Christopher Bailey Dr. Elaine Pearson Teesside University [email protected] An Educational Tool to Support the Accessibility Evaluation Process
Christopher BaileyDr. Elaine Pearson
Teesside University
An Educational Tool to Support the Accessibility Evaluation Process
Main Issues
• Guide novice auditors through an evaluation, raise awareness of accessibility.
• Compile a detailed list of checks based on testing for well known accessibility principles
• Support a contextual approach to evaluation.
• Our students need support with accessibility:
– Little existing knowledge of accessibility– Develop live websites for specific audiences– Accessibility personally a low priority– Limited access to disabled end users– Limited access to expert reviewers
Functionality (1)
• The tool lists accessibility checks based on three evaluation contexts:
– User Group– Site Features– Check Categories
• For each check, the tool:
– States the impact the issue has on users– Provides instructions on how to perform each check – Assists auditor in interpreting result of any
automated check– Includes a video ‘how to’ walkthrough
Functionality (2)
• Auditor records results of checks as they progress.
• Print a template, or completed evaluation report.
• Supports multiple users
• Supports multiple site evaluations.
• User can save/retrieve evaluations.
Evaluate by User Group• Auditor views prioritised checks for one user group
• Compare different requirements of two user groups.
• Importance of check is dynamic:
– Critical Checks: Complete barrier, significant annoyance to user.
– Important Checks: Noticeable annoyance or inconvenience
• Allows auditor to see commonalities, but also identify exceptions.
• Utilises the full database of checks, supporting the concept of universal accessibility
• Checks are grouped to make process simpler and intuitive
– Design Checks: overall visual design, e.g.: colour contrast– User Checks: testing with a human element, e.g.: keyboard
accessibility, image text alternatives– Structural Checks: structure of web pages, e.g.: semantic HTML– Technical Checks: coding elements, e.g.: valid mark-up,
metadata– Core Checks: Overall accessibility of site, e.g.: site map,
accessibility statement
• Considers roles in web development team
Evaluate by Check Categories
Evaluate by Site Features
• Auditor selects elements of their site they wish to check, e.g.: data tables, forms.
• Auditor selects content features of their website, e.g.: video files.
• Checks are tailored to content of website:
– Prioritises relevant checks– Streamlines process– Increases relevance– Eliminates redundancy.
Future Work• “Dogfooding” – Create accessible RIA
• Further development of tool over next 2-3 months.
• Used for teaching Post Graduate students.
• Expanded to include checks for other contexts, e.g.: WCAG 2.0, Mobile Devices, RIAs.
• Test the performance of the tool:
– Is it effective?– Are results consistent?– Compare with existing evaluation methods.
Christopher BaileyDr. Elaine Pearson
Teesside University
An Educational Tool to Support the Accessibility Evaluation Process
AEA Interface (1)
• Example comparison of high priority checks for Dyslexia and Screen Reader User groups.
AEA Interface (2)
• For each check the following information is provided:
– Why the check is necessary– Step by step instructions on how to carry out the check– A video walkthrough
AEA Interface (3)
• The AEA contains an integrated reporting mechanism so the auditor can record their results as they complete an evaluation.