Testability and validity of WCAG 2.0: The expertise effect

ASSETS'10 - Proceedings of the 12th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 43-50

  Brajnik, Giorgio ^a   Yesilada, Yeliz ^b   Harper, Simon ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UDINE   (Italy)

^b MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Expertise; Guideline; Web accessibility

Indexed keywords

EMPIRICAL STUDIES; EVALUATION; EXPERTISE; FALSE NEGATIVES; FALSE POSITIVE; GUIDELINE; TESTABILITY; WEB ACCESSIBILITY; WEB CONTENT ACCESSIBILITY; WEB CONTENT ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES; WEB PAGE;

WEBSITES;

EID: 78650616743     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1878803.1878813     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. S. Abou-Zahra. Web accessibility evaluation. In S. Harper and Y. Yesilada, editors, Web Accessibility: A Foundation for Research, Human-Computer Interaction Series, chapter 7, pages 79-106. Springer, London, first edition, Sept. 2008.
2. F. Alonso, J.L. Fuertes, A.L. González, and L. Martínez. On the testability of wcag 2.0 for beginners. In Web for All W4A 2010, Raleigh, USA, April 2010. ACM.
3. 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.
4. 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 IWWUA08, LNCS 5176, pages 63-80, Auckland, New Zealand, Sept. 2008. Springer-Verlag. Keynote speech.
5. B. Caldwell, M. Cooper, L.G. Reid, and G. Vanderheiden. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. W3C, 2008. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.
6. M. Catani and D. Biers. Usability evaluation and prototype fidelity: users and usability professionals. In Proc. of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, 1998.
7. K.P. Coyne and J. Nielsen. How to conduct usability evaluations for accessibility: methodology guidelines for testing websites and intranets with users who use assistive technology. http://www.nngroup.com/reports/ accessibility/testing, Nielsen Norman Group, Oct. 2001.
8. DRC. The web: Access and inclusion for disabled people. Technical Report, Disability Rights Commission (DRC), UK, 2004.
9. A. D. N. Edwards. Assistive technologies. In S. Harper and Y. Yesilada, editors, Web Accessibility: A Foundation for Research, Human-Computer Interaction Series, chapter 10, pages 142-162. Springer, London, first edition, Sept. 2008.
10. S.L. 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.
11. M. Hertzum and N.E. Jacobsen. The evaluator effect during first-time use of the cognitive walkthrough technique. In Proc. of HCI International on Human-Computer Interaction: Ergonomics and User Interfaces-Volume I, pages 1063-1067, 1999.
12. M. Hertzum and N.E. Jacobsen. The evaluator effect: a chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. Int. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1(4):421-443, 2001.
13. M. Hertzum, N.E. Jacobsen, and R. Molich. Usability inspections by groups of specialists: Perceived agreement in spite of disparate observations. In CHI 2002 Extended Abstracts, pages 662-663. ACM, ACM Press, 2002.
14. K. Hornbæk and E. Frøkjær. A study of the evaluator effect in usability testing. Human-Computer Interaction, 23(3):251-277, 2008.
15. N.E. Jacobsen, M. Hertzum, and B. John. The evaluator effect in usability tests. In CHI '98, pages 255-256. ACM, 1998.
16. C. Jay, D. Lunn, and E. Michailidou. End user evaluations. In S. Harper and Y. Yesilada, editors, Web Accessibility: A Foundation for Research, Human-Computer Interaction Series, chapter 8, pages 107-126. Springer, London, first edition, September 2008.
17. 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.
18. C. Ling and G. Salvendy. Effect of evaluators' cognitive style on heuristic evaluation: Field dependent and field independent evaluators. Int. Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67(4):382-393, 2009.
19. J. Nielsen. Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. In Proc. of CHI 1992, pages 373-380, Monterey, CA, USA, May 1992. ACM.
20. J. Nielsen. Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1993.
21. 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.
22. J. Rubin and D. Chisnell. Handbook of Usability Testing. Wiley, second edition, 2008.
23. J. Slatin and S. Rush. Maximum Accessibility: Making Your Web Site More Usable for Everyone. Addison-Wesley, 2003.
24. 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. Friends of ED, 2006.
25. W3C/WAI. Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Checklists and Techniques. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-wcag2-tech-req-20030207, 2003.
26. 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, pages 203-210, Pittsburgh, PA, Oct. 2009.