对结构化演练评估方法与新手和专家的可靠性进行测量和比较

Christopher Bailey, E. Pearson, V. Gkatzidou
{"title":"对结构化演练评估方法与新手和专家的可靠性进行测量和比较","authors":"Christopher Bailey, E. Pearson, V. Gkatzidou","doi":"10.1145/2596695.2596696","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Effective evaluation of websites for accessibility remains problematic. Automated evaluation tools still require a significant manual element. There is also a significant expertise and evaluator effect. The Structured Walkthrough method is the translation of a manual, expert accessibility evaluation process adapted for use by novices. The method is embedded in the Accessibility Evaluation Assistant (AEA), a web accessibility knowledge management tool. Previous trials examined the pedagogical potential of the tool when incorporated into an undergraduate computing curriculum. The results of the evaluations carried out by novices yielded promising, consistent levels of validity and reliability. This paper presents the results of an empirical study that compares the reliability of accessibility evaluations produced by two groups (novices and experts). The main results of this study indicate that overall reliability of expert evaluations was 76% compared to 65% for evaluations produced by novices. The potential of the Structured Walkthrough method as a useful and viable tool for expert evaluators is also examined.","PeriodicalId":339122,"journal":{"name":"International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring and comparing the reliability of the structured walkthrough evaluation method with novices and experts\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Bailey, E. Pearson, V. Gkatzidou\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2596695.2596696\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Effective evaluation of websites for accessibility remains problematic. Automated evaluation tools still require a significant manual element. There is also a significant expertise and evaluator effect. The Structured Walkthrough method is the translation of a manual, expert accessibility evaluation process adapted for use by novices. The method is embedded in the Accessibility Evaluation Assistant (AEA), a web accessibility knowledge management tool. Previous trials examined the pedagogical potential of the tool when incorporated into an undergraduate computing curriculum. The results of the evaluations carried out by novices yielded promising, consistent levels of validity and reliability. This paper presents the results of an empirical study that compares the reliability of accessibility evaluations produced by two groups (novices and experts). The main results of this study indicate that overall reliability of expert evaluations was 76% compared to 65% for evaluations produced by novices. The potential of the Structured Walkthrough method as a useful and viable tool for expert evaluators is also examined.\",\"PeriodicalId\":339122,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2596695.2596696\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2596695.2596696","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

有效评估网站的可访问性仍然是一个问题。自动化评估工具仍然需要大量的手工元素。专家效应和评估者效应也显著。结构化演练方法是对手册、专家可访问性评估过程的翻译,适合新手使用。该方法被嵌入到可访问性评估助手(AEA)中,这是一个网页可访问性知识管理工具。先前的试验检验了将该工具纳入本科计算机课程后的教学潜力。由新手进行的评估结果产生了有希望的、一致的效度和信度水平。本文介绍了一项实证研究的结果,比较了两组(新手和专家)产生的可达性评价的可靠性。本研究的主要结果表明,专家评价的总体信度为76%,而新手评价的总体信度为65%。结构化演练方法的潜力,作为一个有用的和可行的工具,专家评估也进行了审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Measuring and comparing the reliability of the structured walkthrough evaluation method with novices and experts
Effective evaluation of websites for accessibility remains problematic. Automated evaluation tools still require a significant manual element. There is also a significant expertise and evaluator effect. The Structured Walkthrough method is the translation of a manual, expert accessibility evaluation process adapted for use by novices. The method is embedded in the Accessibility Evaluation Assistant (AEA), a web accessibility knowledge management tool. Previous trials examined the pedagogical potential of the tool when incorporated into an undergraduate computing curriculum. The results of the evaluations carried out by novices yielded promising, consistent levels of validity and reliability. This paper presents the results of an empirical study that compares the reliability of accessibility evaluations produced by two groups (novices and experts). The main results of this study indicate that overall reliability of expert evaluations was 76% compared to 65% for evaluations produced by novices. The potential of the Structured Walkthrough method as a useful and viable tool for expert evaluators is also examined.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信