Cited by 26Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesWeb Applications and Data ManagementUsability and User Interface Design

Combining SADIe and AxsJAX to improve the accessibility of web content

Lunn, Darren, Harper, Simon, Bechhofer, Sean·2009·Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibililty (W4A)

Abstract

The advent of Web 2.0 technologies has allowed once static Web documents to be transformed into online interactive applications. To facilitate the accessibility of this dynamic content, Google have developed the AxsJAX framework that can insert Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) statements into the content dynamically. Such statements allow assistive technologies to interact with dynamic content and make it accessible to users. SADIe is an approach that uses semantic annotations of a Website's Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) to drive a transformation process that can improve access to Web pages for visually impaired users who use a screen reader. Previously SADIe transcoded static pages by refactoring the content into a format more suited to the sequential audio output of a screen reader. In this paper we present a prototype SADIe transcoder that uses CSS annotations to generate AxsJAX framework code and insert it into Web pages. Such an approach allows users to access static content using a consistent set of key presses in a manner akin to an online application. This demonstrates the flexibility of the SADIe approach as the same annotations can be used to generate an alternative transcoding format. It also supports the use of SADIe as a lightweight method for allowing Web designers to make use of AxsJAX without requiring knowledge of the underlying AxsJAX technologies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1535654.1535672

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Most current research addresses accessibility but neglects usability for blind users.

    “Current research (Takagi, 2004;Tonn-Eichstädt, 2006;Lunn et al., 2009;Mikovec et al., 2009) focuses on accessibility without addressing usability for the blind.”

    From Understanding Blind Users' Web Accessibility and Usability Problems (2010) · cites this paper as Lunn et al., 2009

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lunn, D., Harper, S., & Bechhofer, S.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibililty (W4A)
Publisher
ACM
Published
2009-04-20
Pages
75-78
OpenAlex
W2090332306
Cited by
26
References
0
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
6.80
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Web for All Conference (W4A) (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web Applications and Data Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
web accessibility, SADIE, aria, screen readers, visually impaired users, dynamic web content, assistive technology, Web 2.0, interactive web application

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