A web design framework for improved accessibility for people with disabilities (WDFAD)
W4A '08 Proceedings of the 2008 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A)
An evaluation of web accessibility metrics based on their attributes
Proceedings of the 26th annual ACM international conference on Design of communication
Redefining assumptions: accessibility and its stakeholders
ICCHP'10 Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Computers helping people with special needs: Part I
Macroscopic characterisations of Web accessibility
The New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia - Web Accessibility
On web accessibility evaluation environments
Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility
Assessing the effort of repairing the accessibility of web sites
ICCHP'12 Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs - Volume Part I
Three web accessibility evaluation perspectives for RIA
Proceedings of the 10th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility
An approach to improve the accessibility and usability of existing web system
Proceedings of the 31st ACM international conference on Design of communication
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
This paper details a comparative experimental study to understand the difference of the Web's accessibility properties regarding two different evaluation approaches: using WCAG 2.0 techniques and targeting the pages as they reach the browser; using WCAG 2.0, but evaluating the pages after the browser processing, thus as they will be delivered to the end-user. For that, we evaluated over 20000 Web pages using already established accessibility metrics. We then compared the results obtained from the WCAG 2.0 evaluation of the two processing phases. We observed some changes in the macroscopic properties of the evaluation. Regarding the comparison between the two phases, we observed a narrower distribution of quality, i.e., the worst pages are in fact not that bad, and the best ones not that good.