Accessibility and microcopy remote testing of mobile

applications:
The case of the CeNTER platform

Oksana Tymoshchuk, Eliza Oliveira, André Branco, Daniel Carvalho, Maria João Antunes, Luís Pedro, Ana
Margarida Almeida, Fernando Ramos
Department of Communication and Art / DigiMedia
University of Aveiro
Aveiro, Portugal
{oksana, elizaoliveira, acastello, daniel.carvalh, mariajoao, lpedro, marga, fernando.ramos}@ua.pt

Abstract — When designing a digital solution aimed at
community initiatives, it is necessary to have a great concern with
all potential users, ensuring it can be easily used by anyone,
regardless of any sensory or motor limitations. This article
reports the developmental stage of a mobile application, which
aims to promote collaboration and cooperation between different
agents involved in the territorial innovation process. Accessibility
and microcopy evaluations of the application prototype were
carried out to improve its accessibility and ensure its use by users
in several circumstances, contexts, and conditions. Due to the
Covid-19 pandemic current restrictions, the tests were performed
remotely, allowing the development team to deepen knowledge
about the different methods and tools for implementing remote
tests. This paper presents the results of this methodology of
evaluation, which contributed to assess the CeNTER mobile
application's adequacy and make improvements aimed at
ensuring its accessibility and universality.
Keywords - mobile application; accessibility; microcopy test;
remote test; digital technologies; community-led initiatives;
territory-based innovation.
CeNTER, is under development to encourage interactions
between local agents (citizens, communities, entities, and
networks), facilitate communication and collaboration
processes, benefit from existing mediation strategies and
encourage the joint creation of new ideas/activities [3,7].
The prototype was developed using a user centered design
approach, through an iterative process of continuous
improvement [7]. The CeNTER mobile application prototype
was developed with the support of the "Principle" software.
The main screen of the application has six tabs: initiatives,
activities, entities, volunteers, resources, and highlights (Figure
1). When opening each of the tabs, the user finds the
information presented in a carousel mode, with cards
presenting different contents. The cards have essential
information (e.g., image, date and time, location) and can be
manipulated with gestures such as swiping (e.g., discard or
save as favorites). Browsing content is done with a minimum
amount of movement.

I. INTRODUCTION (HEADING 1)
Digital technologies can have a significant impact on
innovation and territorial development, as they offer tools for
regional actors to share information and build collaborative
knowledge, essential for the development of community
initiatives [1,2].
However, research under the CeNTER Program found that
community initiatives in the Central Region of Portugal still
face several challenges in the use of digital technologies within
the scope of their activities. These challenges are mainly
related to: i) excess of unclassified information; ii) the
multitude of digital tools that forces the community to manage
too many things (digital messaging services; productivity tools; Figure 1. Homescreen of the version of the medium-fidelity prototype.
tools for obtaining feedback, etc.); iii) the complexity of these
tools; iv) the lack of digital telecommunications equipment and The prototype was tested using a heuristic evaluation, with
infrastructure, mainly in rural areas; v) the low level of digital the participation of five specialists in the field of digital
skills, especially among senior participants [3,4]. technologies and five specialists in the field of Tourism,
Health, and Wellness [8]. For the CeNTER app prototype
Community-led initiative representatives also reported the evaluation, Nielsen's heuristics, MATCH-MED scale, and
lack of a digital platform that is able to mediate and facilitate Think Aloud Protocol allowed it to improve usability and
interaction, collaboration, and cooperation between community gather qualitative data from the users [9]. The CeNTER
initiatives, institutions, volunteers, and local populations [5,6].
To meet these needs, a mobile application prototype, called

2021 16th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI)

23 – 26 June 2021, Chaves, Portugal
ISBN: 978-989-54659-1-0

Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: UNIVERSIDADE DE AVEIRO. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 09:44:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
prototype was well evaluated among the specialists of the two
groups.
Additionally, prototype accessibility and microcopy content
tests were made in order to ensure the development of an
accessible mobile application. This article reports the
methodological procedures and the main results of these two
tests of the CeNTER application prototype. It is important to
mention that due to the epidemiological situation related to
Covid-19, a remote methodology was adopted to conduct these
two tests.
II. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Accessibility and Mobile Applications
Accessibility, a subclass of usability, allows everyone to
access the same content, regardless of any functional or
situational limitations [10]. Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) have been defined to facilitate the
development of accessible web applications. It presents 3
levels of compliance, with 'A' being the minimum accessibility
rating and 'AAA' being the standard of excellence [10].
WCAG 2.0 also provides four generic principles for
accessible development: i) perceivability, meaning that
information and user interface components must be presentable
to users in ways they can perceive them; ii) operability,
meaning that user interface components and navigation must
be operable; iii) understandability, meaning that information
and the operation of the user interface must be understandable;
iv) robustness, meaning that the content must be robust enough
to be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents,
including assistive technologies [11].
However, the development of an accessible mobile
application is a challenge due to several particularities of
mobile phones. According to Billi et al. [10], mobile devices
have several limitations inherently related to the small screen,
such as restricted input resources and connectivity, narrow and
expensive bandwidth, reduced computing resources, limited
energy and wide heterogeneity.
It is, therefore, important to highlight that accessibility
guidelines must be considered in the development process of
mobile applications [10]. Although WCAG 2.0 presents a
collection of guidelines suitable for web developers, there was,
to this date, no standardized orientations for mobile devices
[11]. Several authors have also tried to adopt different methods
to evaluate accessibility in mobile devices, based on a task-
centric approach [10,11,13].
Companies like Apple and Google also contributed by
establishing quality guidelines in the development of
applications for iOS and Android, respectively. Some of the
contributions were resources and documentation, as well as
assistive technologies such as screen readers (TalkBack and
VoiceOver), controlling the phone from voice commands
(Voice Access) or customizing some display features, such as
bold text, contrast, transparency or motions (Apple
functionality).
Freire et al.[14] also highlighted three methods that can be
used to evaluate accessibility: i) conformity assessments, i.e.,
to check if the characteristics of a website are in accordance
2021 16th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI)
23 – 26 June 2021, Chaves, Portugal
ISBN: 978-989-54659-1-0
Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: UNIVERSIDADE DE AVEIRO. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 09:44:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
with the guidelines, such as those of WCAG 2.0; ii) automated
tests of compliance with guidelines, through the use of
automated tools for evaluating accessibility that present
deterministic results; iii) manual inspection by experts, a
method that uses human action and serves predominantly to
obtain results that cannot be obtained automatically, and can be
composed of teams with knowledge of accessibility guidelines.
B. Microcopy Test
Microcopy is a recent area of knowledge that is strictly
related to the words or phrases in the user interface that are
associated to actions (for example, a click), which comprise the
motivation before the action, the instruction that goes along
with the action, and the feedback after the user has
accomplished the action [15]. It is a central element of User
Experience since it determines the relationship between the
interface and its users into a reciprocal connection that enriches
and even changes the mood [16]. In Yifrah’s [15] words: “Just
adding a few words in the right place at the right time could
completely change the user experience” (p. 7).
An accurate microcopy can: i) engage the user, since it
changes the relationship from a robotic functional encounter to
a human and personal experience; ii) increase usability,
preventing problems in completing an action and saving
valuable time; and iii) enhance branding and differentiation by
sharpening the key messages to the target audience and
creating an authentic and unified experience throughout the
interaction with the audience [15].
In this context, Roberts [17] and Leon [16] provide a
complete guide to produce an accurate microcopy. For
example, microcopy must be written in a natural human
language that is simple and easy to understand. Therefore,
jargon and technical system details should not be used. Also,
microcopy should explicitly define what actions are being
performed, including coherence between button labels and
what action will happen when clicked, providing specific
information about interaction and what action(s) can be taken
next.
Regarding the assessment, usability tests can determine if
the microcopy is appropriate in the context of the user's
actions, and if it matches the audience. A/B testing is also an
alternative to evaluate which variations of microcopy have the
greatest effect. In this case, it is possible to analyse the
effectiveness of a microcopy by measuring the performance of
the screens and controls [16]. In addition, Yifrah [15] states
that microcopy content evaluation encompasses several
methods, such as surveys and questionnaires;
feedback/comments made about the brand; inquiries received
from the contact form; recordings of usability testing;
transcripts from focus groups; and interviews.
C. Remote Evaluation Method
Remote testing is a recommended strategy in the
accessibility assessment processes. Preece et al. [18] state that
it allows individuals with disabilities to be involved, as they
are, often, limited to remote scenarios (as work from their own
homes). Remote testing can be moderated or unmoderated.
Moran and Pernice [19] mention that remote moderated
testing can deliver high-quality findings (comparable to in-
person testing) but is convenient and inexpensive (like remote
unmoderated). Its main benefits are: i) the facilitator may
reorder tasks as needed; ii) follow-up questions for clarification
can be asked; iii) and participants are less likely to spend time
on activities unrelated to the test [19].
Unmoderated tests do not require a researcher to attend
each test session; instead, a software application provides
instructions to users, records their actions, and may ask them
predetermined follow-up questions. The authors mention there
are some advantages in these tests like: i) no moderation skills
needed; ii) easy test setup; iii) fast results; iv) and low cost.
However, unmoderated remote testing has some drawbacks,
such as: i) variability in motivation of participants and
commitment to the test; ii) high chance that testers will
multitask or get distracted by their environment; iii) and short
test sessions [19].
Schade [20] recommends seven steps for remote testing: i)
choose a good tool for communicating with participants. ii)
plan how to administer tasks; iii) schedule a meeting with
participants and a practice session before testing; iv) send
reminders to participants and observers for pre-test and to
testing session; v) try to enter the session a few minutes before
the participants; vi) start the session with the user connected,
trying to make participants feel comfortable; vii) end the
session thanking the participant, stop and save the record.
Furthermore, a pre-test to help to refine this process is advised,
testing the equipment and hardware, as well as checking the
record capabilities of the hardware on this pre-testing session.
III. METHODOLOGY
This study was carried out under the CeNTER Program,
developed at University of Aveiro. One of the objectives of this
program is the prototyping and validation of a mediation
platform for territorial innovation, with a focus on the areas of
Tourism, Health, and Well-Being. The prototype of a mobile
application, named CeNTER, was created for this purpose.
The CeNTER mobile application is a prototype of medium-
fidelity and was developed with the Principle software for
iPhone. A total of 74 screens were developed, as well as the
main interactions between them. It was evaluated under
accessibility and microcopy tests, in order to improve the
accessibility and understanding by people with different
conditions and in different contexts.
Due to the pandemic situation, the remote test methodology
proposed by Schade [20] was adopted.
A. Expert Accessibility Evaluation
The accessibility test was carried out through expert
evaluation and the use of accessibility testing tools. The test
with the accessibility expert was organized in four steps: i)
Selection of free tools to record the screen of the expert's
mobile phone (e.g., TeamViewer, iPhone screen recorder). The
ApowerMirror tool was selected according to its compatibility
with iPhone and Principle software, allowing researchers to
capture the user experience on all screens. ApowerMirror
allows the research team to share the mobile phone screen on a
notebook. The Zoom platform was selected for the video
meeting, to share the expert´s screen and record the evaluation
2021 16th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI)
23 – 26 June 2021, Chaves, Portugal
ISBN: 978-989-54659-1-0
Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: UNIVERSIDADE DE AVEIRO. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 09:44:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
process; ii) The first contact with the expert - an email was sent
inviting the expert to participate in the test. After accepting the
invitation, the files with the prototype and a consent
requirement were sent to the evaluator. iii) Pre-test session
(remote) - setup all technology necessary for the testing (install
Principle and ApowerMirror application); iv) Accessibility test
(remote) - the test was moderated, with the presence of one
accessibility expert and researchers from the CeNTER team.
The test occurred on May 5th, 2020 and lasted 3 hours and
30 minutes. The session started with the accessibility expert
being invited to explore the open screen and the following
menu. The expert was asked to comment on what she was
looking for or reading, what she liked and disliked about the
application and what made it easy or difficult to execute. The
expert shares her phone screen on her computer, using
ApowerMirror software. Thereafter, the expert used Zoom to
share her computer screen with the CeNTER team members,
allowing to follow every step of navigation and user experience
on the prototype. The results were transcribed and analysed
using a grid, defining the levels of priority and complexity of
problems detected. All the demands were prioritized for further
development. After the test analysis, the issues were reviewed,
fixing the identified problems and implementing the
improvements.
B. Accessibility Tool Evaluation
The Contrast Checker Tool was used to check the contrast
and audit screen elements according to WCAG 2.0 [10]. Due to
prototype limitations, compared to a final version of the
application, this evaluation focused on the 1.4 WCAG 2.0
guideline “Distinguishable: Make it easier for users to see and
hear content including separating foreground from
background”. Some of the limitations stem from the Principle
software itself, making it impossible to analyse several
guidelines that required a screen reader. Therefore, it was
chosen as the Contrast Checker Tool software able to analyse
guidelines by reading the background and foreground from
print screens of the prototype.
This test emphasised an analysis of application screens and
content, including foreground and background contrast Colour,
contrast and text sizes standards were analysed. To increase the
accuracy on evaluation about foreground and background texts,
parts of the application screen colour and contrast have been
analysed separately. After evaluating the main application
screens, the analysis proceeded to use the Contrast Checker
Tool, in order to verify the instances of violations of WCAG
2.0, considering the success criteria defined. The results were
provided exclusively by the tool, with no human intervention.
The issues were summarized and analysed with the support of
a spreadsheet. All the violations of WCAG 2.0 were fixed on
the application, adjusting foreground and background colours.
C. Microcopy Evaluation
The Microcopy Content was built based on the guide
presented in the book Microcopy: The Complete Guide [15].
Further, the microcopy test intended to identify whether the
textual content, used in the CeNTER application prototype, is
adequate and correct, considering the context of the project. An
unmoderated expert evaluation was conducted, aiming to
support the lexical and terminological validation of the
contents used in the application. All the 215 textual elements,
presented in the interfaces, were evaluated in terms of the
adequacy of each textual content, using a Likert scale, and
whether the content was correctly used or not. Further, the
expert was invited to provide suggestions for changing the
textual elements that, in his opinion, should be modified. The
data were subsequently analysed by the CeNTER team. The
expert was a Portuguese and Linguistic Professor at the
University of London and University of Aveiro and the test
occurred between June 19th and July 10th, 2020. A grid with
all the lexical contents presented in the CeNTER prototype
interfaces was developed for the evaluation task. This
microcopy content grid was sent by e-mail to the expert, along
with a pdf document with the images of the prototype's
interfaces. Despite being unmoderated, all questions presented
by the reviewer were answered by e-mail and the team was
always available to clarify any issue that could eventually
emerge.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Accessibility Evaluation
During the remote accessibility evaluation testing, 74
screens of the prototype were analysed on a moderate test with
an expert. The test was conducted with spreadsheet support.
Each issue on the spreadsheet was divided into points of
attention and opportunities for improvement, with an extensive
description to support a further classification. The issues were
classified by priority and development effort. The spreadsheet
had a total of 42 issues separated on 13 (31%) high priority, 11
(26%) medium and 11 (26%) low priority. Seven issues were
not implemented since they could only be developed after the
prototyping phase of the project. This prioritization and effort
classification enabled the preparation of a task order for all the
42 issues (Table 1).
TABLE I. ACCESSIBILITY REPORT
Priority Issues reported Percentage %
High 13 31
Medium 11 26
Low 11 26
Not implemented 7 17
Total 42 100
More than 80% of the issues pointed out by the expert were
related to understandable, perceivable, and distinguishable
difficulties regarding screen elements. The expert pointed out
that some elements were not consistent between application
screens, or the elements had a low contrast on the foreground
and background colours. Another type of issue that emerged
was related to navigation problems that could be difficult for
people with visual disabilities. Special moves with fingers,
such as drag and drop cards on the application, were pointed as
a difficult task for someone with disabilities.
According to Freire [14], it should also be considered that
these problems may not be completely solved even if the
WCAG 2.0 guidelines are scrupulously followed. In this
context, it is noticeable that the referred author complemented
his study through interviews with the end-users, which
underlines the importance of obtaining direct feedback about
2021 16th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI)
23 – 26 June 2021, Chaves, Portugal
ISBN: 978-989-54659-1-0
Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: UNIVERSIDADE DE AVEIRO. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 09:44:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
the application. These were not implemented in the prototype
for the reason of technical limitations from the Principle
software, since it does not allow to implement complex
interaction gestures.
In the first screen analysis with the Contrast Checker Tool,
the application screens failed in five out of six guidelines
issues. Screen contrast, involving foreground and background
colours and thickness were identified. As noted by Serra et al.,
[21], many color combinations with low contrast can make a
mobile application difficult to use for users with low vision.
This is particularly concerning as many people can use such
applications in mobile devices in different places, with
different lighting and seeing conditions. After several analyses,
a redesign was done in the application screens. A second
analysis was made and five out of six guidelines’ issues were
approved for people with disabilities.
B. Microcopy Evaluation
With the microcopy test it was possible to achieve results
that enabled the improvement of the textual elements used in
the prototype. The main results of the microcopy test
encompass the classification of the expert’s suggestions in
different categories, as well as the quantitative analysis of data.
Twenty-three textual adjustments were suggested by the
expert, to the 215 textual elements used in the prototype. The
adjustments were classified according to the categories
indicated on Table 2. Some suggestions were related to more
than one category, originating a total of 29 items.
TABLE II. CATEGORIZATION OF THE SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THE
EXPERT TO THE MICROCOPY OF THE PROTOTYPE
Domains Number of Percentage
suggestions %
Difficult / ambiguous text 4 13,8
Inconsistency in the language 2 6,9
(Portuguese from Portugal and
Portuguese from Brazil)
Comment related to specific 3 10,3
terminology
Alternative vocabulary suggestion 11 37,9
Grammatical error 6 20,7
Orthographic error 3 10,4
Total 29 100
Most of the suggestions were related to modifications in
vocabulary, including changing, removing or adding textual
content to replace the original. In addition, there was a
significant number of errors related to grammatical and
ambiguity/difficulty texts, indicating that the main problems
identified were related to the systematization of lexical
elements and structuring of texts. Regarding the quantitative
analysis related to whether the content is correct or not, 201 out
of 215 (93,5%) was classified as being correctly used, while 14
out of 215 (6,5%) was incorrectly used.
Concerning the assessment of the adequacy of each textual
content, based on a 5-point Likert scale (0 - inadequate; 1 –
low adequacy; 2 - neither inadequate nor adequate; 3 –
adequate; 4 - very adequate), the expert scored each option in
the following frequency (Table 3).

TABLE III. TABLE TYPE STYLES
Scalea 0 1 2 3
Numbers of items 0 3 3 2
Score (total of 843) 0 3 6 6
Percentage 0 1,4% 1,4% 0,9%
a. 0-inadequate; 1–low adequacy; 2-neither inadequate nor adequate; 3–adequate; 4-very adequate.
Considering the results above, the total score achieved is
843 (98%), which corresponds to the sum of the scores
obtained, with a maximum score possible being 860 (100%),
proving that the overall results are very positive.
It is worth to stress that special attention was requested to
the terms related to the CeNTER main concepts (initiatives,
events, resources, entities, volunteers, highlights, ideas).
Specifically, regarding these concepts, no problems were
reported by the expert. Therefore, the results presented above
show that, despite some details, the contents and lexical
elements used in the CeNTER prototype are adequate and
correctly used. The adjustments suggested were already
incorporated in the application. The CeNTER team highlight a
lack of studies regarding the conduction of microcopy tests,
making it difficult to discuss the obtained results with the
findings reported in the literature. Also, from the outcomes
achieved, it is notorious that microcopy evaluation needs a
multidisciplinary team on software development projects
aiming to build increasingly accessible software.
In addition, it is of utmost importance to test the textual
content with end users. As Leon [16] says, no matter how well-
crafted your words are, they are only hypotheses that need to
be validated by end-users.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The goal of this article was to show the main results of
remote accessibility and microcopy tests of a mobile
application prototype, aiming to encourage interactions
between local agents, ease the communication and
collaboration processes to promote the emergence of regional
initiatives. The evaluation enabled gathering valuable data,
involving two specialists from different areas of knowledge.
The use of a contrast evaluation online tool allowed to identify
the screen´s problems with no human intervention. The
findings of this study helped the researchers to detect and
overcome important accessibility issues.
The microcopy content evaluation allowed to verify the
terms that are more suitable according to the objectives of the
platform and proved that the essential terms are well applied in
the CeNTER context. Therefore, the overall results were
positive, not requiring complex improvements in the CeNTER
prototype. This study provided a discussion about the
importance of using remote accessibility testing when
developing a mobile application, contributing to the knowledge
and considering the few numbers of studies on this field. The
moderated approach for remote tests provided immediate
results, as the evaluation process occurred in real-time with the
team. As mentioned by several studies [19,20], this technique
allows to obtain suggestions directly from the evaluator, as
2021 16th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI)
23 – 26 June 2021, Chaves, Portugal
ISBN: 978-989-54659-1-0
Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: UNIVERSIDADE DE AVEIRO. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 09:44:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
well as to ask questions and get instant evaluators’ feedback. In
opposite, due to a large quantity of microcopy elements to
evaluate, the unmoderated approach allowed more time to
4 analyse the content. This technique ensured, therefore, an
207 accurate feedback, as well as a quick answer to the questions
828 and clarification of the expert’s doubts by telephone or e-mail.
96,3%
Some limitations of this work included the fact that
Principle software does not allow the appliance of some
assistive technologies, such as screen readers, having been
necessary to resort on the assistance of an accessibility expert.
Another restriction found, with the use of this software, was the
impossibility to apply automated tests of compliance to check
the accessibility ratio on used fonts and colour contrast,
although these issues were revised with software that required
manual input. Further, as future work the CeNTER team aims
to amplify the project to a multiplatform approach, that could
work on a wide range of devices and potentially improve
accessibility.
It is worth clarifying some threats to validity and how they
were mitigated by the team. Such examples include only one
participant for expert accessibility and microcopy evaluations,
giving room for improvement to conduct this study with more
participants. Also, the fact that the prototype needed an iOS
system to work was a challenge, restricting the tests to users
that owned this system.
The remote approach makes it difficult to conduct the
microcopy tests with the expert, since it requires a constant
exchange of e-mails to clarify any doubts. Further, the remote
test made it difficult to perform the accessibility test, since it
required the installation of the prototype in the expert’s
smartphone.
Considering the results presented in this study, the
following work phases will include the implementation of the
suggestions obtained from the experts’ evaluation, and the
conduction of tests with the end-users (communities, entities,
networks and citizens). These will provide the necessary
insights to develop a more robust, reliable and feasible version
of the application, ensuring the achievements of the CeNTER
platform’s objectives.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This article was developed under the support of the
Research Program “CeNTER” (CENTRO-01-0145-FEDER-
000002), funded by Programa Operacional Regional do Centro
(CENTRO 2020), PT2020. We are grateful for the generosity
of Virginia Chalegre and João Paulo Silvestre, in making
themselves available to participate as evaluators, which
constitutes the basis for this study.
REFERENCES
[1] N. Komninos, “Intelligent Cities and Globalisation of Innovation
Networks”, New York: Routledge, 2008.
[2] L. Townsend, A. Sathiaseelan, G. Fairhurst, and C. Wallace, “Enhanced
broadband access as a solution to the social and economic problems of
the rural digital divide”, Local Economy, vol. 28(6), pp. 580-595, 1995.
DOI:10.1177/0269094213496974
[3] P. A. Silva, M. J. Antunes, O. Tymoshchuk, L. Pedro, A. M. Almeida,
D. Renó, and F. Ramos, “Involving communities in shaping digital
solutions for innovation in societies and territories”, In ICGI’2019 –
 International Conference on Graphics and Interaction, Faro, Portugal,
November 21-22, pp. 145-152, 2019. DOI: 10.1109 /
ICGI47575.2019.8955087
[4] P. A. Silva, M. J. Antunes, O. Tymoshchuk, L. Pedro, A. M. Almeida,
D. Renó, and F. Ramos, “Barriers and incentives to territory-based
innovation processes: from technology to interaction among actors”, In
Handbook of Research on Cultural Heritage and Its Impact on Territory
Innovation and Development. IGI Global, pp.44-63, 2020. DOI:
10.4018/978-1-7998-6701-2
[5] O. Tymoshchuk, D. Reno, P. A. Silva, A. M. Almeida, L. Pedro, and F.
Ramos, “O papel das tecnologias digitais no desenvolvimento das
comunidades rurais: o estudo de caso múltiplo de “BioLiving” e “Bons
Sons”, Revista Portuguesa de Estudos Regionais (RPER), vol 3(52), pp.
131-144, 2019. Retrieved from
http://www.apdr.pt/siteRPER/numeros/RPER52/52.8.pdf
[6] P. A. Silva, M. J. Antunes, O. Tymoshchuk, L. Pedro, A. M. Almeida,
and F. Ramos, “Understanding the role of communication and mediation
strategies in community-led territorial innovation: a systematic review”,
Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal (IxD&A), vol. 44, pp. 7 –
28, 2020.
[7] D. Renó, P. A. Silva, A. M. Almeida, F. Ramos, L. Pedro, M. J.
Antunes, and O. Tymoshchuk, “Conceção de uma plataforma de
mediação digital para a Região Centro”, In proceeding de conferência
APDR 2019, pp. 1194-1199, 2019.
http://apdr.pt/data/documents/ATAS_APDRcongress2019.pdf
[8] A. C. Branco, D. Carvalho, E. Sacramento, O. Tymoshchuk, E. Oliveira,
M. J. Antunes, L. Pedro, M. Almeida, and F. Ramos, “Prototyping and
evaluating a mobile app to promote territorial innovation,” In
Proceedings – Conference Communities and Networks for Territorial
Innovation, 2021, in press.
[9] S. Seifi. “Developing an Engaging Local Community Application as a
Tool for Promoting Social Integration. thesis, Malmö University”, 2019.
from http://ls00012.mah.se/handle/2043/19614
[10] M. Billi, L. Burzagli, T. Catarci, G. Santucci, E. Bertini, F. Gabbanini,
and E. Palchetti, “A unified methodology for the evaluation of
accessibility and usability of mobile applications”, Universal Access in
the Information Society, vol. 9(4), pp. 337-356, 2010.
[11] M. Ballantyne, A. Jha, A. Jacobsen, J.S. Hawker, and Y. El-Glaly,
“Study of accessibility guidelines of mobile applications”, In
2021 16th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI)
23 – 26 June 2021, Chaves, Portugal
ISBN: 978-989-54659-1-0
Authorized licensed use limited to: b-on: UNIVERSIDADE DE AVEIRO. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 09:44:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Proceedings of the 17th international conference on mobile and
ubiquitous multimedia, 305-315, November 2018.
[12] B. Caldwell, M. Cooper, L. Reid, and G. Vanderheiden, “Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0”, 2008. Retrieved from
https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#visual-audio-
contrast-contrast
[13] E. Nilsson, “Accessibility Evaluation of a Mobile Application Using
WCAG 2.0 - An Evaluation of the CREDENTIAL Project’s”, Karlstad
University, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1241573/FULLTEXT02.pdf
[14] A. P. Freire, S. M. A. de Lara, and R. P. Fortes, “Avaliação Da
Acessibilidade De Websites Por Usuários Com Deficiência”,
Proceedings of the 12th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, 2013.
[15] K. Yifrah, “Microcopy: the complete guide”, Haifa: Nemala, 2017.
[16] N. de Leon, “Microcopy: discover how tiny bits of text make tasty apps
and websites”, Kindle Edition, 2017.
[17] S. Roberts, “Microcopy: a taxonomy and synthesis of best practices”,
2017, http://www.stratonroberts.com/projects/microcopy/Microcopy.pdf
[18] J. Preece, H. Sharp, and Y. Rogers, “Interaction Design - beyond
human-computer interaction”, 2019, 5th ed. Indianapolis: John Wiley &
Sons.
[19] K. Moran, and K. Pernice, “Remote Moderated Usability Tests: Why to
Do Them”, 2020, http://www.nngroup.com/articles/moderated-remote-
usability-test-why/
[20] A. Schade, “Remote Usability Tests: Moderated and Unmoderated”,
2013, Retrieved July 21, 2020,
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/remote-usability-tests/
[21] L. C. Serra, L. P. Carvalho, L. P. Ferreira, J. B. Silva, and A. P. Freire,
“Accessibility Evaluation of E-Government Mobile Applications in
Brazil”, 6th International Conference on Software Development and
Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Infoexclusion
(DSAI 2015), vol. 67, pp. 348–357, 2015.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050915031257