Proceedings of the 37th Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Typical barriers include fragmented standards and guidelines like WCAG, complex language, and a lack of accessible, pedagogically aligned tools.

“Typical barriers include fragmented standards and guidelines like WCAG, complex language, and a lack of accessible, pedagogically aligned tools [5, 26, 42].”

• cites [5] [5] Tingting Bi, Xin Xia, David Lo, John Grundy, Thomas Zimmermann, and Denae Ford. 2022. Accessibility in Software Practice: A Practitioner's Perspective. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 31, 4, Article 66 (July 2022), 26 pages. doi:10.1145/ 3503508 -Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [26] [26] Ann-Kathrin Kubullek and Aysegül Dogangün. 2023. Creating Accessibility 2.0 with Artificial Intelligence. In Proceedings of Mensch Und Computer 2023 (Rapperswil, Switzerland) (MuC '23) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 437-441. doi:10.1145/3603555.3608541 - sourcePartly supported

  Section 2, “The Challenges of Implementing Accessibility” (page not provided), describes numerous standards and guidelines, including WCAG, and says their language is complex and difficult to understand. Sections 3 and 5 discuss accessibility limitations of AI tools and propose a tool to help developers, but they do not establish a lack of pedagogically aligned tools. (LLM, conf=0.87)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites [42] [42] Rohan Patel, Pedro Breton, Catherine M. Baker, Yasmine N. El-Glaly, and Kristen Shinohara. 2020. Why Software is Not Accessible: Technology Professionals' Perspectives and Challenges. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA '20) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-9. doi:10.1145/3334480.3383103 - sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Existing resources and standards vary in reliability and usually require users to interpret and adapt the information on their own.

“These vary in reliability and usually require users to interpret and adapt the information on their own [26, 27].”

• cites [26] [26] Ann-Kathrin Kubullek and Aysegül Dogangün. 2023. Creating Accessibility 2.0 with Artificial Intelligence. In Proceedings of Mensch Und Computer 2023 (Rapperswil, Switzerland) (MuC '23) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 437-441. doi:10.1145/3603555.3608541 - sourcePartly supported

  Section 2, “The Challenges of Implementing Accessibility” (page unavailable), says developers must review complex standards and identify requirements relevant to a specific application. This supports the need to interpret and adapt the information, but the paper does not say the resources or standards vary in reliability. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites [27] [27] Ann-Kathrin Kubullek, Sebastian van Ledden, and Aysegül Dogangün. 2024. A Collection of Standards-based Recommendations for Sustainable, Social, Accessible Robots and Systems in Public Spaces - A Systematic Review and Derivation of Unified Equality Requirement Descriptions. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (Swansea, United Kingdom) (HAI '24) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 305-313. doi:10.1145/3687272.3688294 - sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

E-commerce is a particularly relevant context for teaching digital accessibility, as many design and development students will likely work on web-based platforms such as online shops.

“E-commerce is a particularly relevant context for teaching digital accessibility, as many design and development students will likely work on web-based platforms such as online shops [2, 7].”

• cites [2] [2] Patricia Acosta-Vargas, Belén Salvador-Acosta, Luis Salvador-Ullauri, and Janio Jadán-Guerrero. 2022. Accessibility challenges of e-commerce websites. PeerJ Computer Science 8 (2022), e891. - sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction (page unavailable) says e-commerce websites have grown considerably and that applying accessibility guidelines to them is essential, supporting their relevance as an accessibility context. The paper does not address teaching digital accessibility or whether design and development students are likely to work on online shops. (LLM, conf=0.83)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites [7] [7] U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2025. Occupational Outlook Handbook, Web Developers and Digital Designers. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/ computer-and-information-technology/web-developers.htm Accessed March 30, 2025. -Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

May combine two claims.

Accessibility is still underrepresented in many curricula, and even when it is addressed, it is rarely taught in an applied, example-based way.

“Accessibility is still underrepresented in many curricula, and even when it is addressed, it is rarely taught in an applied, example-based way [17, 38, 40, 42, 48, 52, 56].”

• cites [17] [17] Yasmine N. Elglaly, Catherine M. Baker, Anne Spencer Ross, and Kristen Shinohara. 2024. Beyond HCI: The Need for Accessibility Across the CS Curriculum. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (Portland, OR, USA) (SIGCSE 2024) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 324-330. doi:10.1145/3626252.3630788 - sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction says most computing programs place accessibility in HCI or design courses, if they address it at all, supporting the claim that it is underrepresented. Section 4.2 discusses lectures, projects, games, and proposed programming assignments, but does not establish that applied, example-based teaching is rare when accessibility is taught. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites [38] [38] Tamanna Motahar, Noelle Brown, Eliane Stampfer Wiese, and Jason Wiese. 2023. Building 'Design Empathy' for People with Disabilities: an Unsolved Challenge in HCI Education. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual Symposium on HCI Education (Hamburg, Germany) (EduCHI '23) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 68-71. doi:10.1145/3587399.3587409 - sourcePartly supported

  Section 2 says existing accessibility lessons and interventions often fall short of building design empathy, supporting a concern about how accessibility is taught. It does not establish that accessibility is underrepresented across curricula or rarely taught through applied examples; the same section describes assignments and projects used to teach it. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites [40] [40] Anna Nishchyk and Weiqin Chen. 2018. Integrating Universal Design and Accessibility into Computer Science Curricula-A Review of Literature and Practices in Europe. Transforming our World Through Design, Diversity and Education 256 (2018), 56-66. -Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [42] [42] Rohan Patel, Pedro Breton, Catherine M. Baker, Yasmine N. El-Glaly, and Kristen Shinohara. 2020. Why Software is Not Accessible: Technology Professionals' Perspectives and Challenges. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA '20) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-9. doi:10.1145/3334480.3383103 - sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [48] [48] Kristen Shinohara, Saba Kawas, Amy J. Ko, and Richard E. Ladner. 2018. Who Teaches Accessibility? A Survey of U.S. Computing Faculty. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (SIGCSE '18) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 197-202. doi:10.1145/3159450.3159484 - sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [52] [52] Chia-En Tseng, Seoung Ho Jung, Yasmine N. Elglaly, Yudong Liu, and Stephanie Ludi. 2022. Exploration on Integrating Accessibility into an AI Course. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 1 (Providence, RI, USA) (SIGCSE 2022) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 864-870. doi:10.1145/3478431.3499399 - sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [56] [56] Renata Vinadé and Sabrina Marczak. 2024. Educating for Accessibility: Insights into Knowledge Gaps and Practical Challenges in Software Engineering. In Proceedings of the XXIII Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality (SBQS '24) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 646-656. doi:10. 1145/3701625.3701689 - sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Domain-specific English terminology was considered more accurate and familiar to the target group, reducing the risk of misinterpretation.

“Similar to observations by Vigh et al. (2025)[55], domain-specific English terminology was considered more accurate and familiar to the target group, reducing the risk of misinterpretation.”

• cites Vigh et al. (2025)[55] sourcePartly supported

  In the Introduction (page unavailable), Vigh et al. describe translations that lose context or leave room for interpretation, supporting the concern about misinterpretation. Our copy does not say that domain-specific English terminology was more accurate or familiar to a target group, or that using it reduced that risk. (LLM, conf=0.78)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

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].”

• cites [5] [5] Tingting Bi, Xin Xia, David Lo, John Grundy, Thomas Zimmermann, and Denae Ford. 2022. Accessibility in Software Practice: A Practitioner's Perspective. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 31, 4, Article 66 (July 2022), 26 pages. doi:10.1145/ 3503508 -Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [26] [26] Ann-Kathrin Kubullek and Aysegül Dogangün. 2023. Creating Accessibility 2.0 with Artificial Intelligence. In Proceedings of Mensch Und Computer 2023 (Rapperswil, Switzerland) (MuC '23) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 437-441. doi:10.1145/3603555.3608541 - sourceSupported
• cites [32] [32] Aqueasha Martin-Hammond, Ulka Patil, and Barsa Tandukar. 2021. A Case for Making Web Accessibility Guidelines Accessible: Older Adult Content Creators and Web Accessibility Planning. In Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Virtual Event, USA) (ASSETS '21) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 34, 6 pages. doi:10.1145/3441852.3476472 - sourcePartly supported

  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

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Several participants expressed interest in future features like AI-driven assistance.

“Several expressed interest in future features like AI-driven assistance.”

May combine two claims.

Participants' initial impressions of the prototype were generally positive, particularly in terms of its interface clarity and perceived role as a structured reference for accessibility requirements.

“Participants' initial impressions of the prototype were generally positive, particularly in terms of its interface clarity and perceived role as a structured reference for accessibility requirements.”

May combine two claims.

These tools were generally perceived as helpful, though not always fully reliable.

“These were generally perceived as helpful, though not always fully reliable (P5: 'Quick and easy, but not always 100% accurate.').”

May combine two claims.

The minimalist visual design was praised for being distraction-free and readable, and the sidebar layout was frequently described as intuitive and well organised.

“The minimalist visual design was praised for being distraction-free and readable (P1, P3, P6), and the sidebar layout was frequently described as intuitive and well organised (P6: 'Good overview on the left. Everything is clear so far' ).”

May combine two claims.

Formal methods for gathering accessibility requirements were largely absent in participants' previous practice; none of the students reported using structured requirements engineering techniques or dedicated accessibility guidelines.

“Formal methods for gathering accessibility requirements were largely absent in participants' previous practice. None of the students reported using structured requirements engineering techniques or dedicated accessibility guidelines.”

May combine two claims.

Hearing-related terms were linguistically consistent across the interface and yielded perfect success.

“In contrast, hearing-related terms were linguistically consistent across the interface and yielded perfect success.”

May combine two claims.

Participants identified challenges that limited the tool's effectiveness as a low-threshold orientation aid, including overly long or dense text blocks, difficulties with scanning and finding relevant sections quickly, and unclear distinction between interface elements such as glossary terms and hyperlinks.

“At the same time, participants identified challenges that limited the tool's effectiveness as a low-threshold orientation aid. These included overly long or dense text blocks (P3, P4), difficulties with scanning and finding relevant sections quickly (P2), and unclear distinction between interface elements such as glossary terms and hyperlinks (P6).”

May combine two claims.

Several strengths were highlighted in the interviews: participants praised the clear navigation structure, the overall concept of structured accessibility information, and the integrated glossary support.

“Several strengths were highlighted in the interviews. Participants praised the clear navigation structure, the overall concept of structured accessibility information, and the integrated glossary support.”

May combine two claims.

While the prototype was developed in German for contextual accessibility, untranslated tooltips and headings caused confusion.

“While the prototype was developed in German for contextual accessibility, untranslated tooltips and headings caused confusion.”

May combine two claims.

The average clarity rating was 3.4 out of 5, suggesting moderate comprehensibility.

“The average clarity rating was 3.4 out of 5 , suggesting moderate comprehensibility.”

May combine two claims.

While participants correctly prioritised the technically difficult first requirement, the structurally simpler second requirement was often undervalued in importance.

“While participants correctly prioritised the technically difficult first requirement, the structurally simpler second requirement was often undervalued in importance.”

May combine two claims.

While most users appreciated tooltips and simplified language, technical phrasing and domain-specific terminology occasionally required extra effort or external lookup.

“While most users appreciated tooltips and simplified language, technical phrasing and domain-specific terminology occasionally required extra effort or external lookup (P2: 'If the app is intended for experts, they probably wouldn't struggle with the terminology.' ).”

May combine two claims.

Everyday-relevant items, such as visual glare, were easier to grasp, and glossary-supported explanations were perceived as helpful.

“Everyday-relevant items, such as visual glare, were easier to grasp, and glossary-supported explanations were perceived as helpful.”

May combine two claims.

Participants in this study noted difficulties with domain-specific terms and requested better structural and terminological support, even for reformulated requirements.

“Participants in this study echoed these concerns, noting difficulties with domain-specific terms and requesting better structural and terminological support, even for reformulated requirements.”

May combine two claims.

Participants' prior knowledge, familiarity with terminology, and the structure of information significantly influenced task success and perceived comprehensibility.

“While general attitudes toward inclusion and accessibility were consistently positive, participants' prior knowledge, familiarity with terminology, and the structure of information significantly influenced task success and perceived comprehensibility.”

May combine two claims.

While students performed well on some locating tasks, others, especially the one related to photosensitivity, revealed significant challenges due to hybrid-language terminology.

“While students performed well on some locating tasks, others, especially the one related to photosensitivity, revealed significant challenges due to hybrid-language terminology.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Several participants expressed the need for more entry points and visual guidance, such as a dashboard, better menu subcategories, or illustrative examples.

“In addition, several participants expressed the need for more entry points and visual guidance, such as a dashboard, better menu subcategories, or illustrative examples.”

May combine two claims.

The tool was generally well received in terms of usability and structure (average navigation rating: 4.0/5), whereas clarity of content (average clarity rating: 3.4/5) varied depending on terminology and task context.

“The results show that the tool was generally well received in terms of usability and structure (average navigation rating: 4.0/5), whereas clarity of content (average clarity rating: 3.4/5) varied depending on terminology and task context.”

May combine two claims.

The typography task was moderately successful but occasionally affected by terminology unfamiliarity or inefficient strategies.

“The typography task was moderately successful but occasionally affected by terminology unfamiliarity or inefficient strategies.”

May combine two claims.

Hybrid language use introduced challenges; in Task 2.2, several errors stemmed from mismatches between German input and English category labels.

“However, hybrid language use introduced challenges. In Task 2.2, several errors stemmed from mismatches between German input and English category labels.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

At present, neither the prototype nor the full set of 592 reformulated requirements are publicly available.

“At present, neither the prototype nor the full set of 592 reformulated requirements are publicly available.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Several participants recommended integrating a personalised AI assistant to adapt terminology explanations to users' background knowledge.

“In addition, several participants recommended integrating a personalised AI assistant to adapt terminology explanations to users' background knowledge.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Participants proposed several concrete design improvements, including a search function, a dashboard or homepage, collapsible content elements, visual examples, filtering options, and addressing terminology mismatches between German and English labels.

“Participants also proposed several concrete design improvements, including a search function, a dashboard or homepage, collapsible content elements, visual examples, filtering options (e.g., by WCAG level or legal context), and addressing terminology mismatches between German and English labels, which had led to navigation errors and confusion.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The prototype currently lacks source attribution for individual requirements, with no indication of where a requirement originates from.

“The prototype currently lacks source attribution for individual requirements.”

• Also stated in: § 6.1 Limitations and Future Work · p. 13 · plain

  “Although it simplifies and reorganises content, there is no indication of where a requirement originates from.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The prototype includes 592 reformulated requirements.

“Although the prototype includes 592 reformulated requirements, only four were evaluated in detail.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Terminology mismatches between German and English labels had led to navigation errors and confusion.

“Participants also proposed several concrete design improvements, including a search function, a dashboard or homepage, collapsible content elements, visual examples, filtering options (e.g., by WCAG level or legal context), and addressing terminology mismatches between German and English labels, which had led to navigation errors and confusion.”

May combine two claims.

Both the prototype and the full set of 592 reformulated requirements were developed for a German-language study context and currently lack documentation, metadata, and language variants needed for international reuse.

“Both were developed for a German-language study context and currently lack documentation, metadata, and language variants needed for international reuse.”

May combine two claims.

Practitioners struggle to identify which requirements are relevant to their projects and how to apply them effectively.

“Practitioners struggle to identify which requirements are relevant to their projects and how to apply them effectively [5, 42].”

• cites [5] [5] Tingting Bi, Xin Xia, David Lo, John Grundy, Thomas Zimmermann, and Denae Ford. 2022. Accessibility in Software Practice: A Practitioner's Perspective. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 31, 4, Article 66 (July 2022), 26 pages. doi:10.1145/ 3503508 -Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [42] [42] Rohan Patel, Pedro Breton, Catherine M. Baker, Yasmine N. El-Glaly, and Kristen Shinohara. 2020. Why Software is Not Accessible: Technology Professionals' Perspectives and Challenges. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA '20) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-9. doi:10.1145/3334480.3383103 - sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

There is a growing need for resources that present accessibility requirements in a way that makes them easier to understand and locate, especially for students working on design and development tasks.

“As a result, there is a growing need for resources that present accessibility requirements in a way that makes them easier to understand and locate, especially for students working on design and development tasks.”

May combine two claims.

Time, staffing, and tooling constraints often deprioritise accessibility, and managers frequently overestimate their teams' accessibility performance.

“Time, staffing, and tooling constraints often deprioritise accessibility. Managers frequently overestimate their teams' accessibility performance [1].”

• cites [1] [1] [Level Access. 2023. State of Digital Accessibility Report 2023-2024. https://www.levelaccess.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/The-Fifth-AnnualState-of-Digital-Accessibility-Report.pdf](https://www.levelaccess.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/The-Fifth-Annual-State-of-Digital-Accessibility-Report.pdf) -Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Existing tools for accessibility requirements offer important entry points but fall short in addressing key needs for educational settings: clear structuring, consistent terminology, and scaffolding that connects technical rules to practical relevance.

“These tools offer important entry points into accessibility requirements but fall short in addressing key needs for educational settings: clear structuring, consistent terminology, and scaffolding that connects technical rules to practical relevance.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

A review by Freire et al. found that most documented techniques were guideline-driven, reinforcing the dominance of standards-based implementation.

“A review by Freire et al. found that most documented techniques were guideline-driven, reinforcing the dominance of standards-based implementation [19].”

• cites [19] [19] Andre Pimenta Freire, Rudinei Goularte, and Renata Pontin de Mattos Fortes. 2007. Techniques for developing more accessible web applications: a survey towards a process classification. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (El Paso, Texas, USA) (SIGDOC '07) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 162-169. doi:10. 1145/1297144.1297177 - sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Even professional websites often fail to meet basic accessibility requirements; according to WebAIM's 2025 audit of one million homepages, 94.8% contained WCAG violations.

“According to WebAIM's 2025 audit of one million homepages, 94.8% contained WCAG violations [58].”

• cites [58] [58] WebAIM. 2025. The 2025 report on the accessibility of the top 1,000,000 home pages. https://webaim.org/projects/million/ -Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Existing tools often focus on compliance validation or offer static checklists with limited contextual support, creating barriers for students and novice practitioners.

“Existing tools often focus on compliance validation or offer static checklists with limited contextual support. This creates barriers for students and novice practitioners who need accessible, structured entry points into the complex landscape of standards and guidelines.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

User-centred evaluation and expert consulting can reveal real-world barriers, but these methods demand time, expertise, and careful planning, and are not always accessible to novices.

“Involving users with disabilities through usability testing or expert reviews can reveal real-world barriers [37]. However, these methods demand time, expertise, and careful planning, and are not always accessible to novices.”

• cites [37] [37] Darliane Miranda and João Araujo. 2022. Studying industry practices of accessibility requirements in agile development. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing (Virtual Event) (SAC '22) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1309-1317. doi:10.1145/3477314.3507041 - sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Formal accessibility education remains rare and often lacks practical depth; retention is low without hands-on application.

“Formal accessibility education remains rare and often lacks practical depth. Where it exists, retention is low without hands-on application [36, 37, 59].”

• cites [36] [36] Christian Meske, Florian Brachten, Ayseguel Doganguen, and Julia Hermann. 2025. Inclusive IT Design in Higher Education. In HCI International 2024 - Late Breaking Papers , Margherita Antona, Constantine Stephanidis, Qin Gao, and Jia Zhou (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 54-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-031-76818-7\_5 - sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [37] [37] Darliane Miranda and João Araujo. 2022. Studying industry practices of accessibility requirements in agile development. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing (Virtual Event) (SAC '22) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1309-1317. doi:10.1145/3477314.3507041 - sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [59] [59] Qiwen Zhao, Vaishnavi Mande, Paula Conn, Sedeeq Al-khazraji, Kristen Shinohara, Stephanie Ludi, and Matt Huenerfauth. 2020. Comparison of Methods for Teaching Accessibility in University Computing Courses. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Virtual Event, Greece) (ASSETS '20) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 6, 12 pages. doi:10.1145/3373625.3417013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

AI-powered accessibility checkers like WAVE, axe, and Microsoft Accessibility Insights help identify common accessibility issues and offer automated feedback, but their usefulness for beginners remains limited because they assume prior knowledge, provide little context, and do not improve the clarity or structure of the underlying requirements.

“Accessibility Checkers like WAVE, axe, and Microsoft Accessibility Insights 5 help identify common accessibility issues and offer automated feedback [50, 54]. However, their usefulness for beginners remains limited: they assume prior knowledge, provide little context, and do not improve the clarity or structure of the underlying requirements.”

• cites [50] [50] Statista. 2024. Number of artificial intelligence (AI) tool users globally from 2020 to 2030. https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1449844/ai-tool-users-worldwide -Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [54] [54] Stanford University. 2024. Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2024. -Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

While many existing tools prioritise implementation checks, few focus on comprehension and relevance estimation before design decisions are made.

“While many existing tools prioritise implementation checks, few focus on comprehension and relevance estimation before design decisions are made.”

May combine two claims.

Many students lack structured opportunities to work with accessibility requirements in applied contexts, and their practical skills in this area are limited despite a generally high awareness of its importance.

“Consequently, many students lack structured opportunities to work with accessibility requirements in applied contexts, and studies show that their practical skills in this area are limited despite a generally high awareness of its importance [56].”

• cites [56] [56] Renata Vinadé and Sabrina Marczak. 2024. Educating for Accessibility: Insights into Knowledge Gaps and Practical Challenges in Software Engineering. In Proceedings of the XXIII Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality (SBQS '24) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 646-656. doi:10. 1145/3701625.3701689 - sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Despite growing awareness and legal pressure, accessibility implementation remains fragmented, particularly when it comes to locating and interpreting requirements in early-stage design.

“Despite growing awareness and legal pressure, accessibility implementation remains fragmented, particularly when it comes to locating and interpreting requirements in early-stage design.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Natural language templates adapted from Pohl and Rupp are widely used in requirements engineering to increase consistency and readability.

“We applied natural language templates adapted from Pohl and Rupp [45], which are widely used in requirements engineering (RE) to increase consistency and readability.”

• cites Pohl and Rupp [45] [45] Klaus Pohl and Chris Rupp. 2011. Requirements Engineering Fundamentals: A Study Guide for the Certified Professional for Requirements Engineering Exam Foundation Level - IREB compliant . Rocky Nook, Santa Barbara, CA. -Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Partial transcripts were compiled manually by authors two and three, who independently reviewed the sessions and initially identified recurring patterns.

“Partial transcripts were compiled manually by authors two and three, who independently reviewed the sessions and initially identified recurring patterns.”

May combine two claims.

The prototype was developed and evaluated in German to ensure accessibility for the target user group and to avoid unnecessary comprehension barriers during testing.

“The prototype was developed and evaluated in German to ensure accessibility for the target user group (undergraduate HCI students in Germany) and to avoid unnecessary comprehension barriers during testing.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The English tooltips would not significantly impair comprehension for the academic target group.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The study complied with applicable ethical and data protection standards.

“The study complied with applicable ethical and data protection standards.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Eight undergraduate HCI students (P1-P8) participated in moderated, remote sessions via Discord.

“Eight undergraduate HCI students (P1-P8) participated in moderated, remote sessions via the Discord 9 platform, enabling screen sharing and verbal protocol collection.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

No personal data were collected or stored.

“No personal data were collected or stored.”

May combine two claims.

The limited integration of accessibility requirements was not due to disinterest, but rather a combination of structural and perceptual barriers: low awareness of formal standards, insufficient curricular emphasis on accessibility, and a perceived lack of relevance for typical design scenarios.

“This limited integration of accessibility requirements was not due to disinterest, but rather a combination of structural and perceptual barriers: (1) low awareness of formal standards, (2) insufficient curricular emphasis on accessibility, and (3) a perceived lack of relevance for typical design scenarios.”

May combine two claims.

The prototype suggests that accessible presentation of requirements can support early engagement with accessibility and serve as a low-threshold entry point in applied HCI projects.

“While not a comprehensive educational tool, the prototype suggests that accessible presentation of requirements can support early engagement with accessibility and serve as a low-threshold entry point in applied HCI projects.”

May combine two claims.

According to recent WebAIM statistics, online shopping websites exhibit the highest average number of accessibility errors across industry sectors (71.2 errors per page on average), significantly above the general benchmark of 51.

“According to recent WebAIM statistics [58], online shopping websites exhibit the highest average number of accessibility errors across industry sectors (71.2 errors per page on average), significantly above the general benchmark of 51.”

• cites WebAIM statistics [58]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Participants could withdraw at any point without consequence.

“Participants could withdraw at any point without consequence.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

All participants were informed about the study purpose and voluntarily consented to take part.

“All participants were informed about the study purpose and voluntarily consented to take part.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Participants were purposefully selected to reflect the intended user group of the tool: undergraduate HCI students with varying levels of prior experience in web development and digital accessibility.

“They were purposefully selected to reflect the intended user group of the tool: undergraduate HCI students with varying levels of prior experience in web development and digital accessibility.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The prototype was specifically developed for use in a controlled study context and is not optimised for broader deployment or curricular integration at this stage.

“The prototype was specifically developed for use in a controlled study context and is not optimised for broader deployment or curricular integration at this stage.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Emerging themes were discussed iteratively with the other authors and reviewed in several alignment meetings to ensure consistency and plausibility, with discrepancies resolved through consensus.

“Emerging themes (e.g., 'navigation strategies', 'requirement clarity', 'terminology issues') were discussed iteratively with the other authors and reviewed in several alignment meetings to ensure consistency and plausibility. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus.”

May combine two claims.

Although participants generally held positive attitudes towards inclusive design, they often lacked both exposure and guided access to applicable accessibility knowledge, underscoring the value of low-threshold, example-based tools like the prototype A11yGuide for helping HCI students understand and locate accessibility requirements in early design phases.

“These findings suggest that although participants generally held positive attitudes towards inclusive design, they often lacked both exposure and guided access to applicable accessibility knowledge, underscoring the value of low-threshold, example-based tools like our prototype A11yGuide for helping HCI students understand and locate accessibility requirements in early design phases.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Qualitative data were analysed using a descriptive thematic summary approach inspired by Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis.

“Qualitative data, including verbal statements from the thinkingaloud protocol and responses from post-session interviews, were analysed using a descriptive thematic summary approach inspired by Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis [6].”

• cites Braun and Clarke [6] [6] Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77-101. - sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

These findings underscore the importance of domain scaffolding, consistent terminology, and contextual design support.

“These findings underscore the importance of domain scaffolding, consistent terminology, and contextual design support.”

May combine two claims.

These usability issues are not only indicative of interface friction, but may also reflect broader gaps in participants' conceptual understanding of accessibility domains.

“These usability issues are not only indicative of interface friction, but may also reflect broader gaps in participants' conceptual understanding of accessibility domains.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

Comprehension alone may not be sufficient; educational tools must also help users understand the rationale behind accessibility measures.

“Our results suggest that comprehension alone may not be sufficient - educational tools must also help users understand the rationale behind accessibility measures.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Scaffolding strategies that frame both the 'how' and the 'why' of accessibility are advocated by pattern-based or example-driven approaches.

“This reinforces the case for scaffolding strategies that frame both the 'how' and the 'why' of accessibility, as advocated by pattern-based or example-driven approaches [12].”

• cites [12] [12] Cristian Bernareggi Daniela Fogli, Loredana Parasiliti Provenza. 2010. A design pattern language for accessible web sites. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (Roma, Italy) (AVI '10) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 307-310. doi:10.1145/1842993. 1843048 - sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

These results underscore the importance of consistent terminology, intuitive category labelling, and accessible language, especially in tools designed for novice users with limited domain knowledge.

“These results underscore the importance of consistent terminology, intuitive category labelling, and accessible language, especially in tools designed for novice users with limited domain knowledge.”

May combine two claims.

Although only one participant explicitly said they would recommend the prototype to peers, the overall feedback suggests that its design and structure offer strong potential to support requirement access and exploration, especially in educational or early-phase design contexts.

“Although only one participant explicitly said they would recommend the prototype to peers, the overall feedback suggests that its design and structure offer strong potential to support requirement access and exploration, especially in educational or early-phase design contexts.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The feedback points to concrete design and content improvements that could increase accessibility and reduce effort when retrieving and interpreting requirements.

“The feedback points to concrete design and content improvements that could increase accessibility and reduce effort when retrieving and interpreting requirements.”

May combine two claims.

This limited experience may explain why priority estimation was inconsistent despite clear wording, and why structural or abstract requirements were occasionally misunderstood or underestimated.

“This limited experience may explain why priority estimation was inconsistent despite clear wording, and why structural or abstract requirements were occasionally misunderstood or underestimated.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

All reading tasks used rewritten content tailored for novice users, focusing on reduced complexity, clearer phrasing, and embedded examples.

“All reading tasks used rewritten content tailored for novice users, focusing on reduced complexity, clearer phrasing, and embedded examples.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Differences in web development experience may have influenced clarity ratings and task success, particularly in reading tasks requiring prior technical knowledge.

“Differences in web development experience may have influenced clarity ratings and task success, particularly in reading tasks requiring prior technical knowledge.”

May combine two claims.

The study focused on a small and relatively homogeneous sample of 8 participants, all students under 30 enrolled in the same HCI-related bachelor's program.

“The study focused on a small and relatively homogeneous sample ( 𝑛 = 8), all of whom were students under 30 enrolled in the same HCI-related bachelor's program.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The sample size is in line with typical qualitative usability and comprehension studies in HCI.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The sentence template used in reading tasks was adapted from Pohl and Rupp and applied uniformly.

“The sentence template used in reading tasks was adapted from Pohl and Rupp and applied uniformly.”

• cites Pohl and RuppNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Lecture-based exposure alone does not ensure long-term competence in accessibility.

“This echoes findings that lecture-based exposure alone does not ensure long-term competence in accessibility [59].”

• cites [59] [59] Qiwen Zhao, Vaishnavi Mande, Paula Conn, Sedeeq Al-khazraji, Kristen Shinohara, Stephanie Ludi, and Matt Huenerfauth. 2020. Comparison of Methods for Teaching Accessibility in University Computing Courses. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Virtual Event, Greece) (ASSETS '20) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 6, 12 pages. doi:10.1145/3373625.3417013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The findings are not intended to be generalised to other populations or professional settings, but offer targeted insights for similar learning environments.

“While findings are therefore not intended to be generalised to other populations or professional settings, they offer targeted insights for similar learning environments.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The prototype's intended user group is students under 30 enrolled in the same HCI-related bachelor's program.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The sentence template may not be optimal for all types of content.

“While this showed promise, it may not be optimal for all types of content.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Prototypes like the one presented here can complement educational efforts by making standards more approachable and actionable.

“Prototypes like the one presented here can complement educational efforts by making standards more approachable and actionable.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Global accessibility legislation continues to evolve.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The ability to engage with technical requirements is becoming an essential design skill.

May combine two claims.

The prototype improved navigation and terminology support, helping participants locate relevant standards more efficiently.

“The prototype improved navigation and terminology support, helping participants locate relevant standards more efficiently.”