论文标题
是否可以访问?对Android App可访问性的实证研究
Accessible or Not? An Empirical Investigation of Android App Accessibility
论文作者
论文摘要
移动应用程序为残疾人提供了新的机会,可以在世界上独立行动。在这一趋势的推动下,研究人员通过使用每个页面(即屏幕级)的不可访问性问题来代表移动应用程序可访问性的特征,从而进行了经验研究。但是,由于缺乏有效的问题检测方法和相对全面的问题数据集,仍然缺乏直接关注问题本身(即问题水平)的实证研究(即问题水平)。 为了填补这一文献差距,我们首先提出了一个名为XBOT的自动化应用页面探索工具,以促进应用程序可访问性测试,并通过利用仪器技术和静态程序分析来自动收集可访问性问题。由于XBOT在探索应用程序时获得的活动覆盖范围相对较高(约80%),因此XBOT比现有的测试工具(例如Google Monkey)实现了可访问性问题的性能更好。借助XBOT,我们能够收集一个相对全面的可访问性问题数据集,并最终从2,270个独特的应用程序中收集了86,767个问题,包括封闭消息和开源应用程序,基于该应用程序,我们从可访问性问题本身的访问性问题中进一步进行了一项经验研究,以调查可访问性问题的新颖特征。具体而言,我们通过检查1)具有多个标准的问题的总体严重程度,2)问题类型和应用程序类别之间的深入关系,GUI组件类型,3)定量频繁的问题模式,以及4)访问性问题的固定状态。
Mobile apps provide new opportunities to people with disabilities to act independently in the world. Motivated by this trend, researchers have conducted empirical studies by using the inaccessibility issue rate of each page (i.e., screen level) to represent the characteristics of mobile app accessibility. However, there still lacks an empirical investigation directly focusing on the issues themselves (i.e., issue level) to unveil more fine-grained findings, due to the lack of an effective issue detection method and a relatively comprehensive dataset of issues. To fill in this literature gap, we first propose an automated app page exploration tool, named Xbot, to facilitate app accessibility testing and automatically collect accessibility issues by leveraging the instrumentation technique and static program analysis. Owing to the relatively high activity coverage (around 80%) achieved by Xbot when exploring apps, Xbot achieves better performance on accessibility issue collection than existing testing tools such as Google Monkey. With Xbot, we are able to collect a relatively comprehensive accessibility issue dataset and finally collect 86,767 issues from 2,270 unique apps including both closed-source and open-source apps, based on which we further carry out an empirical study from the perspective of accessibility issues themselves to investigate novel characteristics of accessibility issues. Specifically, we extensively investigate these issues by checking 1) the overall severity of issues with multiple criteria, 2) the in-depth relation between issue types and app categories, GUI component types, 3) the frequent issue patterns quantitatively, and 4) the fixing status of accessibility issues.