Shunguo Yan
Abstract
This study evaluated the status of accessibility in mobile apps by investigating the graphical user interface (GUI) structures and conformance to accessibility guidelines of 479 Android apps in 23 business categories from Google Play. An automated tool, IBM Mobile Accessibility Checker (MAC), was used to identify the accessibility issues, which were categorized as a violation (V), potential violation (PV), or warning (W). The results showed 94.8%, 97.5%, and 66.4% of apps studied contained issues related to V, PV, or W, respectively. Five widget categories (TextView, ImageView, View, Button, and ImageButton) were used to create 92% of the total number of the GUI elements and caused 89%, 78%, and 86% of V, PV, and W, respectively. These accessibility issues were mainly caused by lack of element focus, missing element description, low text color contrast, lack of sufficient spacing between elements, and less than minimum sizes of text fonts and elements. Together, these accessibility issues accounted for 97.0%, 77.8%, and 94.5% of V, PV, and W, respectively.
This study proposed coverage measures to estimate the percentage of accessibility issues identified by an automated tool. The result showed that MAC, on average, identified about 67% of accessibility issues in mobile apps.
Two new accessibility conformance measures were proposed in this study: inaccessible element rate (IAER) and accessibility issue rate (AIR). IAER estimates the percentage of GUI elements that are inaccessible. AIR calculates the percentage of the actual number of accessibility issues relative to the maximum number of accessibility issues. Average IAER and AIR scores were 27.3%, 19.9%, 6.3% and 20.7%, 15.0%, 5.4% for V, PV, and W, respectively, for the studied apps. The IAER score showed approximately 30% of the GUI elements had accessibility issues, and the AIR score indicated that 15% of the accessibility issues remained and need to be fixed to make the apps accessible.
- Apple Inc. 2016. Auditing your apps for accessibility. In Proceedings of the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference 2016. Retrieved May 10, 2018 from https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2016/407/.Google Scholar
- Ibtehal S. Baazeem and Head S. Al-Khalifa. 2015. Advancements in web accessibility evaluation methods: How far are we? In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications 8 Services (iiWAS’15). ACM, New York, NY. Google ScholarDigital Library
- John Bailey and Elizabeth Burd. 2007. Towards more mature web maintenance practices for accessibility. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Workshop on Web Site Evolution (WSE’07). IEEE Press, 81--87. Google ScholarDigital Library
- BBC. 2016. Mobile Accessibility Standards and Guidelines v1.0. Retrieved May 10, 2018 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/accessibility/mobile_access.shtml.Google Scholar
- Giorgio Brajnik. 2004. Comparing accessibility evaluation tools: A method for tool effectiveness. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. Arch. 3, 3--4 (2004), 252--263. DOI:https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2698181 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christian Bühler, Helmut Heck, Olaf Perlick, Annika Nietzio, and Nils Ulltveit-Moe. 2006. Interpreting results from large scale automatic evaluation of web accessibility. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (ICCHP’06). 184--191. DOI:https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2097962 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Raphael Clegg-Vinell, Christopher Bailey, and Voula Gkatzidou. 2014. Investigating the appropriateness and relevance of mobile web accessibility guidelines. In Proceedings of the 11th Web for All Conference (W4A’14). ACM, New York, NY. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gartner. 2018. Worldwide Sales of Smartphones During the Fourth Quarter of 2017. Retrieved May 10, 2018 from https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3859963.Google Scholar
- Google LLC. 2016. Accessibility scanner app. Retrieved May 1, 2018 from https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.accessibility.auditor.Google Scholar
- Google LLC. 2017. Accessibility Test Framework for Android. Retrieved February 10, 2018 from https://github.com/google/Accessibility-Test-Framework-for-Android.Google Scholar
- Stephanie Hackett, Bambang Parmanto, and Xiaoming Zeng. 2004. Accessibility of internet websites through time. In Proceedings of the 6th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Assets’04). 32--39. DOI:https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1028638 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vicki L. Hanson and John T. Richards. 2013. Progress on website accessibility? ACM Trans. Web 7, 1 (2013). Google ScholarDigital Library
- IBM Accessibility. 2017. IBM Accessibility Checklist for 7.0. Retrieved March 10, 2018 from https://www.ibm.com/able/guidelines/ci162/accessibility_checklist.html.Google Scholar
- Woo Jin Kim, Il Kon Kim, Man Ki Jeon, and Jongoh Kim. 2016. UX Design guideline for health mobile application to improve accessibility for the visually impaired. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Platform Technology and Service (PlatCon). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barbara Leporine, Maria Claudia, and Marina Buzzi. 2012. Interacting with mobile devices via VoiceOver: Usability and accessibility issues. In Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (OzCHI’12). ACM, New York, NY. 339--348. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rui Lopes and Luís Carriço. 2008. The impact of accessibility assessment in macro scale universal usability studies of the web. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A’08). 5--14. DOI:https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1368048 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fatih Nayebi, Jean-Marc Desharnais, and Alain Abran. 2012. The state of the art of mobile application usability evaluation. In Proceedings of the 25th IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE’12). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Neha Patil, Dhananjay Bhole, and Prasanna Shete. 2016. Enhanced UI Automator Viewer with improved Android accessibility evaluation features. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Automatic Control and Dynamic Optimization Techniques (ICACDOT’16). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA. 977--983.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mauro C. Pichiliani and Celso M. Hirata. 2015. Evaluation of the android accessibility API recognition rate towards a better user experience. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction (UAHCI’15), M. Antona and C. Stephanidis (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Berlin, 340--349.Google Scholar
- Christopher Power, André Freire, Helen Petrie, and David Swallow. 2012. Guidelines are only half of the story: Accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the web. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’12). 433--442. DOI:https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2207736 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Clauirton Siebra, Tatiana Gouveia, Anderson Filho, Walter Correia, Marcelo Penha, Marcelo Anjos, Fabiana Florentin, Fabio Q. B. Silva, and Andre L. M. Santos. 2015. Usability for accessibility—A consolidation of requirements for mobile applications. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers 8 Accessibility (ASSETS’15). ACM, New York, NY. 321--322. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Terry Sullivan and Rebecca Matson. 2000. Barriers to use: Usability and content accessibility on the Web's most popular sites. In Proceedings of the 2000 Conference on Universal Usability (CUU’00). 139--144. DOI:https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=355549 Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. I. Torres-Carazo, M. J. Rodriguez-Fortiz, and M. V. Hurtado. 2016. Analysis and review of apps and serious games on mobile devices intended for people with visual impairment. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health Location (SeGah’16). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA. 11--13.Google Scholar
- United States Access Board. 2017. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Final Standards and Guidelines. Retrieved May 10, 2018 from https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-ict-refresh/final-rule.Google Scholar
- Markel Vigo, Myriam Arrue, Giorgio Brajnik, Raffaella Lomuscio, and Julio Abascal. 2007. Quantitative metrics for measuring web accessibility. In Proceedings of the 2007 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A’07). 99--107. DOI:https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1243465 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Markel Vigo and Giorgio Brajnik. 2011. Automatic web accessibility metrics: Where we are and where we can go. Interact. Comput. 23, 2 (2011). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Markel Vigo and Justin Brown. 2013. Benchmarking web accessibility evaluation tools: Measuring the harm of sole reliance on automated tests. In Proceedings of the 10th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A’13). ACM, New York, NY. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). 2015. Mobile Accessibility: How WCAG 2.0 and Other W3C/WAI Guidelines Apply to Mobile. Retrieved January 10, 2018 from http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-accessibility-mapping.Google Scholar
- WebAIM. 2017. Screen Reader User Survey #7 Results. Retrieved May 10, 2018 from https://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey7/.Google Scholar
- World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). 2008. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Retrieved January 2, 2018 from https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.Google Scholar
- World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). 2015. Cognitive Accessibility User Research. Retrieved January 2, 2018 from https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-user-research/#proposed-directions.Google Scholar
- World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). 2016. Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools List. Retrieved May 1, 2018 from https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/.Google Scholar
- World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). 2016. User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) Overview. Retrieved May 10, 2018 from https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/uaag.php.Google Scholar
- World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). 2016. Understanding WCAG 2.0: A guide to understanding and implementing Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. Retrieved April 19, 2018 from https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/.Google Scholar
- World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). 2018. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. Retrieved August 1, 2018 from https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/.Google Scholar
- Dongsong Zhang, Lina Zhou, Judith O. Uchidiuno, and Isil Y. Kilic. 2017. Personalized assistive web for improving mobile web browsing and accessibility for visually impaired users. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 10, 2 (2017). Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- The Current Status of Accessibility in Mobile Apps
Recommendations
Web accessibility for older users: successes and opportunities (keynote)
W4A '09: Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibililty (W4A)Web accessibility for older users -- are we there yet? We understand many of the needs, however there are some gaps in our knowledge and much integration and adoption still required.
The Web Accessibility Initiative: Ageing Education and Harmonisation (...
Accessibility is Becoming Mainstream
ASSETS '16: Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and AccessibilitySince 1976, when California State University Northridge (CSUN) began its Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference, there have been specialized conferences with an accessibility theme. The first ACM ASSETS Conference was ...
An Exploratory Study about Accessibility, Usability and User Experience with the Visually Impaired using Mobile Applications
SBQS '20: Proceedings of the XIX Brazilian Symposium on Software QualityAccessibility, Usability and User eXperience (UX) are relevant software quality criteria. However, Visually Impaired People (VIP) still face barriers in their interaction with applications on mobile devices due to the lack of quality in the criteria ...
Comments