.1895 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
A Large Inclusive Study of Human Listening Rates
Bragg, D., Bennett, C., Reinecke, K., & Ladner, R. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3174018 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Self-citationVERSE: Bridging Screen Readers and Voice Assistants for Enhanced Eyes-Free Web Search
Vtyurina, A., Fourney, A., Morris, M. R., Findlater, L., & White, R. W. (2019) · Proceedings of the 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3308561.3353773 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Faster Text-to-Speeches: Enhancing Blind People's Information Scanning with Faster Concurrent Speech
Guerreiro, J., & Gonçalves, D. (2015) · Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility - ASSETS '15 · doi:10.1145/2700648.2809840 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Web 2.0: blind to an accessible new world
Hailpern, J., Guarino-Reid, L., Boardman, R., & Annam, S. (2009) · Proceedings of the 18th international conference on World wide web · doi:10.1145/1526709.1526820 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
CodeWalk: Facilitating Shared Awareness in Mixed-Ability Collaborative Software Development
Potluri, V., Pandey, M., Begel, A., Barnett, M., & Reitherman, S. (2022) · Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3517428.3544812 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Revisiting breadth vs. depth in menu structures for blind users of screen readers
Hochheiser, H., & Lazar, J. (2010) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2010.02.003 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
A unit selection text-to-speech synthesis system optimized for use with screen readers
Chalamandaris, A., Karabetsos, S., Tsiakoulis, P., & Raptis, S. (2010) · IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics · doi:10.1109/tce.2010.5606343 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Sharif, A., Zhang, A. M., Reinecke, K., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2023) · 20th International Web for All Conference · doi:10.1145/3587281.3587284 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
“Several factors contribute to the difference in interaction times between SRUs and non-SRUs [7, 70], including the duration of the auditory responses.”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe Promise and Pitfalls of Web Accessibility Overlays for Blind and Low Vision Users
Makati, T., Tigwell, G. W., & Shinohara, K. (2024) · The 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3663548.3675650 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Aqle, A., Al-Thani, D., & Jaoua, A. (2022) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-020-00777-w · Cited by 16 · see citing works
A survey of blind users on the usability of email applications
Wentz, B., Hochheiser, H., & Lazar, J. (2013) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-012-0285-9 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bigham, J. P., Cavender, A. C., Brudvik, J. T., Wobbrock, J. O., & Ladner, R. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 9th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2007-10-15
- Pages
- 51-58
- OpenAlex
- W2107112927
- Cited by
- 153
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 16.79
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- 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, blind users, web browsing, assistive technology, Ajax, web proxy, user experience, browsing behavior, coping strategies, in situ study
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
