Mobile Accessibility Evaluation: A Survey of Methods and Tools
Fuente:
Zenodo
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Zenodo
2025
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866902162752143360 |
|---|---|
| author | Fernandez, Alison |
| author_facet | Fernandez, Alison |
| contents | <p>This dataset supports a survey on mobile accessibility testing, comprising a master file that shows the 66 selected articles and six question-specific classification tables that capture the classification of these articles based on the six research questions proposed in our study.</p> <h3>Files and Structure</h3> <ol> <li> <p><strong>SelectedArticles.csv</strong><br>– <strong>Contents:</strong> Metadata for the 66 articles included in our survey (title, authors, venue, year, DOI/URL).<br>– <strong>Purpose:</strong> Provides the full list of sources forming the basis of our review.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>RQ1-TargetCommunity.csv</strong><br>– <strong>Contents:</strong> For each article, the explicitly studied or beneficiary populations (e.g., visual, hearing, motor impairments).<br>– <strong>Purpose:</strong> Answers RQ1: “Which accessibility-related populations are explicitly studied or positioned as beneficiaries in accessibility evaluations of mobile apps?” and reveals inclusion gaps.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>RQ2-MobileApplications.csv</strong><br>– <strong>Contents:</strong> The types of mobile applications evaluated in each study, categorized according to the Google Play Store taxonomy.<br>– <strong>Purpose:</strong> Maps research effort across app domains, highlighting popular versus under‑studied categories.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>RQ3-AccessibilityGuideline.csv</strong><br>– <strong>Contents:</strong> Accessibility standards and guidelines (e.g., WCAG, Android Developer Guidelines) used in our selected articles.<br>– <strong>Purpose:</strong> Shows guideline adoption patterns in mobile accessibility evaluations.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>RQ4-IssueCategory.csv</strong><br>– <strong>Contents:</strong> Accessibility issues reported in each study, tagged under the four WCAG POUR principles: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, Robust.<br>– <strong>Purpose:</strong> Identifies the most common barriers and their distribution across POUR.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>RQ5-Tools.csv</strong><br>– <strong>Contents:</strong> Automated and semi‑automated tools used (public vs. private), frequency of use in research, and whether they’re combined with manual or user‑centered methods.<br>– <strong>Purpose:</strong> Characterizes the current landscape of tool‑based mobile accessibility testing.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>RQ6-StudiesWithHumans.csv</strong><br>– <strong>Contents:</strong> Details of studies involving human participants: study method, data-collection method, data analysis types, sample sizes, groups of participants, and study location.<br>– <strong>Purpose:</strong> Profiles methodological strengths and areas for improvement in human‑centered mobile accessibility research.</p> </li> </ol> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_16341179 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | eng |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | Mobile Accessibility Evaluation: A Survey of Methods and Tools Fernandez, Alison Mobile Accessibility <p>This dataset supports a survey on mobile accessibility testing, comprising a master file that shows the 66 selected articles and six question-specific classification tables that capture the classification of these articles based on the six research questions proposed in our study.</p> <h3>Files and Structure</h3> <ol> <li> <p><strong>SelectedArticles.csv</strong><br>– <strong>Contents:</strong> Metadata for the 66 articles included in our survey (title, authors, venue, year, DOI/URL).<br>– <strong>Purpose:</strong> Provides the full list of sources forming the basis of our review.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>RQ1-TargetCommunity.csv</strong><br>– <strong>Contents:</strong> For each article, the explicitly studied or beneficiary populations (e.g., visual, hearing, motor impairments).<br>– <strong>Purpose:</strong> Answers RQ1: “Which accessibility-related populations are explicitly studied or positioned as beneficiaries in accessibility evaluations of mobile apps?” and reveals inclusion gaps.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>RQ2-MobileApplications.csv</strong><br>– <strong>Contents:</strong> The types of mobile applications evaluated in each study, categorized according to the Google Play Store taxonomy.<br>– <strong>Purpose:</strong> Maps research effort across app domains, highlighting popular versus under‑studied categories.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>RQ3-AccessibilityGuideline.csv</strong><br>– <strong>Contents:</strong> Accessibility standards and guidelines (e.g., WCAG, Android Developer Guidelines) used in our selected articles.<br>– <strong>Purpose:</strong> Shows guideline adoption patterns in mobile accessibility evaluations.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>RQ4-IssueCategory.csv</strong><br>– <strong>Contents:</strong> Accessibility issues reported in each study, tagged under the four WCAG POUR principles: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, Robust.<br>– <strong>Purpose:</strong> Identifies the most common barriers and their distribution across POUR.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>RQ5-Tools.csv</strong><br>– <strong>Contents:</strong> Automated and semi‑automated tools used (public vs. private), frequency of use in research, and whether they’re combined with manual or user‑centered methods.<br>– <strong>Purpose:</strong> Characterizes the current landscape of tool‑based mobile accessibility testing.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>RQ6-StudiesWithHumans.csv</strong><br>– <strong>Contents:</strong> Details of studies involving human participants: study method, data-collection method, data analysis types, sample sizes, groups of participants, and study location.<br>– <strong>Purpose:</strong> Profiles methodological strengths and areas for improvement in human‑centered mobile accessibility research.</p> </li> </ol> |
| title | Mobile Accessibility Evaluation: A Survey of Methods and Tools |
| topic | Mobile Accessibility |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16341179 |