The Expertise Effect on Web Accessibility Evaluation Methods

Web accessibility means that disabled people can effectively perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with the web. Web accessibility evaluation methods are needed to validate the accessibility of web pages. However, the role of subjectivity and of expertise in such methods is unknown and has not previously been studied. This article investigates the effect of expertise in web accessibility evaluation methods by conducting a Barrier Walkthrough (BW) study with 19 expert and 57 nonexpert judges. The BW method is an evaluation method that can be used to manually assess the accessibility of web pages for different user groups such as motor impaired, low vision, blind, and mobile users. Our results show that expertise matters, and even though the effect of expertise varies depending on the metric used to measure quality, the level of expertise is an important factor in the quality of accessibility evaluation of web pages. In brief, when pages are evaluated with nonexperts, we observe a drop in validity and reliability. We also observe a negative monotonic relationship between number of judges and reproducibility: more evaluators mean more diverse outputs. After five experts, reproducibility stabilizes, but this is not the case with nonexperts. The ability to detect all the problems increases with the number of judges: With 3 experts all problems can be found, but for such a level 14 nonexperts are needed. Even though our data show that experts rated pages differently, the difference is quite small. Finally, compared to nonexperts, experts spent much less time and the variability among them is smaller, they were significantly more confident, and they rated themselves as being more productive. The article discusses practical implications regarding how BW results should be interpreted, how to recruit evaluators, and what happens when more than one evaluator is hired. Supplemental materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Human–Computer Interaction for statistical details and additional measures for this article.

[1]  Lars Schmidt,et al.  Comparative evaluation of usability tests , 1999, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[2]  Dana Chisnell,et al.  Handbook of Usability Testing , 2009 .

[3]  Hironobu Takagi,et al.  Collaborative web accessibility improvement: challenges and possibilities , 2009, Assets '09.

[4]  John A. Swets,et al.  Signal Detection Theory and ROC Analysis in Psychology and Diagnostics: Collected Papers , 1996 .

[5]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  Usability inspections by groups of specialists: perceived agreement in spite of disparate observations , 2002, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[6]  Jakob Nielsen Reliability of severity estimates for usability problems found by heuristic evaluation , 1992, CHI '92.

[7]  Robert C. Williges,et al.  Criteria For Evaluating Usability Evaluation Methods , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[8]  Gregg C. Vanderheiden,et al.  Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 , 2008 .

[9]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  The Evaluator Effect: A Chilling Fact About Usability Evaluation Methods , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[10]  Shadi Abou-Zahra,et al.  Web Accessibility Evaluation , 2008, Web Accessibility.

[11]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Damaged Merchandise? A Review of Experiments That Compare Usability Evaluation Methods , 1998, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[12]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  The evaluator effect in usability tests , 1998, CHI Conference Summary.

[13]  Giorgio Brajnik,et al.  Validity and reliability of web accessibility guidelines , 2009, Assets '09.

[14]  Cynthia D. Waddell,et al.  Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance , 2006 .

[15]  J. Olson,et al.  Abstract , 1929, Veterinary Record.

[16]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation , 1992, CHI.

[17]  Jennifer Mankoff,et al.  Is your web page accessible?: a comparative study of methods for assessing web page accessibility for the blind , 2005, CHI.

[18]  Andrew Sears,et al.  Heuristic Walkthroughs: Finding the Problems Without the Noise , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[19]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  Effect of evaluators' cognitive style on heuristic evaluation: Field dependent and field independent evaluators , 2009, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[20]  Kasper Hornbæk,et al.  A Study of the Evaluator Effect in Usability Testing , 2008, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[21]  Bambang Parmanto,et al.  Web Accessibility: A Foundation for Research , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[22]  David W. Biers,et al.  Usability Evaluation and Prototype Fidelity: Users and Usability Professionals , 1998 .

[23]  Yeliz Yesilada,et al.  Testability and validity of WCAG 2.0: the expertise effect , 2010, ASSETS '10.

[24]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.

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

[26]  Yeliz Yesilada,et al.  Web Accessibility and Guidelines , 2008, Web Accessibility.

[27]  Giorgio Brajnik,et al.  Web Accessibility Testing: When the Method Is the Culprit , 2006, ICCHP.

[28]  Giorgio Brajnik,et al.  Beyond Conformance: The Role of Accessibility Evaluation Methods , 2008, WISE Workshops.

[29]  Caroline Jay,et al.  End User Evaluations , 2008, Web Accessibility.

[30]  Helen Petrie,et al.  Remote usability evaluations With disabled people , 2006, CHI.

[31]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  The Evaluator Effect during First-Time Use of the Cognitive Walkthrough Technique , 1999, HCI.

[32]  Yeliz Yesilada,et al.  How much does expertise matter?: a barrier walkthrough study with experts and non-experts , 2009, Assets '09.

[33]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  Number of people required for usability evaluation , 2010, Commun. ACM.

[34]  Helen Petrie,et al.  The relationship between accessibility and usability of websites , 2007, CHI.

[35]  Gilbert Cockton,et al.  Falsification testing for usability inspection method assessment , 2004 .

[36]  Alberta Labour Section 508 Standards , 2007 .

[37]  William M. K. Trochim,et al.  Research methods knowledge base , 2001 .

[38]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces , 1990, CHI '90.