The Current Status of Accessibility in Mobile Apps

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.

[1]  Il Kon Kim,et al.  UX Design Guideline for Health Mobile Application to Improve Accessibility for the Visually Impaired , 2016, 2016 International Conference on Platform Technology and Service (PlatCon).

[2]  Markel Vigo,et al.  Quantitative metrics for measuring web accessibility , 2007, W4A '07.

[3]  Celso Massaki Hirata,et al.  Evaluation of the Android Accessibility API Recognition Rate Towards a Better User Experience , 2015, HCI.

[4]  Markel Vigo,et al.  Automatic web accessibility metrics: Where we are and where we can go , 2011, Interact. Comput..

[5]  Elizabeth Burd,et al.  Towards More Mature Web Maintenance Practices for Accessibility , 2007, 2007 9th IEEE International Workshop on Web Site Evolution.

[6]  André L. M. Santos,et al.  Usability for Accessibility: A Consolidation of Requirements for Mobile Applications , 2015, ASSETS.

[7]  Markel Vigo,et al.  Benchmarking web accessibility evaluation tools: measuring the harm of sole reliance on automated tests , 2013, W4A.

[8]  Bambang Parmanto,et al.  Accessibility of Internet websites through time , 2003, ASSETS.

[9]  Vicki L. Hanson,et al.  Progress on Website Accessibility? , 2013, TWEB.

[10]  Neha Patil,et al.  Enhanced UI Automator Viewer with improved Android accessibility evaluation features , 2016, 2016 International Conference on Automatic Control and Dynamic Optimization Techniques (ICACDOT).

[11]  André Pimenta Freire,et al.  Guidelines are only half of the story: accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the web , 2012, CHI.

[12]  Barbara Leporini,et al.  Interacting with mobile devices via VoiceOver: usability and accessibility issues , 2012, OZCHI.

[13]  Alain Abran,et al.  The state of the art of mobile application usability evaluation , 2012, 2012 25th IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE).

[14]  Dongsong Zhang,et al.  Personalized Assistive Web for Improving Mobile Web Browsing and Accessibility for Visually Impaired Users , 2017, ACM Trans. Access. Comput..

[15]  Nils Ulltveit-Moe,et al.  Interpreting Results from Large Scale Automatic Evaluation of Web Accessibility , 2006, ICCHP.

[16]  Hend Suliman Al-Khalifa,et al.  Advancements in web accessibility evaluation methods: how far are we? , 2015, iiWAS.

[17]  Giorgio Brajnik,et al.  Comparing accessibility evaluation tools: a method for tool effectiveness , 2004, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[18]  Voula Gkatzidou,et al.  Investigating the appropriateness and relevance of mobile web accessibility guidelines , 2014, W4A.

[19]  María José Rodríguez-Fórtiz,et al.  Analysis and review of apps and serious games on mobile devices intended for people with visual impairment , 2016, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH).

[20]  Rebecca Matson,et al.  Barriers to use: usability and content accessibility on the Web's most popular sites , 2000, CUU '00.

[21]  Anneli Folkesson,et al.  World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) , 2005 .

[22]  Luís Carriço,et al.  The impact of accessibility assessment in macro scale universal usability studies of the web , 2008, W4A '08.