The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Complementing standards by demonstrating commitment and progress
Abstract
Improving web accessibility can be challenging, particularly for organizations with large, complex digital estates and internal organizational structures. Efforts can be guided by technical standards, but there are shortcomings with treating accessibility for people with disabilities as a compliance effort. Using the Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible Design as an approach to remediation of accessibility barriers in the built environment as a parallel, we explore an approach to improving digital accessibility that places value on conscious, pragmatic decision-making and sharing of evidence of progress.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“A set of standard criteria can ensure that a product is in line with important web accessibility requirements, but it cannot account for users' actual experiences in a given context (Horton et al., 2015).”
From How compliance with web accessibility standards shapes the experiences of users with and without disabilities (2023) · cites this paper as Horton et al., 2015
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×
“Both these factors may lead to a standards-conformant website that contains significant barriers for people with disabilities [9].”
BackgroundVigo, M., Brown, J., & Conway, V. (2013) · Proceedings of the 10th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility · doi:10.1145/2461121.2461124 · Cited by 215
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- British Standards Institute ( 2010 ) BS 8878: 2010---Web Accessibility Code of Practice . London : BSI. British Standards Institute (2010) BS 8878: 2010---Web Accessibility Code of Practice. London: BSI.
- Hassell , J. ( 2014 ) Including your missing 20% by embedding web and mobile accessibility. BSI . Hassell, J. (2014) Including your missing 20% by embedding web and mobile accessibility. BSI.
- Hassenzahl , M. ( 2013 ) User Experience and Experience Design . In: Soegaard, M. and Dam, R. (eds.). The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction , 2 nd Ed. Aarhus, Denmark : The Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved January 2015 from http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/user_experience_and_experience_design.html. Hassenzahl, M. (2013) User Experience and Experience Design. In: Soegaard, M. and Dam, R. (eds.). The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed. Aarhus, Denmark: The Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved January 2015 from http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/user_experience_and_experience_design.html.
- Horton , S. and Sloan , D . ( 2014 ) Accessibility in Practice: a process-driven approach to accessibility. Inclusive Designing 2014. Springer , pp105--115. Horton, S. and Sloan, D. (2014) Accessibility in Practice: a process-driven approach to accessibility. Inclusive Designing 2014. Springer, pp105--115.
- 10.1145/1061811.1061820 · DOI · Paper page
- Nielsen , J. and Gilutz , S . Return on Investment (ROI) for Usability. Retrieved September 2013 from http://www.nngroup.com/reports/usability-return-on-investment-roi/. Nielsen, J. and Gilutz, S. Return on Investment (ROI) for Usability. Retrieved September 2013 from http://www.nngroup.com/reports/usability-return-on-investment-roi/.
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Horton, S., Sloan, D., & Swan, H.
- Affiliations
- The Paciello Group, Nashua, NH
- ORCID
- Horton, Sarah
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 12th International Web for All Conference
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2015-05-18
- Pages
- 1-4
- OpenAlex
- W2083405118
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.62
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Web for All Conference (W4A) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disability Rights and Representation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- web accessibility, digital accessibility, accessibility standards, accessibility compliance, access barriers, organizational commitment, digital estate, people with disabilities
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
