Validity and reliability of web accessibility guidelines

ASSETS'09 - Proceedings of the 11th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 131-138

  Brajnik, Giorgio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UDINE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Accessibility evaluation; Evaluation; Web accessibility guidelines

Indexed keywords

ACCESSIBILITY EVALUATION; KEY FACTORS; SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE; SMALL-SCALE EXPERIMENT; WEB ACCESSIBILITY; WEB CONTENT ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES; WEB DEVELOPERS;

EXPERIMENTS; RELIABILITY;

QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 72249092512     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1639642.1639666     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (24)

1. G. Brajnik. Comparing accessibility evaluation tools: a method for tool effectiveness. Int. Journal on Universal Access in the Information Society, 3(3-4):252-263, Oct. 2004.
2. G. Brajnik. Beyond conformance: the role of accessibility evaluation methods. In S. Hartmann, X. Zhou, and M. Kirchberg, editors, WISE 2008: 9th Int. Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering - 2nd International Workshop on Web Usability and Accessibility IWWU A08, LNCS 5176, pages 63-80, Auckland, New Zealand, Sept. 2008. Springer-Verlag. Keynote speech.
3. G. Brajnik. A comparative test of web accessibility evaluation methods. In S. Harper, editor, 10th Int. ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS, Halifax, Canada, Oct. 2008. ACM Press.
4. G. Brajnik. Towards a sustainable accessibility. In Accessible Design in the Digital World,York, UK, September 22-24 2008. http://www.addw08. orgYork University.
5. G. Brajnik, A. Mulas, and C. Pitton. Effects of sampling methods on web accessibility evaluations. In S. Trewin and E. Pontelli, editors, 9th Int. ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS, Tempe, AZ, Oct. 2007. ACM Press.
6. DRC. Formal investigation report: web accessibility. Disability Rights Commission, www.drc-gb.org/ publicationsandreports/report.asp, April 2004. Visited Jan. 2006.
7. S. Henry and M. Grossnickle. Just Ask: Accessibility in the User-Centered Design Process.Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 2004. On-line book: www.UIAccess.com/AccessUCD.
8. M. Hertzum and N. Jacobsen. The evaluator effect: a chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. Int. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1(4):421-443, 2001.
9. K. Hornbæk and E. Frøkjær. A study of the evaluator effect in usability testing. Human-Computer Interaction, 23:251-277, 2008.
10. Italian Government. Technical assessment and technical accessibility requirements of internet technology-based applications. http://www. pubbliaccesso.it/normative/DM080705-A-en.htm, July 2005.
11. B. Kelly, D. Sloan, S. Brown, J. Seale, H. Petrie, P. Lauke, and S. Ball. Accessibility 2.0: people, policies and processes. In W4A '07: Proc. of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A), pages 138-147, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.
12. T. Lang. Comparing website accessibility evaluation methods and learnings from usability evaluation methods. http://www.peakusability.com.au/ about-us/pdf/website-accessibility.pdf, Visited May 2008, 2003.
13. J. Mankoff, H. Fait, and T. Tran. Is your web page accessible?: a comparative study of methods for assessing web page accessibility for the blind. In CHI 2005: Proc. of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 41-50, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM.
14. H. Petrie, F. Hamilton, N. King, and P. Pavan. Remote usability evaluations with disabled people. In CHI 2006: Proc. of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 1133-1141, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM.
15. H. Petrie and O. Kheir. The relationship between accessibility and usability of websites. In Proc. CHI 2007, pages 397-406, San Jose, CA, USA, 2007. ACM.
16. G. Sampson-Wild. Testability costs too much. http://www.alistapart.com/ articles/testability, June 2007.
17. J. Slatin and S. Rush. Maximum Accessibility: Making Your Web SiteMoreUsablefor Everyone. Addison-Wesley, 2003.
18. J. Smith. Testability in WCAG 2.0. http://webaim.org/blog/wcag-2- testability, June 2007.
19. J. Thatcher, M. Burks, C. Heilmann, S. Henry, A. Kirkpatrick, P. Lauke, B. Lawson, B. Regan, R. Rutter, M. Urban, and C. Waddell. Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance. FriendsofED, 2006.
20. U.S. Dept. of Justice. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.22.htm, 2001.
21. W3C/WAI. Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Checklists and Techniques. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/ WD-wcag2-tech-req-20030207, 2003.
22. W3C/WAI. Conformance evaluation of web sites for accessibility. www.w3.org/WAI/eval/conformance.html, 2008. Visited May 2008.
23. W3C/WAI. Web content accessibility guidelines (wcag) 2.0. World Wide Web Consortium - Web Accessibility Initiative, www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20, December 2008.
24. Y. Yesilada, G. Brajnik, and S. Harper. How Much Does Expertise Matter? A Barrier Walkthrough Study with Experts and Non-Experts. In Proc. of 11th Int. ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility - ASSETS 2009, Pittsburgh, PA, Oct. 2009. ACM SIGACCESS.