1,721,121 research outputs found
Accessibility of Big and Broad Data
No full text<p>@article{Harper2014aa,<br>Abstract = {Visually disabled people typically use methods of 'sensory translation' to access data via assistive technology. These technologies conventionally render content under the direction of the user into a form that can be perceived by that user -- in effect the interface and content are adapted to suit their sensory requirements -- but simple sensory translation is not enough for big, broad and complex data. Why is this -- and how can things be better?},<br>Author = {Simon Harper},<br>Date-Added = {2014-05-27 13:03:23 +0000},<br>Date-Modified = {2014-05-27 13:03:34 +0000},<br>Doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1037547},<br>Howpublished = {Slideshare},<br>Journal = {Invited Talk - Human Behaviour Network, Manchester Informatics, Manchester UK},<br>Month = {May},<br>Title = {Accessibility of Big and Broad Data - http://goo.gl/UpekPK},<br>Url = {http://www.slideshare.net/simon-harper/accessibility-of-big-broad-data},<br>Year = {2014},<br>Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://www.slideshare.net/simon-harper/accessibility-of-big-broad-data},<br>Bdsk-Url-2 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1037547}}</p>
<p> </p
Is accessibility conformance an elusive property? A study of validity and reliability of WCAG 2.0
No full textThe Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 separate testing into both “Machine” and “Human”
audits; and further classify “Human Testability” into “Reliably Human Testable” and “Not Reliably Testable”;
it is human testability that is the focus of this paper. We wanted to investigate the likelihood that “at least 80%
of knowledgeable human evaluators would agree on the conclusion” of an accessibility audit, and therefore
understand the percentage of success criteria that could be described as reliably human testable, and those
that could not. In this case, we recruited twenty-five experienced evaluators to audit four pages for WCAG
2.0 conformance. These pages were chosen to differ in layout, complexity, and accessibility support, thereby
creating a small but variable sample.
We found that an 80% agreement between experienced evaluators almost never occurred and that the
average agreement was at the 70–75% mark, while the error rate was around 29%. Further, trained—but
novice—evaluators performing the same audits exhibited the same agreement to that of our more experienced
ones, but a reduction on validity of 6–13%; the validity that an untrained user would attain can only be a
conjecture. Expertise appears to improve (by 19%) the ability to avoid false positives. Finally, pooling the
results of two independent experienced evaluators would be the best option, capturing at most 76% of the
true problems and producing only 24% of false positives. Any other independent combination of audits would
achieve worse results.
This means that an 80% target for agreement, when audits are conducted without communication between
evaluators, is not attainable, even with experienced evaluators, when working on pages similar to the ones
used in this experiment; that the error rate even for experienced evaluators is relatively high and further,
that untrained accessibility auditors be they developers or quality testers from other domains, would do
much worse than this
How Much Does Expertise Matter? A Barrier Walkthrough Study with Experts and Non-Experts
No full textManual accessibility evaluation plays an important role in validating the accessibility of Web pages. This role has become increasingly critical with the advent of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 and their reliance on user evaluation to validate certain conformance measures. However, the role of expertise, in such evaluations, is unknown and has not previously been studied. This paper sets out to investigate the interplay between expert and non-expert evaluation by conducting a Barrier Walkthrough (BW) study with 19 expert and 51 non-expert judges. The BW method provides an evaluation framework that can be used to manually assess the accessibility of Web pages for different user groups including motor impaired, hearing impaired, low vision, cognitive impaired, etc. We conclude that the level of expertise is an important factor in the quality of accessibility evaluation of Web pages. Expert judges spent significantly less time than non-experts; rated themselves as more productive and confident than non-experts; and ranked and rated pages differently against each type of disability. Finally, both effectiveness and reliability of the expert judges are significantly higher than non-expert judges
Understanding web accessibility and its drivers
No full textAccess is what the web is 'about', it is the motivation behind its creation, and it is the rationale behind HTML. The desire to provide all users at CERN with the ability to access all documents was Tim Berners-Lee's primary goal, and this goal must also be carried through to equal access for all users. But this equality of access -- accessibility -- is difficult to quantify, define, or agree upon. In a constantly evolving field, understanding each other can be tricky; indeed, there are many different definitions in the literature, all with a different perspective. This makes it difficult for our community to interact, reach agreement, or share understanding. What is more, it makes it very difficult for those outside the web accessibility community to understand, plan, budget, enact policy, or conform to accessibility requirements and legislation when the community itself has so many, in some cases, conflicting definitions. We asked over 300 people, with an interest in accessibility, to discuss their views and definitions in an attempt to harmonise our understanding and support the expectations of users outside the community. We find that misunderstanding accessibility definitions, language, and terms might cause tension between different groups. That social, and not economic, aspects drive our perspectives of accessibility, and that definitions used by standards and regulatory bodies are most accepted - not those of individual experts. Forcing accessibility adoption does not encourage the acceptance of an accessibility ethos, but providing empirical evidence that accessibility benefits all, does. Finally, realistic and concise language was preferred when attempting to communicate, or define accessibility
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
No full textThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
No full text“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
No full textWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Model-based engineering of user interfaces to support cognitive load estimation in automotive applications
No full textIn this brief position paper we argue that model-driven engineering
practices could be adopted in the design and evaluation of automo-
tive UI. We illustrate how UML state machine models can be used
for automatic generation of executable prototypes of the UI and for
computing graph-theoretic metrics that could bear upon cognitive
load
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
No full textWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
