DOMBlockClustering.bib

%% This BibTeX bibliography file was created using BibDesk.
%% http://bibdesk.sourceforge.net/


%% Created for Simon Harper at 2015-05-05 10:11:00 +0100 


%% Saved with string encoding Unicode (UTF-8) 



@article{gb11:sigacc,
	Author = {G. Brajnik},
	Date-Added = {2015-05-05 09:10:58 +0000},
	Date-Modified = {2015-05-05 09:10:58 +0000},
	Journal = {SIGACCESS Newsletter},
	Month = {June},
	Title = {The Troubled Path of Accessibility Engineering: an Overview of Traps to Avoid and Hurdles to Overcome},
	Volume = 100,
	Year = 2011}

@inproceedings{vigo_w4a07,
	Author = {Vigo, M. and Arrue, M. and Brajnik, G. and Lomuscio, R. and Abascal, J.},
	Booktitle = {Proc. of W4A '07},
	Doi = {10.1145/1243441.1243465},
	Keywords = {automatic evaluation, measurement, metrics, quality assurance, web accessibility},
	Numpages = {9},
	Pages = {99--107},
	Title = {Quantitative Metrics for Measuring Web Accessibility},
	Url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1243441.1243465},
	Year = {2007},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1243441.1243465},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1243441.1243465}}

@inproceedings{dilucca,
	Author = {Di Lucca, G.A. and Di Penta, M. and Fasolino, A.R.},
	Booktitle = {Proc. of COMPSAC '02},
	Doi = {10.1109/CMPSAC.2002.1045051},
	Issn = {0730-3157},
	Keywords = {Internet;electronic commerce;information resources;software metrics;clone detection;duplication;software metrics;source code clones;web engineering;web page metrics;web site analysis;Application software;Application specific processors;Cloning;HTML;Plagiarism;Software metrics;Software testing;Time to market;US Department of Transportation;Web pages},
	Pages = {481-486},
	Title = {An approach to identify duplicated web pages},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CMPSAC.2002.1045051}}

@article{levenshtein,
	Author = {V.I. Levenshtein},
	Journal = {Cybernetics and Control Theory},
	Pages = {707--710},
	Title = {Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals},
	Volume = {10},
	Year = {1966}}

@inproceedings{gb:assets07samba,
	Author = {G. Brajnik and R. Lomuscio},
	Booktitle = {Proc. of ASSETS' 07},
	Title = {{SAMBA}: a semi-automatic method for measuring barriers of accessibility}}

@inproceedings{gb:assets07camp,
	Author = {G. Brajnik and A. Mulas and C. Pitton},
	Booktitle = {Proc. of ASSETS' 07},
	Title = {Effects of sampling methods on web accessibility evaluations}}

@article{gb11:iwc:metrics,
	Author = {M. Vigo and G. Brajnik},
	Doi = {doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2011.01.001},
	Journal = {Interacting with Computers},
	Number = {2},
	Pages = {137--155},
	Title = {Automatic web accessibility metrics: where we are and where we can go},
	Volume = {23},
	Year = {2011},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.01.001}}

@techreport{uwem12,
	Author = {Velleman, E. and Strobbe, C. and Koch, J. and Velasco, C.A. and Snaprud, M. and Nietzio, A.},
	Howpublished = {\url{http://www.wabcluster.org/uwem1_2}},
	Institution = {WAB Cluster},
	Title = {{D-WAB4}: Unified Web Evaluation Methodology {(UWEM)}1.2},
	Year = 2007}

@techreport{uwem1,
	Author = {E. Velleman and C.A. Velasco and M. Snaprud and D. Burger},
	Institution = {WAB Cluster},
	Title = {{D-WAB4 Unified Web Evaluation Methodology} ({UWEM} 1.0)},
	Year = {2006}}

@inproceedings{henzinger00,
	Author = {M. R. Henzinger and A. Heydon and M. Mitzenmacher and M. Najork},
	Booktitle = {Proc. of WWW' 00},
	Doi = {dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1389-1286(00)00055-4},
	Pages = {295--308},
	Title = {On near-uniform {URL} sampling},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1389-1286(00)00055-4}}

@article{king05,
	Author = {King, M. and Thatcher, J.W. and Bronstad, P.M. and Easton, R.},
	Journal = {IBM Systems Journal},
	Number = 3,
	Pages = {519--535},
	Title = {Managing usability for people with disabilities in a large Web presence},
	Volume = 44,
	Year = 2005}

@misc{ulltveit-moe06,
	Author = {N. Ulltveit-Moe and M. Snaprud and A. Nietzio and M. Goodwin Olsen and C. Thomsen},
	Howpublished = {\url{eiao.net/publications}},
	Title = {{Early Results from Automatic Accessibility Benchmarking of Public European Web Sites from the EIAO}},
	Year = {2006}}

@inproceedings{velleman13,
	Author = {Velleman, E. and Van Der Geest, T.},
	Booktitle = {Proc. of ASSETS' 13},
	Pages = {61},
	Title = {Page sample size in web accessibility testing: how many pages is enough?}}

@misc{velleman14,
	Author = {E. Velleman and S. Abou-Zahra},
	Howpublished = {http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG-EM-20140710/},
	Institution = {W3C},
	Note = {W3C Working Group Note},
	Title = {Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology ({WCAG-EM}) 1.0},
	Year = 2014}

@book{whittaker12,
	Author = {Whittaker, J. A and Arbon, J. and Carollo, J.},
	Publisher = {Addison-Wesley},
	Title = {How Google tests software},
	Year = {2012}}

@misc{w3c-adhoc,
	Author = {{W3C/WAI}},
	Howpublished = {\url{www.w3.org/WAI/eval/conformance.html#scope}},
	Title = {Conformance Evaluation of Web Sites for Accessibility: Determine the scope of the evaluation}}
@article{Vigo2014203,
title = "A snapshot of the first encounters of visually disabled users with the Web ",
journal = "Computers in Human Behavior ",
volume = "34",
number = "0",
pages = "203 - 212",
year = "2014",
note = "",
issn = "0747-5632",
doi = "http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.045",
url = "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563214000570",
author = "Markel Vigo and Simon Harper",
keywords = "Behavioural sciences",
keywords = "Web",
keywords = "Adaptive behaviour",
keywords = "Learning",
keywords = "Skill acquisition",
keywords = "Coping tactics",
keywords = "Visually disabled",
keywords = "Blind users",
keywords = "Visually impaired users ",
abstract = "Abstract Navigating the Web is particularly challenging for disabled users who are not familiar with the idiosyncrasies of the Web and have to rely on assistive technologies. We provide insights on the adaptation process of novice visually disabled users through a snapshot that depicts their first encounters with the Web during a period of 2 months. We discover that, as the sessions go on, last resort tactics are replaced by more sophisticated exploration tactics, which suggests that users not only become more skilled, but also more independent and autonomous. We observe that at later stages, tasks are more effectively accomplished at the expenses of reduced efficiency. We propose 2 explanations for this phenomenon: at later stages users may be more prone to misuse tactics from a larger repertoire or alternatively, they may feel more confident and less thoughtful. Design implications suggest that, initially, users should be provided with mechanisms to recover from failure, while interventions at later stages should not interfere with the learning process. "
}

@article{Vigo20131013,
title = "Coping tactics employed by visually disabled users on the web ",
journal = "International Journal of Human-Computer Studies ",
volume = "71",
number = "11",
pages = "1013 - 1025",
year = "2013",
note = "",
issn = "1071-5819",
doi = "http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.08.002",
url = "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1071581913001006",
author = "Markel Vigo and Simon Harper",
keywords = "Behavioural sciences",
keywords = "Web tactics",
keywords = "Behavioural strategies",
keywords = "Coping tactics",
keywords = "Blind users",
keywords = "Low vision",
keywords = "Screen readers",
keywords = "Screen magnifiers ",
abstract = "Abstract Interaction on the Web is often problematic for visually disabled users. In order to analyse how visually disabled users deal with problematic situations we carried out a secondary analysis of 2 independent datasets containing the interaction of 24 users. As a result, we determine the situations in which coping occurs including uncertainty, reduced mobility, confusion and overload, and identify 17 tactics employed to overcome these situations, being impulsive clicking, exploration tactics and re-doing some of the most noteworthy. These tactics are novel in that they are contextualised and complete: their presence denotes the presence of specific problems. Therefore, these tactics are behavioural markers of cognitive processes that indicate problematic situations. We highlight the importance of these behavioural markers for designers and tools in order to remove the need to cope, evaluate accessibility-in-use and inform navigation models. "
}

@inproceedings{Vigo:2013:CIF:2481492.2481499,
 author = {Vigo, Markel and Harper, Simon},
 title = {Challenging Information Foraging Theory: Screen Reader Users Are Not Always Driven by Information Scent},
 booktitle = {Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media},
 series = {HT '13},
 year = {2013},
 isbn = {978-1-4503-1967-6},
 location = {Paris, France},
 pages = {60--68},
 numpages = {9},
 url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2481492.2481499},
 doi = {10.1145/2481492.2481499},
 acmid = {2481499},
 publisher = {ACM},
 address = {New York, NY, USA},
 keywords = {accessibility, blind users, coping tactics, information foraging theory, information scent, low vision, navigation models, screen readers, web},
} 

@inproceedings{Vigo:2013:EA:2461121.2461136,
 author = {Vigo, Markel and Harper, Simon},
 title = {Evaluating Accessibility-in-use},
 booktitle = {Proceedings of the 10th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility},
 series = {W4A '13},
 year = {2013},
 isbn = {978-1-4503-1844-0},
 location = {Rio de Janeiro, Brazil},
 pages = {7:1--7:4},
 articleno = {7},
 numpages = {4},
 url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2461121.2461136},
 doi = {10.1145/2461121.2461136},
 acmid = {2461136},
 publisher = {ACM},
 address = {New York, NY, USA},
 keywords = {accessibility, accessibility-in-use, automated, behavioural sciences, evaluation, tactics, web},
} 

@inproceedings{Vigo:2013:CPD:2464464.2464494,
 author = {Vigo, Markel and Harper, Simon},
 title = {Considering People with Disabilities As \ÜBerusers for Eliciting Generalisable Coping Strategies on the Web},
 booktitle = {Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference},
 series = {WebSci '13},
 year = {2013},
 isbn = {978-1-4503-1889-1},
 location = {Paris, France},
 pages = {441--444},
 numpages = {4},
 url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2464464.2464494},
 doi = {10.1145/2464464.2464494},
 acmid = {2464494},
 publisher = {ACM},
 address = {New York, NY, USA},
 keywords = {\"{u}berusers, behavioural sciences, coping strategies, web},
} 


@article{Harper2011qt,
	Abstract = {Web site-evaluation methodologies and validation engines take the view that all accessibility guidelines must be met to gain compliance. Problems exist in this regard, as contradictions within the rule set may arise, and the type of impairment or its severity is not isolated. The Barrier Walkthrough (BW) method goes someway to addressing these issues, by enabling barrier types derived from guidelines to be applied to different user categories such as motor or visual impairment, etc. However, the problem remains of combinatorial explosion of possibilities when one has to consider users with multiple disabilities. In this paper, a simple set theory operation is used to create a validation scheme for older users by aggregating barrier types specific to motor impaired and low-vision users, thereby creating a new ``older users'' category from the results of this set union. To evaluate the feasibility and validity of this aggregation approach, two BW experiments were conducted. The first experiment evaluated the aggregated results by focusing on quality attributes and showed that aggregation generates data whose quality is comparable to the original one. However, this first experiment could not test for validity, as the older users category was not included. To remedy this deficiency, another BW experiment was conducted with expert judges who evaluated a web page in the context of older users. In this second experiment, it was found that there is no significant difference between the aggregated and the manually evaluated (by experts) barrier scores, and that the same barriers are identified using experts and aggregation, even though there are differences in how severity scores are distributed. From these results, it is concluded that the aggregation of barriers is a viable alternative to expert evaluation, when the target of that aggregation could not be evaluated manually or it would not be feasible to do so. It is also argued that aggregation is a technique that can be used in combination with other evaluation methods, like user testing or subjective assessments.},
	Author = {Brajnik, Giorgio and Yesilada, Yeliz and Harper, Simon},
	Date-Added = {2012-01-11 14:01:30 +0000},
	Date-Modified = {2012-01-11 14:05:28 +0000},
	Doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10209-011-0220-5},
	Issn = {1615-5289},
	Issue = {4},
	Journal = {Universal Access in the Information Society},
	Keyword = {Computer Science},
	Keywords = {RIAM, Mobile Web, Accessibility, Human Centred Web, SCWeb2, Web Accessibility, Web 2.0, Seniors},
	Month = {November},
	Note = {10.1007/s10209-011-0220-5},
	Pages = {403-423},
	Publisher = {Springer Berlin / Heidelberg},
	Title = {Web accessibility guideline aggregation for older users and its validation},
	Url = {http://www.simonharper.info/publications/Harper2011qt.pdf},
	Volume = {10},
	Year = {2011},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10209-011-0220-5}}

@article{Harper2011kl,
	Abstract = {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.},
	Author = {Brajnik, Giorgio and Yesilada, Yeliz and Harper, Simon},
	Date-Added = {2012-01-11 13:55:30 +0000},
	Date-Modified = {2012-01-11 13:58:47 +0000},
	Doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2011.601670},
	Eprint = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07370024.2011.601670},
	Journal = {Human--Computer Interaction},
	Keywords = {Accessibility, Human Centred Web, RIAM, Mobile Web, Web Accessibility, Expertise},
	Month = {November},
	Number = {3},
	Pages = {246-283},
	Title = {The Expertise Effect on Web Accessibility Evaluation Methods},
	Url = {http://www.simonharper.info/publications/Harper2011kl.pdf},
	Volume = {26},
	Year = {2011},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07370024.2011.601670},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2011.601670}}

@article{Harper2013bit,
	Abstract = {The equality of access ? accessibility ? is difficult to quantify, define, or agree upon. Our previous work analysed the responses of web accessibility specialists in regard to a number of pre-defined definitions of accessibility. While uncovering much, this analysis did not allow us to quantify the communities understanding of the relationship accessibility has with other domains, and assess how the community scopes accessibility. In this case, we asked over 300 people, with an interest in accessibility, to answer 33 questions surrounding the relationship between accessibility, user experience (UX) and usability; inclusion, and exclusion; and evaluation, in an attempt to harmonise our understanding of web accessibility. We found that respondents think that accessibility and usability are highly related and also think that accessibility is applicable to everyone and not just people with disabilities. Respondents strongly agree that accessibility must be grounded on user-centred practices and that accessibility evaluation is more than just inspecting source code, however, they are divided as to whether training in ?Web Content Accessibility Guidelines? is necessary or not to assess accessibility. These perceptions are important for usability and UX professionals, developers of automated evaluation tools, and those practitioners running web site evaluations.},
	Annote = {doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2013.848238},
	Annote1 = {The equality of access ? accessibility ? is difficult to quantify, define, or agree upon. Our previous work analysed the responses of web accessibility specialists in regard to a number of pre-defined definitions of accessibility. While uncovering much, this analysis did not allow us to quantify the communities understanding of the relationship accessibility has with other domains, and assess how the community scopes accessibility. In this case, we asked over 300 people, with an interest in accessibility, to answer 33 questions surrounding the relationship between accessibility, user experience (UX) and usability; inclusion, and exclusion; and evaluation, in an attempt to harmonise our understanding of web accessibility. We found that respondents think that accessibility and usability are highly related and also think that accessibility is applicable to everyone and not just people with disabilities. Respondents strongly agree that accessibility must be grounded on user-centred practices and that accessibility evaluation is more than just inspecting source code, however, they are divided as to whether training in ?Web Content Accessibility Guidelines? is necessary or not to assess accessibility. These perceptions are important for usability and UX professionals, developers of automated evaluation tools, and those practitioners running web site evaluations.},
	Author = {Yesilada, Yeliz and Brajnik, Giorgio and Vigo, Markel and Harper, Simon},
	Booktitle = {Behaviour \& Information Technology},
	Date = {2013/10/25},
	Date-Added = {2013-11-19 09:28:57 +0000},
	Date-Modified = {2013-11-19 09:29:14 +0000},
	Doi = {10.1080/0144929X.2013.848238},
	Isbn = {0144-929X},
	Journal = {Behaviour \& Information Technology},
	Journal1 = {Behaviour \& Information Technology},
	M3 = {doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2013.848238},
	Month = {2013/11/19},
	Pages = {1--25},
	Publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
	Title = {Exploring Perceptions of Web Accessibility: A Survey Approach},
	Ty = {JOUR},
	Url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2013.848238},
	Year = {2013},
	Year1 = {2013},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2013.848238}}

@inproceedings{gb13:clw,
	Address = {Eindhoven, The Netherlands},
	Author = {Brajnik, G. and Harper, S.},
	Booktitle = {Cognitive Load and In-Vehicle Human-Machine Interaction Workshop; adjuct Proceedings of the 5th Int. Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications},
	Date-Added = {2013-11-19 16:43:16 +0000},
	Date-Modified = {2013-11-19 16:43:16 +0000},
	Editor = {Kun, A. and Froelich, P.},
	Month = {October},
	Publisher = {ACM Press},
	Title = {Model-based engineering of user interfaces to support cognitive load estimation in automotive applications},
	Year = 2013}

@article{Harper2014aa,
	Abstract = {Visually disabled people typically use methods of `sensory translation' to access data via assistive technology. These technologies conventionally render content under the direction of the user into a form that can be perceived by that user -- in effect the interface and content are adapted to suit their sensory requirements -- but simple sensory translation is not enough for big, broad and complex data. Why is this -- and how can things be better?},
	Author = {Simon Harper},
	Date-Added = {2014-05-27 13:03:23 +0000},
	Date-Modified = {2014-05-27 13:03:34 +0000},
	Doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1037547},
	Howpublished = {Slideshare},
	Journal = {Invited Talk - Human Behaviour Network, Manchester Informatics, Manchester UK},
	Month = {May},
	Title = {Accessibility of Big and Broad Data - http://goo.gl/UpekPK},
	Url = {http://www.slideshare.net/simon-harper/accessibility-of-big-broad-data},
	Year = {2014},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://www.slideshare.net/simon-harper/adapting-sensory-interfaces},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.678330}}