Cited by 90Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesUsability and User Interface DesignAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

Examining Image-Based Button Labeling for Accessibility in Android Apps through Large-Scale Analysis

Open access
Ross, Anne Spencer, Zhang, Xiaoyi, Fogarty, James, Wobbrock, Jacob O.·2018·Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility

Abstract

We conduct the first large-scale analysis of the accessibility of mobile apps, examining what unique insights this can provide into the state of mobile app accessibility. We analyzed 5,753 free Android apps for label-based accessibility barriers in three classes of image-based buttons: Clickable Images, Image Buttons, and Floating Action Buttons. An epidemiology-inspired framework was used to structure the investigation. The population of free Android apps was assessed for label-based inaccessible button diseases. Three determinants of the disease were considered: missing labels, duplicate labels, and uninformative labels. The prevalence, or frequency of occurrences of barriers, was examined in apps and in classes of image-based buttons. In the app analysis, 35.9% of analyzed apps had 90% or more of their assessed image-based buttons labeled, 45.9% had less than 10% of assessed image-based buttons labeled, and the remaining apps were relatively uniformly distributed along the proportion of elements that were labeled. In the class analysis, 92.0% of Floating Action Buttons were found to have missing labels, compared to 54.7% of Image Buttons and 86.3% of Clickable Images. We discuss how these accessibility barriers are addressed in existing treatments, including accessibility development guidelines.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3234695.3236364

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ross, A. S., Zhang, X., Fogarty, J., & Wobbrock, J. O.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
Publisher
ACM
Published
2018-10-08
Pages
119-130
OpenAlex
W2896625930
Cited by
90
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2
FWCI
12.93
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (DGE-1256082, IIS-1702751)
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
mobile app accessibility, Android application, missing labels, access barriers, accessibility guidelines

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