CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesTechnology Use by Older AdultsUsability and User Interface Design

A Case for Making Web Accessibility Guidelines Accessible: Older Adult Content Creators and Web Accessibility Planning

Open access
Martin-Hammond, Aqueasha, Patil, Ulka, Tandukar, Barsa·2021·Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
DOI 10.1145/3441852.3476472
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper presents our experiences supporting web accessibility planning among a group of older adult online content creators. We highlight challenges we encountered meeting the web accessibility informational needs of our partners and helping this group of creators become aware and put in place measures to address accessibility issues. Our reflections highlight opportunities for future efforts to improve web accessibility support for everyday content creators and support for helping those less familiar with web accessibility options.

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 · 10.1145/3441852.3476472

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • The complexity, fragmentation, and abstract language of standards such as WCAG or ISO often hinder practical implementation.

    “The complexity, fragmentation, and abstract language of standards such as WCAG or ISO often hinder practical implementation [5, 26, 32].”

    From Proceedings of the 37th Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (2025) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Introduction and §5.1 say accessibility guidance can be difficult for everyday content creators to understand and apply. Section 4.1 describes difficulty finding a comprehensive explanation in lay terms and the need to combine resources. The paper does not establish that WCAG or ISO standards themselves are fragmented, and it does not discuss ISO standards. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Patricia Acosta-Vargas, Sergio Luján-Mora, and Tania Acosta. 2017. Accessibility of Portable Document Format in Education Repositories. In Proceedings of the 2017 9th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers (Barcelona, Spain) (ICETC 2017). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 239-242.
  2. Silvana Maria Affonso de Lara, Willian Massami Watanabe, Eduardo Pezutti Bele- tato dos Santos, and Renata P M Fortes. 2010. Improving WCAG for elderly web accessibility. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil) (SIGDOC '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 175-182.
  3. Jeffrey P Bigham, Erin L Brady, Cole Gleason, Anhong Guo, and David A Shamma. 2016. An Uninteresting Tour Through Why Our Research Papers Aren't Accessi- ble. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI EA '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 621-631.
  4. Erin Brady, Yu Zhong, and Jeffrey P Bigham. 2015. Creating accessible PDFs for conference proceedings. In Proceedings of the 12th Web for All Conference (Florence, Italy) (W4A '15, Article 34). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-4.
  5. Robin Brewer and Anne Marie Piper. 2016. "Tell It Like It Really Is": A Case of On- line Content Creation and Sharing Among Older Adult Bloggers. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 5529-5542.
  6. Rocio Calvo, Faezeh Seyedarabi, and Andreas Savva. 2016. Beyond Web Content Accessibility Guidelines: Expert Accessibility Reviews. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhanc- ing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion (Vila Real, Portugal) (DSAI 2016). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 77-84.
  7. Montserrat Celdrán, Rodrigo Serrat, and Feliciano Villar. 2019. Older Adults as Internet Content Producers: Motivations for Blogging in Later Life. In Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction Research with Older People, Sergio Sayago (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 169-182.
  8. Wendy A Chisholm and Shawn Lawton Henry. 2005. Interdependent components of web accessibility. In Proceedings of the 2005 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A) (Chiba, Japan) (W4A '05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 31-37.
  9. Ombretta Gaggi and Veronica Pederiva. 2021. WCAG4All, a tool for making web accessibility rules accessible. In 2021 IEEE 18th Annual Consumer Communications Networking Conference (CCNC). 1-6.
  10. Michael Heron, Vicki L Hanson, and Ian W Ricketts. 2013. Accessibility Support for Older Adults with the ACCESS Framework. International Journal of Human- Computer Interaction 29, 11 (Nov. 2013), 702-716.
  11. A Jembu Rajkumar, J B Jordan, and J Lazar. 2020. Improving PDF Accessibility Tools for Content Developers: Looking Towards the Future. In Designing for Inclusion. Springer International Publishing, 173-181.
  12. Aravind Jembu Rajkumar, Jonathan Lazar, J Bern Jordan, Alireza Darvishy, and Hans-Peter Hutter. 2020. PDF accessibility of research papers: what tools are needed for assessment and remediation?. In 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Maui, Hawaii, USA, 7-10 January 2020. 4185-4194.
  13. Louis Li and Krzysztof Z Gajos. 2014. Adaptive click-and-cross: adapting to both abilities and task improves performance of users with impaired dexterity. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Haifa, Israel) (IUI '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 299-304.
  14. Yod Samuel Martín García, Beatriz San Miguel González, and Juan Carlos Yelmo García. 2009. Prosumers and accessibility: how to ensure a productive in- teraction. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibililty (W4A) (Madrid, Spain) (W4A '09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 50-53.
  15. A Martin-Hammond, F Hamidi, T Bhalerao, and others. 2018. Designing an adaptive web navigation interface for users with variable pointing performance. Proceedings of the (2018).
  16. Karyn Moffatt and Joanna McGrenere. 2010. Steadied-bubbles: combining tech- niques to address pen-based pointing errors for younger and older adults. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (CHI '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1125-1134.
  17. Karyn Moffatt, Sandra Yuen, and Joanna McGrenere. 2008. Hover or tap? sup- porting pen-based menu navigation for older adults. In Proceedings of the 10th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) (Assets '08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 51-58.
  18. Arlind Reuter, Tom Bartindale, Kellie Morrissey, Thomas Scharf, and Jennifer Liddle. 2019. Older Voices: Supporting Community Radio Production for Civic Participation in Later Life. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-13.
  19. Arlind Reuter, Thomas Scharf, and Jan Smeddinck. 2021. Content Creation in Later Life: Reconsidering Older Adults' Digital Participation and Inclusion. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW3 (Jan. 2021), 1-23.
  20. Sergio Sayago, Paula Forbes, and Josep Blat. 2012. Older people's social sharing practices in YouTube through an ethnographical lens. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual BCS Interaction Specialist Group Conference on People and Computers (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (BCS-HCI '12). BCS Learning & Development Ltd., Swindon, GBR, 185-194.
  21. David Sloan, Matthew Tylee Atkinson, Colin Machin, and Yunqiu Li. 2010. The potential of adaptive interfaces as an accessibility aid for older web users. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Cross Disciplinary Conference on Web Acces- sibility (W4A) (Raleigh, North Carolina) (W4A '10, Article 35). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-10.
  22. Utku Uckun, Ali Selman Aydin, Vikas Ashok, and I V Ramakrishnan. 2020. Break- ing the Accessibility Barrier in Non-Visual Interaction with PDF Forms. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, EICS (June 2020), 1-16.
  23. Jenny Waycott, Frank Vetere, Sonja Pedell, Lars Kulik, Elizabeth Ozanne, Alan Gruner, and John Downs. 2013. Older adults as digital content producers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 39-48.
  24. Jacob O Wobbrock, Shaun K Kane, Krzysztof Z Gajos, Susumu Harada, and Jon Froehlich. 2011. Ability-Based Design: Concept, Principles and Examples. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 3, 3 (April 2011), 9:1-9:27.
  25. Aileen Worden, Nef Walker, Krishna Bharat, and Scott Hudson. 1997. Making computers easier for older adults to use: area cursors and sticky icons. In Pro- ceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (CHI '97). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 266-271.
  26. Yeliz Yesilada, Giorgio Brajnik, Markel Vigo, and Simon Harper. 2012. Under- standing web accessibility and its drivers. In Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (Lyon, France) (W4A '12, Arti- cle 19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martin-Hammond, A., Patil, U., & Tandukar, B.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US)
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
Publisher
ACM
Published
2021-10-17
Pages
1-6
DOI
10.1145/3441852.3476472
OpenAlex
W3205815968
Cited by
7
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3
FWCI
1.97
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
  • International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • Purdue University Indianapolis (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
web accessibility, accessibility guidelines, older adults, online content creators, accessibility planning, information needs, digital inclusion

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