Comparing ten WCAG tools for accessibility evaluation of websites

IF 0.7 Q4 REHABILITATION

Technology and Disability Pub Date : 2021-04-06 DOI:10.3233/TAD-210329

Shashank Kumar, Jeevithashree Dv, P. Biswas

{"title":"Comparing ten WCAG tools for accessibility evaluation of websites","authors":"Shashank Kumar, Jeevithashree Dv, P. Biswas","doi":"10.3233/TAD-210329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND: Web accessibility is one of the most important aspects of building a website. It is important for web developers to ensure that their website is accessible according to WCAG standards for people with different range of abilities. There is plethora of tools for ensuring conformance to WCAG standards but not many studies compared performance of automatic WCAG tools. OBJECTIVE: This paper compares a set of ten WCAG tools and their results in terms of ease of comprehension and interpretation by web developers. We proposed a Common User Profile format to help personalize contents of website making it accessible to people with different range of abilities. METHODS: We selected ten WCAG tools from World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) to evaluate landing pages of two popular websites. For each webpage, we identified accessibility issues and recommended alternate suggestions to help developers improve accessibility. Further, we highlighted accessibility issues that cannot be captured only through conformance to WCAG tools; and proposed additional methods to evaluate accessibility through an Inclusive User Model. We then demonstrated how simulation of user interaction can capture usability and accessibility issues that are not detected through only syntactic analysis of websites’ content. Finally, we proposed a Common User Profile format that can be used to compare and contrast accessibility systems and services, and to simulate and personalize interaction for users with different range of abilities. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: After careful evaluation of two websites using the ten tools, we noted that, both websites lacked color contrast between background and foreground; lack of sign language alternatives; opening of pop-ups without proper warnings and so on. Further, results from comparative analysis of selected web accessibility tools noted that, there is no single tool that can be found ideal in all aspects. However, from our study, Utilitia Validator by Utilitia SP. z O.O was considered the most feasible tool. By rectifying and incorporating issues and alternate suggestions by simulation study and Common User Profile format respectively, developers can improve both websites making it accessible to maximum audience.","PeriodicalId":22201,"journal":{"name":"Technology and Disability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3233/TAD-210329","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technology and Disability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/TAD-210329","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Web accessibility is one of the most important aspects of building a website. It is important for web developers to ensure that their website is accessible according to WCAG standards for people with different range of abilities. There is plethora of tools for ensuring conformance to WCAG standards but not many studies compared performance of automatic WCAG tools. OBJECTIVE: This paper compares a set of ten WCAG tools and their results in terms of ease of comprehension and interpretation by web developers. We proposed a Common User Profile format to help personalize contents of website making it accessible to people with different range of abilities. METHODS: We selected ten WCAG tools from World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) to evaluate landing pages of two popular websites. For each webpage, we identified accessibility issues and recommended alternate suggestions to help developers improve accessibility. Further, we highlighted accessibility issues that cannot be captured only through conformance to WCAG tools; and proposed additional methods to evaluate accessibility through an Inclusive User Model. We then demonstrated how simulation of user interaction can capture usability and accessibility issues that are not detected through only syntactic analysis of websites’ content. Finally, we proposed a Common User Profile format that can be used to compare and contrast accessibility systems and services, and to simulate and personalize interaction for users with different range of abilities. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: After careful evaluation of two websites using the ten tools, we noted that, both websites lacked color contrast between background and foreground; lack of sign language alternatives; opening of pop-ups without proper warnings and so on. Further, results from comparative analysis of selected web accessibility tools noted that, there is no single tool that can be found ideal in all aspects. However, from our study, Utilitia Validator by Utilitia SP. z O.O was considered the most feasible tool. By rectifying and incorporating issues and alternate suggestions by simulation study and Common User Profile format respectively, developers can improve both websites making it accessible to maximum audience.

查看原文本刊更多论文

比较10种WCAG网站可访问性评估工具

背景：网络可访问性是建立网站最重要的方面之一。对于网络开发人员来说，确保他们的网站能够根据WCAG标准访问是很重要的，该标准适用于不同能力的人。有过多的工具可以确保符合WCAG标准，但没有多少研究比较自动WCAG工具的性能。目的：本文比较了一组十个WCAG工具及其结果，以便于web开发人员理解和解释。我们提出了一种通用用户档案格式，以帮助个性化网站内容，使不同能力的人都可以访问。方法：我们从万维网联盟（W3C）中选择了10个WCAG工具来评估两个热门网站的登录页。对于每个网页，我们都确定了可访问性问题，并推荐了其他建议，以帮助开发人员提高可访问性。此外，我们强调了仅通过遵守WCAG工具无法解决的可访问性问题；并提出了通过包容性用户模型评估可访问性的其他方法。然后，我们展示了用户交互的模拟如何捕捉可用性和可访问性问题，而这些问题仅通过网站内容的语法分析是无法检测到的。最后，我们提出了一种通用用户配置文件格式，可用于比较和对比无障碍系统和服务，并为具有不同能力的用户模拟和个性化交互。结果与结论：在使用这十种工具对两个网站进行仔细评估后，我们注意到，这两个网站都缺乏背景和前景之间的颜色对比；缺乏手语替代品；此外，对所选网络访问工具的比较分析结果表明，没有一个工具在各个方面都是理想的。然而，从我们的研究来看，Utilitia SP.z O.O的Utilitia Validator被认为是最可行的工具。通过分别通过模拟研究和通用用户配置文件格式纠正和合并问题和替代建议，开发人员可以改进这两个网站，使其可供最大受众访问。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Technology and Disability Medicine-Rehabilitation

CiteScore

1.40

自引率

20.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Technology and Disability communicates knowledge about the field of assistive technology devices and services, within the context of the lives of end users - persons with disabilities and their family members. While the topics are technical in nature, the articles are written for broad comprehension despite the reader"s education or training. Technology and Disability"s contents cover research and development efforts, education and training programs, service and policy activities and consumer experiences. - The term Technology refers to assistive devices and services. - The term Disability refers to both permanent and temporary functional limitations experienced by people of any age within any circumstance.