skip to main content
10.1145/2745555.2746649acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesw4aConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

DOM block clustering for enhanced sampling and evaluation

Published:18 May 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Large websites are difficult to evaluate for Web Accessibility compliance due to the shear number of pages, the inaccuracy of current Web evaluation engines, and the W3C stated need to include human evaluators within the testing regime. This makes evaluating large websites all-but technically unfeasible. Therefore, sampling of the pages becomes a critical first step in the evaluation process. Current methods rely on drawing random samples, best guess samples, or convenience samples. In all cases the evaluation results cannot be trusted because the underlying structure and nature of the site are not known; they are missing 'website demographics'. By understanding the quantifiable statistics of a given population of pages we are better able to decide on the coverage we need for a full review, as well as the sample we need to draw in order to enact an evaluation. Our solution is to crawl a website comparing, and then clustering, the pages discovered based on Document Object Model block level similarity. This technique can be useful in reducing very large sites to a more manageable size, and allowing an 80% coverage by evaluating between ≈0.1--4% of pages; additionally, by refining our clustering algorithm, we discuss how this could be reduced further.

References

  1. G. Brajnik and R. Lomuscio. SAMBA: asemi-automatic method for measuring barriers ofaccessibility. In Proc. of ASSETS' 07. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. G. Brajnik, A. Mulas, and C. Pitton. Effects of sampling methods on web accessibility evaluations. In Proc. of ASSETS' 07. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. G. A. Di Lucca, M. Di Penta, and A. R. Fasolino. An approach to identify duplicated web pages. In Proc. of COMPSAC '02, pages 481--486. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M. R. Henzinger, A. Heydon, M. Mitzenmacher, and M. Najork. On near-uniform URL sampling. In Proc. of WWW' 00, pages 295--308. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M. King, J. W. Thatcher, P. M. Bronstad, and R. Easton. Managing usability for people with disabilities in a large web presence. IBM Systems Journal, 44(3): 519--535, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. V. I. Levenshtein. Binary codes capable of correctingdeletions, insertions, and reversals. Cybernetics and Control Theory, 10: 707--710, 1966.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. N. Ulltveit-Moe, M. Snaprud, A. Nietzio, M. Goodwin Olsen, and C. Thomsen. Early Results from Automatic Accessibility Benchmarking of Public European Web Sites from the EIAO. eiao.net/publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. E. Velleman and S. Abou-Zahra. Website accessibility conformance evaluation methodology (WCAG-EM) 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG-EM-20140710/, 2014. W3C Working Group Note.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. E. Velleman and T. Van Der Geest. Page sample size in web accessibility testing: how many pages is enough? In Proc. of ASSETS' 13, page 61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. E. Velleman, C. A. Velasco, M. Snaprud, and D. Burger. D-WAB4 Unified Web Evaluation Methodology (UWEM 1.0). Technical report, WAB Cluster, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. M. Vigo, M. Arrue, G. Brajnik, R. Lomuscio, and J. Abascal. Quantitative metrics for measuring web accessibility. In Proc. of W4A '07, pages 99--107, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M. Vigo and G. Brajnik. Automatic web accessibility metrics: where we are and where we can go. Interacting with Computers, 23(2): 137--155, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. W3C/WAI. Conformance evaluation of web sites for accessibility: Determine the scope of the evaluation. www.w3.org/WAI/eval/conformance.html#scope.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. DOM block clustering for enhanced sampling and evaluation

      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
        W4A '15: Proceedings of the 12th International Web for All Conference
        May 2015
        214 pages
        ISBN:9781450333429
        DOI:10.1145/2745555

        Copyright © 2015 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 18 May 2015

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        W4A '15 Paper Acceptance Rate11of31submissions,35%Overall Acceptance Rate171of371submissions,46%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader