skip to main content
10.1145/2513383.2513421acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesassetsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Accessibility in smartphone applications: what do we learn from reviews?

Published:21 October 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

We explored the efficacy of smartphone App reviews to understand the user experience reports that may facilitate ranking and provide insight about accessibility gaps. The main goal was to analyze the contents of the reviews to infer the presence and polarity of accessibility information. In particular, we focused on applications that are used by the users who are blind or visually impaired. In this pilot study, the contents of 173 reviews from 25 applications were analyzed. The proposed system automatically detects accessibility information in the reviews and also tests their polarity. Such a system would be useful in application ranking based on accessibility features and improve the users' interaction experiences.

References

  1. A. F. for the Blind. Statistical snapshots from the american foundation for the blind, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. S. Hedegaard and J. G. Simonsen. Extracting usability and user experience information from online user reviews. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '13, pages 2089--2098, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. M. Hu and B. Liu. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 168--177. ACM, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. H. Korhonen, J. Arrasvuori, and K. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila. Let users tell the story: evaluating user experience with experience reports. In CHI '10 Extended, Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA '10, pages 4051--4056, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. G. A. Miller. Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Communications of the ACM, 38(11):39--41, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. R. J. Mooney. Comparative experiments on disambiguating word senses: An illustration of the role of bias in machine learning. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 82--91. Philadelphia, PA., 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. U. B. of Engraving and Printing. Bureau of engraving and printing launches eyenoteapp to help the blind and visually impaired denominate us currency, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. T. Olsson and M. Salo. Narratives of satisfying and unsatisfying experiences of current mobile augmented reality applications. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '12, pages 2779--2788, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Accessibility in smartphone applications: what do we learn from reviews?

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ASSETS '13: Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
      October 2013
      343 pages
      ISBN:9781450324052
      DOI:10.1145/2513383

      Copyright © 2013 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 21 October 2013

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      ASSETS '13 Paper Acceptance Rate28of98submissions,29%Overall Acceptance Rate436of1,556submissions,28%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader