Exploring Variability of Visual Accessibility Options in Operating Systems

Digital technologies are an opportunity to overcome disabilities, provided that accessibility is ensured. In this paper, we focus on visual accessibility and the way it is supported in Operating Systems (OS). The significant variability in this support has practical consequences, e.g., the difficulty to recommend or select an OS, or migrate from one OS to another. This suggests building a variability model for OS that would classify them and would serve as a reference. We propose a methodology to build such a variability model with the help of the Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) framework. In addition, as visual accessibility can be divided into several concerns (e.g., zoom, or contrast), we leverage an extension of FCA, namely Relational Concept Analysis. We also build an ontology to dispose of a standardized description of visual accessibility options. We apply our proposal to the analysis of the variability of a few representative operating systems.

[1]  Junko Shirogane,et al.  Support Method to Elicit Accessibility Requirements , 2014, APRES.

[2]  Clémentine Nebut,et al.  Modelling equivalence classes of feature models with concept lattices to assist their extraction from product descriptions , 2019, J. Syst. Softw..

[3]  Chris Fullwood,et al.  Internet Access by People with Intellectual Disabilities: Inequalities and Opportunities , 2013, Future Internet.

[4]  Robert Stevens,et al.  MIRO: guidelines for minimum information for the reporting of an ontology , 2018, J. Biomed. Semant..

[5]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing? , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[6]  Renata Pontin de Mattos Fortes,et al.  Accessibility and Software Engineering Processes: A Systematic Literature Review , 2021, J. Syst. Softw..

[7]  Rick Mills,et al.  No Special Equipment Required: The Accessibility Features Built into the Windows and Macintosh Operating Systems make Computers Accessible for Students with Special Needs. , 2003 .

[8]  Peter W. Eklund,et al.  Design, information organisation and the evaluation of the Virtual Museum of the Pacific digital ecosystem , 2012, J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput..

[9]  Bernd Fischer,et al.  Visualizing and exploring software version control repositories using interactive tag clouds over formal concept lattices , 2017, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[10]  Jonas Poelmans,et al.  Formal Concept Analysis in knowledge processing: A survey on models and techniques , 2013, Expert Syst. Appl..

[11]  Clement Jonquet,et al.  SIFR BioPortal : Un portail ouvert et générique d’ontologies et de terminologies biomédicales françaises au service de l’annotation sémantique , 2016 .

[12]  Klaus Schmid,et al.  Mapping the design-space of textual variability modeling languages: a refined analysis , 2014, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer.

[13]  Exploring the Variability of Interconnected Product Families with Relational Concept Analysis , 2019, SPLC.

[14]  Sébastien Ferré,et al.  Graph-FCA: An extension of formal concept analysis to knowledge graphs , 2020, Discret. Appl. Math..

[15]  Biswanath Dutta,et al.  New Generation Metadata Vocabulary for Ontology Description and Publication , 2017, MTSR.

[16]  Suziah Sulaiman,et al.  A review on accessible design requirement for mobile application among physically impaired users , 2018 .

[17]  Mathieu Acher,et al.  FAMILIAR: A domain-specific language for large scale management of feature models , 2013, Sci. Comput. Program..

[18]  Clémentine Nebut,et al.  Graph-Based Variability Modelling: Towards a Classification of Existing Formalisms , 2019, ICCS.

[19]  Sascha El-Sharkawy,et al.  Metrics for analyzing variability and its implementation in software product lines: A systematic literature review , 2019, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[20]  Mark A. Musen,et al.  AgroPortal: A vocabulary and ontology repository for agronomy , 2018, Comput. Electron. Agric..

[21]  Amedeo Napoli,et al.  Relational concept analysis: mining concept lattices from multi-relational data , 2013, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[22]  S. Luján-Mora,et al.  Web-Based Serious Games and Accessibility: A Systematic Literature Review , 2020 .

[23]  Sergio Segura,et al.  Automated analysis of feature models 20 years later: A literature review , 2010, Inf. Syst..

[24]  Anna Szopa.  Comparison Analysis of Accessible Features Built into Operating Systems , 2021, AHFE.

[25]  Kyo Chul Kang,et al.  Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study , 1990 .

[26]  Houari A. Sahraoui,et al.  Recovering software product line architecture of a family of object-oriented product variants , 2017, J. Syst. Softw..

[27]  Clémentine Nebut,et al.  Towards complex product line variability modelling: Mining relationships from non-boolean descriptions , 2019, J. Syst. Softw..

[28]  Loïc Martínez,et al.  Comparative Analysis of the Accessibility of Desktop Operating Systems , 2007, HCI.

[29]  Alexandre Delteil,et al.  Text Onto Miner - A Semi Automated Ontology Building System , 2008, ISMIS.