Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Srinivas Annam

dblp:72/6207 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2009
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Accessibility and assistive technology · 91% User interface design and tools · 9%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Accessibility and assistive technology
assistive technology design
0.112009
Web 2.0: blind to an accessible new world · WWW 2009
Accessibility and assistive technology
screen reader accessibility
0.112009
Web 2.0: blind to an accessible new world · WWW 2009
Accessibility and assistive technology
web accessibility
0.112009
Web 2.0: blind to an accessible new world · WWW 2009
User interface design and tools
web applications
0.012009
Web 2.0: blind to an accessible new world · WWW 2009

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

user workflow design · 0.1usability research · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2009 Web 2.0: blind to an accessible new world
abstract
With the advent of Web 2.0 technologies, websites have evolved from static pages to dynamic, interactive Web-based applications with the ability to replicate common desktop functionality. However, for blind and visually impaired individuals who rely upon screen readers, Web 2.0 applications force them to adapt to an inaccessible use model. Many technologies, including WAI-ARIA, AJAX, and improved screen reader support, are rapidly evolving to improve this situation. However, simply combining them does not solve the problems of screen reader users. The main contributions of this paper are two models of interaction for screen reader users, for both traditional websites and Web 2.0 applications. Further contributions are a discussion of accessibility difficulties screen reader users encounter when interacting with Web 2.0 applications, a user workflow design model for improving Web 2.0 accessibility, and a set of design requirements for developers to ease the user's burden and increase accessibility. These models, accessibility difficulties, and design implications are based directly on responses and lessons learned from usability research focusing on Web 2.0 usage and screen reader users. Without the conscious effort of Web engineers and designers, most blind and visually impaired users will shy away from using new Web 2.0 technology in favor of desktop based applications.
Joshua M. Hailpern, Loretta Guarino Reid, Richard Boardman, Srinivas Annam
WWW4