Accessibility of mobile applications: evaluation by users with visual impairment and by automated tools
Abstract
Providing accessible mobile applications to people with visual disabilities demands appropriate evaluation techniques and tools to identify problems during the design of such systems. Automated accessibility evaluation tools are important to support evaluation tasks and to make evaluators more productive to perform repetitive analyses. However, automated tools cannot find alone all problems that users encounter in accessibility evaluations of mobile applications. Despite previous investigations on the coverage of accessibility problems encountered by automated tools on websites, there is little knowledge about the relationship between the problems encountered by those tools and problems faced by users with visual impairments in mobile applications. This paper presents a study comparing issues encountered by the automated tools MATE (Mobile Accessibility Testing) and Accessibility Scanner with a set of 415 instances of accessibility problems encountered in a previous user study involving six blind and five partially-sighted users on four mobile applications. The results showed that 36 types of problems were encountered only by users, tree types of problems were encountered both by users and by the tools, and 11 types of problems were encountered only by the automated tools. The results show the kinds of relevant problems that automated tools can identify, aiding in the early identification of such problems. The study also contributes to determining the types of problems that are only encountered by evaluations with users, reinforcing the importance of involving users in accessibility evaluation and characterizing the problems in mobile applications that can go unnoticed if automated tools are used alone.
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?
BVI users often encounter challenges related to locating and accessing features/elements due to labeling issues (e.g., missing, improper, or inadequate labels) in mobile websites and applications.
“Specifically, BVI users often encounter challenges related to locating and accessing features/elements due to labeling issues (e.g., missing, improper, or inadequate labels) in mobile websites and applications [7,16,17,18,19,20,21,22].”
From Help-Seeking Situations Related to Visual Interactions on Mobile Platforms and Recommended Designs for Blind and Visually Impaired Users (2024) · cites this paper as [17]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 51
- Authors
- Mateus, D. A., Silva, C. A., Eler, M. M., & Freire, A. P.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Federal de Lavras (BR)
- Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 19th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2020-10-26
- Pages
- 1-10
- OpenAlex
- W3117810801
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5
- FWCI
- 5.40
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (IHC) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) (448521/2014-8)
- Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (18/12287-6)
- 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 application accessibility, visual impairment, automated accessibility evaluation, mate, blind users, user evaluation
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
