A support to evaluate web accessibility and usability issues for
older adults
Sandra Souza Rodrigues Patrick Eduardo Scuracchio
University of São Paulo University of São Paulo
São Carlos-SP São Carlos-SP
Brazil Brazil
13.566-590 13.566-590
ssrodrigues@usp.br patrck@usp.br
ABSTRACT
The constant evolution of the Web has enabled that new online
services in various segments be offered. Following this evolution,
it is crucial that its content allows access to the different user's
profiles. Older adults (age 60+) are users who typically have
limited capacities due to ageing process and they have
encountered difficulties in interacting with websites. Several
accessibility and usability issues still have to be solved, despite
the legislation and guidelines established for the development of
accessible and usable web content. In particular, little attention
has been devoted to the difficulties faced by older adults because
most websites are not designed with these users in mind. This
paper addresses the development of a checklist, a support to web
accessibility and usability evaluations for the older adults profile
and its validation. The checklist was elaborated from analysis of
the state of the art, based on a literature review. During the
checklist development we investigated the main barriers faced
by older adults in web interaction. We conclude by highlighting
the need for more studies on web interaction by older people and
proposing new strategies for future research.
CSS CONCEPTS
Human-centered computing → User studies; Accessibility
design and evaluation methods; Usability testing; Empirical
studies in HCI ; Empirical studies in accessibility;
KEYWORDS
Web Accessibility, Web Usability, Evaluation of Web
Accessibility and Usability, Older Adults, Evaluation Method
ACM Reference format:
Sandra Souza Rodrigues, Patrick Eduardo Scuracchio and Renata Pontin
de Mattos Fortes. 2018. A support to evaluate web accessibility and
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 ACM 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
permissions@acm.org.
DSAI 2018, June 20-22, 2018, Thessaloniki, Greece
© 2018 ACM. 978-1-4503-6476-6/00/00...$15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3218585.3218597
97
Renata Pontin de Mattos Fortes
University of São Paulo
São Carlos-SP
Brazil
13.566-590
renata@icmc.usp.br
usability issues for older adults. In Proceedings of Software Development
and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion
2018 (DSAI 2018). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 7 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3218585.3218597
1 INTRODUCTION
The web has undergone a constant process of technological
innovations. As it evolves, new online services are offered in
various segments of current society. Although many proposals
and standards have been aimed at improving web browsing by
users, there is still a major challenge related to web accessibility
and usability [14]. According to Power et al. [28], it is essential
that different user profiles are addressed to that information can
be accessed as widely as possible. Moreover, a Web more
accessible has the potential to aid people with disabilities and
older adults to participate more actively in society [9].
Older adults (deemed here to be people age 60+) are identified
as a specific user profile, which should be considered in
accessibility and usability issues. As people age, their sensory,
physical, and cognitive abilities are gradually affected. The
ageing process brings to them difficulties in interacting with
computer systems [17] [29] [13] [34]. Therefore, there is a
concern in designing interfaces and systems that be easier to
learn and use for older people.
Population ageing is a worldwide phenomenon and occurs
rapidly due to factors such as increased life expectancy.
According to the United Nations (UN) [33] and the World Health
Organization (WHO) [37], in 2050, the global population of
people aged 60 and over is projected to more than double its size
in 2015, reaching almost 2.1 billion. In Brazil, according to
population projections based on the National Census 2010,
conducted by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics
(IBGE) [6], the Brazilian population aged 65 or older will be four
times greater by 2060. This number will reach 26.8% of the
population, while in 2013 it was only 7.4%. This change in
Brazilian demographic profile occurs due to the lower fertility
rates associated with a decrease in mortality rates in recent
decades [7].
The increasing use of the Web has accompanied the
population ageing. However, websites generally are not designed
bearing in mind the older adults characteristics [16]. There are
accessibility and usability guidelines, such as, the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0) [38], Making Your Web
DSAI 2018, June 20-22, 2018, Thessaloniki, Greece
Site Senior Friendly guidelines [25] and the Brazilian Electronic
Government Accessibility Model (e-MAG) [5], that address
general user profile. Hence, further studies are needed to better
understand the barriers and difficulties faced by older adults
during web interaction. The increasing population of these users
reaches significant proportions, evidencing the need to adapt the
Web for this profile.
The purpose of this study was to develop a checklist to aid
developers and experts in web accessibility and usability
evaluations for older adults. This support was developed from
activities of analysis of the state of the art and literature review.
We have contributed to the literature by investigating the main
barriers and difficulties faced by older adults in the web
interaction.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2
discusses the main barriers faced by older adults in web
interaction. Section 3 discusses the main related work. Section 4
presents the checklist development. Section 5 presents the
validation of checklist. Section 6 presents the final remarks and
conclusions, and finally, Section 7 presents the future research.
2 THE OLDER ADULTS AND THE WEB
The growth in the use of Web and its accelerated evolution has
boosted the concern in creating accessible and usable sites. The
use of new and advanced technological resources in the web
pages have become actual barriers of access for the elderly as
well as to people with disabilities [2]. The older adults are a
significant and growing group of technology users who are often
underrepresented in Web design. They also tend to be a more
heterogeneous group due to the effects of age-related variables,
such as changes in cognitive, physical and sensory abilities [32].
These age‐related particularities may to difficult in interacting
with technology [1].
Older people are increasingly encouraged to be online. They
use the Internet to send and receive e-mail, talk to family and
friends, search information, play games, and other activities.
Older users also often contribute to the Web through blogs and
social networks. As the number of people aged 65 or older using
the Web on computers, tablets and smartphones continues to
grow, it is crucial that developers become aware of this demand
and they make websites more senior-friendly [2, 25].
The world population is ageing and the next years will be
marked by significant growth compared to any other period in
human history. These demographic changes are raising concerns
about retirement and the services, such as shopping, banking,
education and other services that are becoming online [2].
Therefore, it is fundamental to enable a better quality of life for
these people. The Web represents a positive experience in the
quality of life and well-being of the older adults, allowing them a
more independent life. However, many older people are afraid to
use the Web because of various problems they encounter when
interacting with websites [19].
Web applications are still developed to young users who have
more familiarity and web experience [13]. There is a
misunderstanding of the developers about the real needs of older
98
S. Rodrigues et al.
people, and inattention regarding accessibility on the Web to
allow the digital inclusion of these users [22]. Such concepts
about web accessibility extend to the inclusion of older user.
Petrie et al. [27] proposed an unified definition of web
accessibility: “all people, particularly disabled and older people,
can use websites in a range of contexts of use, including
mainstream and assistive technologies; to achieve this, websites
need to be designed and developed to support usability across these
contexts.”
Older adults are identified as a specific profile that should be
considered in accessibility issues. As people age, they experience
some degenerative effects of ageing, which bring them some
limitations, related to:
 Vision: the people's eyes become less sensitive and less
able to detect light, colors and details over time. These
age-related vision changes make it difficult for the
older adults to read from a screen of computer [, ].
Among the changes in vision, there is the reduction of
the visual field and the sensitivity to contrast that
begins to decrease at 40 years []. In addition, there
are common eye diseases among the elderly, such as
cataracts, age-related macular degeneration (AMD),
glaucoma and retinal manifestations caused by
diabetes and high blood pressure [].
 Hearing: older adults suffer a gradual loss of hearing
and have difficulty perceiving acute sounds. About
20\% of people between the ages of 45 and 54 have
some degree of hearing impairment. This number
increases to 75\% in people aged 75 and 79 years [,
, ].
 Motor skills: physical performance is gradually
affected by the ageing process, which causes a decline
in motor skills, reduced strength and speed, and
sometimes leading to tremors in the hands [, ].
Some older people have diseases that affect their
psychomotor skills, such as multiple sclerosis, arthritis,
osteoporosis, stroke and Parkinson's disease, which can
cause difficulties use of the mouse and keyboard [,
].
 Cognition: there is a decline in some cognitive abilities
with ageing, such as reduced memory, speed of
perception, comprehension of texts, ability to
concentrate and attention []. Older people have
more difficulty concentrating and keeping their
attention on activities for long periods of time [].
Thus, older people with cognitive decline may have
their difficulties to use websites.
The ageing process can often result in older people who
suffering from multiple functional limitations. Therefore,
developing supports that aid the development of websites
accessible to the elderly is still a great challenge. These users do
not present a specific deficiency, but a set of limitations that
difficult their interaction with the Web.
A support to evaluate web accessibility and usability issues for
older adults
Hanson [15] argues that the accessibility of web applications
may be related to the current older generation. This work
discusses if the problems currently faced by older users will be
the same for the next generation of older adults due to the
accelerated evolution of technology. The study presents an
important reflection about if technological difficulties are
inevitable in ageing or if there are factors that will help future
generations of elders with skills that will eliminate or reduce
these difficulties.
The next generation of older people will probably not face
significant difficulty with future technological changes as they
have already developed skills with current technologies. Adults
will probably be in the labor market for longer and will already
be in touch with technological changes for longer [11, 22].
However, it is possible that computers evolve enough so that the
current web experience does not apply the older users. As the
current generation of elders, the next generation of them may
find barriers with the new technologies [15]. Therefore, it is very
important that the accessibility issues for older adults are
continuously investigated with the new generations of these
users [11, 22].
3 RELATED WORK
In the last years or so, there has been many research on what
can be done to make websites more accessible and usable. Many
studies have proposed different approaches to support the
evaluation of web content as well as to make websites more
senior friendly. The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI/W3C)
developed the international set of accessibility guidelines,
WCAG. The second edition guidelines, WCAG 2.0 [38], has 12
guidelines that are organized under 4 principles: perceivable,
operable, understandable, and robust. WCAG 2.0 include also
guidelines for making websites more accessible for older users
based on the results of the WAI-AGE project [35]. Another
important set of guidelines is the Making Your website Senior
Friendly recommendations version 2016 [25] developed by the
National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the National Library of
Medicine (NLM). These guidelines refer to best practices and
they are orientations to assist in the creation of sites more
accessible for older adults. They are available online and present
an example of website accessible to older adults.
A checklist with 38 questions to evaluate web accessibility for
older people was developed by Sales and Abreu Cybis [30], and
for developing it, they performed activities, such as observation
in senior centers, literature review, recommendations review,
followed by the stages of elaboration, review and validation. This
checklist was created based on WCAG 1.0 recommendations
[40], and the NIA version 2002 recommendations, [24] and
others.
Another study conducted by [20, 21] had investigated
problems of accessibility and usability, focused on the older
people. The researcher identified resources and mechanisms that
help the older adults interact with Web. A contribution of [20,
21] was the suggestion of success criteria for older adults, which
99
DSAI 2018, June 20-22, 2018, Thessaloniki, Greece
could be inserted into the WCAG 2.0 guidelines. Furthermore,
the author highlighted the need for continuity of studies with
older users, since other difficulties may be identified.
Lynch et al. [23] developed a weighted heuristic for
evaluating the usability of websites for older adults. The authors
created the heuristics based on the NIA recommendations,
version 2002 [24]. This evaluation technique presented a list of
32 characteristics that represent the most important senior-
friendly recommendations. These characteristics were organized
in four categories: Readability, Navigation,
Content/Organization, and Accessibility. Each heuristic presents
a weight and a presence score that produce a percentage for each
category. The final score produce a percentage called the
“Usability Index”, the quantitative measure the usability of the
site.
One of the most important usability inspection method for
evaluating interfaces is the Heuristic evaluation [26]. It involves
a small set of evaluators to identify usability problems in
interface design based on 10 heuristics. This method allows a
quick and low cost evaluation, but it is subjective because it
considers the evaluator's interpretation of the heuristics.
The previous studies presented here have shown that there is
a growing interest in the development of approaches for
evaluation of web accessibility and usability, and evaluate web
content for older people. However, new approaches to support
the evaluation need to be investigated due to the rapid evolution
of web technologies. Further efforts are needed to improve
evaluation techniques to achieve improvements in the
accessibility of websites [3]. It is necessary to bear in mind the
usability and accessibility issues together.
Our research builds on the work of these previous studies. It
includes the main accessibility and usability references: 10
usability heuristics [26], the WCAG 2.0 success criteria [38], and
the success criteria for older adults [20, 21], and the NIA
recommendations [25]. In addition, our approach was developed
as a checklist. This method consists of a minimum set of directly
applicable recommendations and does not require much
interpretation [36].
4 DEVELOPING A CHECKLIST FOR WEB
EVALUATION
Despite of many approaches to the evaluation of web content,
there is a need for a support that to identify, accurately and
objectively, possible problems of the evaluated websites. The
main purpose of this research was to develop a checklist, a
support to aid developers and experts in their evaluations of web
accessibility and usability for older users. A checklist focuses on
some of the most important aspects of the interface that may
present the most serious usability problems. This support allows
a quick and inexpensive evaluation. [36]. Checklist can be used
for developers since it does not to demand previous experience
and knowledge about web evaluation.
Figure 1 illustrates the stages for this study. The first step in
the process of developing a checklist was to decide which
DSAI 2018, June 20-22, 2018, Thessaloniki, Greece
guidelines and recommendations to use as reference. From
activities of analysis of the state of the art and literature review,
a list of 51 questions was created based on main accessibility and
usability references. Each question of checklist were named as
checkpoints and it were grouped into five of the seven
difficulties identified by [20] and [21]. Those seven difficulties
were recognized as the main problems reported by older adults
while interacting with the Web. We chose five difficulties and
not all of them because of two of the difficulties was specific to
shopping websites [20, 21] and did not apply to the general
perspective of requirements for this checklist. Therefore, the
checkpoints were organized according to the following five
difficulties [20, 21]:
(1) Reading and text comprehension difficulty (“L”):
readability is still a problem faced by older adults in
most web applications regardless of their visual
quality. That can happen both with texts available,
with system messages and with menu options. Users
prefer to read the content without much effort. In
addition, texts with small or blurred fonts are still a
recurring problem;
(2) Difficulty to recognize and access links (“RL”):
users face difficulties to distinguish a common text
from a link, especially the inexperienced ones who
cannot notice the pointer format difference when
scanning the link area, that is, the pointer in arrow
form or in hand form represent the same thing for
them. Another important feature is the forgetfulness or
the distraction of the senescent concerning the links
that they already visited;
(3) Difficulty navigating (“N”): the most efficient
websites attend users' expectations and take them to
the right places. Once users cannot achieve their goals
using navigation elements from the website, they
usually believe that the information is not there and
change to another website. Creating a solid and proper
navigational structure allows a greater reliability for
the users to navigate the website, once they realize the
ease of returning to the previously visited page,
without barriers to impede navigation;
(4) Difficulty in searching and locating information
(“B”): the display of a search engine in a website
makes it easier to access the content, being very useful
to users who know what they really want. One of the
main problems reported by older people is the location
of the desired information among with excessive
information and links, that are usually presented as
search results, in a list or menu format.
Figure 1: Stages of research methodology
100
S. Rodrigues et al.
Each checkpoint was classified in one of the five difficulties,
and is structured as follows (shown in Table 1)
 Difficulty: description of the difficulty to which the
checkpoint belongs;
 Checkpoint identified by the acronym of
difficulty: describes what should be checked in the
web application. If the answers are affirmative, the
web application complies, in contrast, it is in
disagreement with the checkpoint;
 Example: it shows a detailed contextualization to
exemplify and assist in comprehension of the
checkpoint;
 Motivation: describes the reason and relevance of
complying the checkpoint;
 References: it has a set of references used to justify
and base the checkpoint;
 Answer: evaluator can choose among the answer
options: “Yes”, “Partially”, “No” or “Not applicable”;
 Observations: additional space for annotations by
evaluator.
Table 1: Example of the structure of a checkpoint in
checklist
Difficulty and checkpoint
Reading and text comprehension difficulty (“L”)
L2 - Is the web application FONT SIZE suitable for reading
and understanding of the textual content? Level AA
Example (applies to): it is recommended a minimum size of
16 pixels for the font size of textual content.
Motivation: to assist older people with low vision and those
who lost some vision capabilities due to the ageing process.
References:
(a) Success criteria 1.4.4, WCAG 2.0. World Wide web Consortium,
2008, [38].
(b) Making Your website Senior Friendly, 2016. [25].
Answer: ( ) Yes ( ) Partially ( ) No ( ) Does not apply
Observations:
The checklist was elaborated with 51 checkpoints and a
summary of its numbers shown in Table 2. Based on WCAG 2.0
[38], the checkpoints were organized in three conformance
levels: A (lowest), AA, and AAA (highest). The adequacy to the
checkpoints will allow better accessibility and usability of web
content for older profile. Table 3 shows the checkpoints of
Difficulty to recognize and access links (“RL”). After the
development of checklist, the verification and validation
activities of the checklist were performed as described in the
following section.
A support to evaluate web accessibility and usability issues for
DSAI 2018, June 20-22, 2018, Thessaloniki, Greece
older adults

Table 2: Summary of checklist 5 CHECKLIST VALIDATION

We performed a validation of checklist with experts in web
Difficulties Number of accessibility and usability to investigate the comprehension,
checkpoints understanding and relevance of each checkpoint. This study used
Reading and text comprehension 15 an online questionnaire1 that included one question for each
difficulty (“L”) checkpoint of each difficulty. Our questionnaire presented
Difficulty to recognize and access links 2 questions to verify if the checkpoint is easy to understand, if it
(“RL”)
provides clear examples and if the checkpoint is relevant to
Difficulty navigating (“N”) 17
checklist on a Likert scale. At the end of the questionnaire, there
Difficulty in performing specific tasks 11
(“RT”) was another open-ended question for the participant to submit
Difficulty in searching and locating 6 comments. Eight experts participated in this study, three
information (“B”) master's students and four Ph.D students from ICMC/USP, and
Total of checkpoints 51 one professor, all specialist in web accessibility and usability,
and with more than 5 years of experience in the area. The
Table 3: Checkpoints of difficulty to recognize and access questionnaire was available to be filled in from August 28 to
links (“RL”) September 1, 2016.
From the results, we examined quantitative and qualitative
Difficulty to recognize and access links (“RL”) responses. A set of modifications were suggested by experts.
RL1 – Does the Web application exhibit LINKS with They identified problems of comprehension, presence of
ENOUGH SPACE between them to avoid mistakes? Level ambiguities, suggestions of joining similar checkpoints and
AAA adding new checkpoints. The participants provided relevant
Example (applies to): a Web application that displays comments, which were analyzed to improve the checklist.
enough space around the links to make them easier to Following, we transcribe some interesting comments provided
access, either by clicking with the mouse or by touching by experts during the validation:
them in touch screens. “The example of B3 (checkpoint B3) could be simplified to be
Motivation: : to assist older people who have movement more objective, direct and clear.”
precision difficulties to point/click in small areas reserved to “The L7 (checkpoint L7) does not explain what would be an
links ideal contrast, it was very subjective. The example presents the
same problem in L5 (checkpoint L5).”
References:
“In the N8 (checkpoint N8), in the automatic updates part, is
(a) Nielsen and Molich [26]
similar to L5 (checkpoint L5). I think it could be to join the two or
(b) Making Your website Senior Friendly. National Institute on
Aging, 2016. [25] better explain the difference between them.”
(c) Affonso de Lara [21] The validation identified a significant amount of problems by
Answer: ( ) Yes ( ) Partially ( ) No ( ) Does not apply experts and evidenced the need for improvements and
Observations: adaptations in the checklist. The application of the corrections
will result in another version that is under development and
needs to be submitted to a new evaluation cycle to guarantee
RL2 - Is the amount of INFORMATION and LINKS exhibited improvements in the version.
in the Web application enough for user’s comprehension, wi -
thout requiring too much memorization? Level AAA 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Example (applies to): a Web application that displays a
simple and direct structure, with small amount of Although a moderate amount of studies have investigated the
information, links and advertisement, in a way that it main barriers and difficulties faced by older adults when
does not cause cognitive overload and confusion while interacting with Web, much more work needs to be done due to
searching for the desired information. the rapid evolution of web technologies. Many approaches
Motivation: the ageing process can decrease the (methods, recommendations, guidelines, etc.) have been
person’s cognitive ability, requiring the prioritization developed to evaluate web content for older adults [20, 21, 23, 25,
of a simple and minimalist design. 30, 35]. However, there is a lack of significant evolution of
References: accessibility evaluation methods [3] and a growing need for
(a) Nielsen and Molich [26] further studies on accessibility issues for older people that
(b) Making Your website Senior Friendly. National Institute on should be continuously investigated with the new generations of
Aging, 2016. [25] such users [10, 22]. Older adults are a heterogeneous group of
(c) Affonso de Lara [21] users who generally do not present a specific limitation, but a set
Answer: ( ) Yes ( ) Partially ( ) No ( ) Does not apply of limitations arising from the ageing process. Failure to comply
Observations:

101
DSAI 2018, June 20-22, 2018, Thessaloniki, Greece
with the web accessibility guidelines and the lack of knowledge
of the developers about the difficulties encountered by older
people in web interaction are a barrier in the development of
web content more accessible to the elderly.
This study has (a) established a support to evaluate web
accessibility and usability for older adults in the form of a
checklist and (b) investigated the barriers faced by older adults in
web interaction. The results of the validation performed by
experts showed the need for improvement and review of the
checklist. A set of modifications has been suggested by them. In
this way, the checklist needs to undergo a new cycle of
evaluation and studies. It is vital that studies on the interaction
of older users be continuously carried out. Population ageing is a
relevant topic in the area of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)
that can contribute to the study and development of a diversity
of approaches and technologies to minimize arising and
characteristic problems of ageing.
We believe that this research can help developers in their
web content evaluations for older adults. The checklist is a direct
instrument to be applied, since it allows a more accurate and
objective diagnosis of possible problems in the evaluated web
content. This support has a minimum set of directly applicable
recommendations and does not require much interpretation. In
addition, the checklist considers accessibility and usability issues
and the older user profile.
7 FUTURE RESEARCH
As the increasing use of the Web has accompanied the
population ageing, it is important to consider different
perspectives to acquire a better understanding of barriers and
difficulties faced by older adults in web interaction. Future
research could verify the point of view of experts, developers
and the target audience, the older adults, to improve our
checklist. First, interviews could be conducted to investigate the
most frequently websites accessed by the elderly and to obtain a
sample for evaluations. Subsequently, other evaluations should
be performed, such as conformance review, automated tests and
user testing to verify the accessibility and usability problems in a
sample. It is crucial to carry out other evaluation methods
because one complements the other in terms of evaluation [4].
Based on the results of the evaluations, the checklist could be
improved by integrating the main observed issues.
The population size of older users reaches huge proportions
which requires adaptation of the web content to bear in mind
this profile. It is very important to provide a more appropriate
use experience for the requirements of older adults and avoid
their frustrations. Therefore, it is relevant that developers have
validated approaches to aid them create more accessible websites
for older adults. This study can serve as an important
contribution to different future research projects. Future studies
could be performed on how to enhance the validity of the
support and determine if it could be adapted to younger users.
Our checklist was designed to help diagnose accessibility and
usability problems of a website as a whole. In other words, to
11 Available at https://goo.gl/HceVcd (in Portuguese)
102
S. Rodrigues et al.
obtain a good result, it is necessary that all checkpoints are
complied. Moreover, we observed that checklist could be easily
adapted to perform the verification of only specific elements of
the interface under evaluation, such as in videos of a web page.
Finally, research could be done on the accessibility and
usability of other contexts, such as in different platforms for
older adults using a same evaluation support. The use of mobile
devices, such as smartphones and tablets, has increased rapidly
and these are increasingly popular and affordable to the general
population. It would be interesting to investigate how the
developed checklist for web content could help evaluate
applications on other platforms in an attempt to improve their
accessibility and usability.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank to CAPES/CNPq – Brazil (process:
1668084), and the FAPESP (processes: 2017/10285-3 and
2015/24525-0) for their support.
REFERENCES
[1] de A. Melo, J.E. et al. 2016. An Analysis of Application Usage for Notes and
Reminders by Older persons-ElderNote Case Study. Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for
Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion (New York, NY, USA, 2016),
339–345.
[2] Arch, A. 2009. Web Accessibility for Older Users: Successes and Opportunities
(Keynote). Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference
on Web Accessibililty (W4A) (New York, NY, USA, 2009), 1–6.
[3] Baazeem, I.S. and Al-Khalifa, H.S. 2015. Advancements in Web Accessibility
Evaluation Methods: How Far Are We? Proceedings of the 17th International
Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services
(New York, NY, USA, 2015), 90:1--90:5.
[4] Brajnik, G. 2008. Beyond Conformance: The Role of Accessibility Evaluation
Methods. Web Information Systems Engineering -- WISE 2008 Workshops:
Auckland, New Zealand, September 1-4, 2008. Proceedings. S. Hartmann et al.,
eds. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 63–80.
[5] BRASIL 2014.{eMAG} Modelo de Acessibilidade em Governo Eletrônico.
[6] Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) 2015. Brazilian Institute
of Geography and Statistics (IBGE).
[7] Camarano, A.A. and Kanso, S. 2010. As instituições de longa permanência para
idosos no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Estudos de População. 27, 1 (2010), 232–
235.
[8] Cheong, Y. et al. 2013. Effects of age and psychomotor ability on kinematics of
mouse-mediated aiming movement. Ergonomics. 56, 6 (2013), 1006–1020.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.781682.
[9] Costa, D. et al. 2013. Web Accessibility in Africa: A Study of Three African
Domains. Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2013. P. Kotzé et al., eds.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 331–338.
[10] Czaja, S.J. 1997. Computer technology and the older adult. Handbook of
human-computer interaction. (1997), 791–824.
[11] Czaja, S.J. and Sharit, J. 2009. Preparing organizations and older workers for
current and future employment: training and retraining issues. Aging and
work: issues and implications in a changing landscape. The Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore. (2009), 259–278.
[12] EveryEye 2004. Old age vision: age related vision impairment explained.
[13] Finn, K. and Johnson, J. 2013. A Usability Study of Websites for Older
Travelers.Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. User and
Context Diversity: 7th International Conference, UAHCI 2013, Held as Part of
HCI International 2013, Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 21-26, 2013, Proceedings,
Part II. C. Stephanidis and M. Antona, eds. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 59–67.
[14] Gilbertson, T.D. and Machin, C.H.C. 2012. Guidelines, Icons and Marketable
Skills: An Accessibility Evaluation of 100 Web Development Company
Homepages. Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on
Web Accessibility (New York, NY, USA, 2012), 17:1--17:4.
[15] Hanson, V.L. 2009. Age and Web Access: The Next Generation. Proceedings of
the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibililty
(W4A) (New York, NY, USA, 2009), 7–15.
[16] Hanson, V.L. 2010. Influencing technology adoption by older adults.
Interacting with Computers. 22, 6 (2010), 502–509.
DOI:https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.09.001.
A support to evaluate web accessibility and usability issues for
DSAI 2018, June 20-22, 2018, Thessaloniki, Greece
older adults

[17] Hayflick, L. 1996. How and why we become older (in Portuguese). Campus.
[18] Kline, D.W. and Scialfa, C.T. 1997. Sensory and perceptual functioning: Basic
research and human factors implications. (1997).
[19] Kurniawan, S.H. 2008. Ageing. Web Accessibility: A Foundation for Research. S.
Harper and Y. Yesilada, eds. Springer London. 47–58.
[20] de Lara, S.M. et al. 2010. Improving WCAG for Elderly Web Accessibility.
Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Design of
Communication (New York, NY, USA, 2010), 175–182.
[21] de Lara, S.M. 2013. Support mechanisms for usability and accessibility in the
interaction of older adults on the web.Institute of Mathematical and Computer
Sciences in São Carlos (ICMC/USP), University of Sao Paulo.
[22] de Lara, S.M.A. et al. 2016. A study on the acceptance of website interaction
aids by older adults. Universal Access in the Information Society. 15, 3 (2016),
445–460. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-015-0419-y.
[23] Lynch, K.R. et al. 2013. Development of a Weighted Heuristic for Website
Evaluation for Older Adults. International Journal of Human Computer
Interaction. 29, 6 (2013), 404–418.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2012.715277.
[24] National Institute on Aging (NIA) 2002. Making Your Website Senior Friendly.
[25] National Institute on Aging (NIA) 2016. NIA recommendations - Making Your
Website Senior Friendly.
[26] Nielsen, J. and Molich, R. 1990. Heuristic Evaluation of User Interfaces.
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(New York, NY, USA, 1990), 249–256.
[27] Petrie, H. et al. 2015. Towards a Unified Definition of Web Accessibility.
Proceedings of the 12th Web for All Conference (New York, NY, USA, 2015),
35:1--35:13.
[28] Power, C. et al. 2010. Integrating Accessibility Evaluation into Web
Engineering Processes. International Journal of Information Technology and
Web Engineering. 4, 4 (2010), 54–77.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.4018/jitwe.2009100104.
[29] Raban, Y. and Brynin, M. 2006. Older people and new technologies. Computers,
phones, and the Internet: Domesticating information technology. S.K. Robert
Kraut Malcolm Brynin, ed. Oxford University Press New York. 43–50.
[30] de Sales, M.B. and de Abreu Cybis, W. 2003. Development of a Checklist for
the Evaluation of the Web Accessibility for the Aged Users. Proceedings of the
Latin American Conference on Human-computer Interaction (New York, NY,
USA, 2003), 125–133.
[31] Silva, S. et al. 2014. AgeCI: HCI and Age Diversity.Universal Access in
Human-Computer Interaction. Aging and Assistive Environments: 8th
International Conference, UAHCI 2014, Held as Part of HCI International
2014, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 22-27, 2014, Proceedings, Part III. C.
Stephanidis and M. Antona, eds. Springer International Publishing. 179–190.
[32] Trewin, S. et al. 2012. Age-specific Predictive Models of Human Performance.
CHI ’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New
York, NY, USA, 2012), 2267–2272.
[33] United Nations (UN) 2015. United Nations (UN).
[34] Vines, J. et al. 2015. An Age-Old Problem: Examining the Discourses of Ageing
in HCI and Strategies for Future Research. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum.
Interact.22, 1 (2015), 2:1--2:27. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2696867.
[35] Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI/W3C) 2010. Web Accessibility Initiative:
Ageing Education and Harmonisation.
[36] Winckler, M. and Pimenta, M.S. 2002. Avaliação de usabilidade de sites web.
Escola de Informática da SBC SUL (ERI 2002) ed. Porto Alegre: Sociedade
Brasileira de Computação (SBC). 1, (2002), 85–137.
[37] World Health Organization 2015. Ageing and health.
[38] World Wide Web Consortium 2008. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG) 2.0.
[39] World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) 2008. Web Accessibility for Older Users:
A Literature Review.
[40] World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) 1999. Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0.

103