Accessibility Evaluation of Interactive Learning Mobile Applications for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities

Abstract

In today’s education sector, mobile technologies, including tablets and smartphones, have become integral tools, enabling the implementation of mobile learning in pedagogical activities. However, accessibility issues in mobile applications pose challenges, particularly for individuals with disabilities, contradicting the goals of Sustainable Development and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This paper aims to investigate the extent to which the industry considers accessibility in designing mobile learning applications for this specific user group. We evaluate the accessibility of interactive mobile applications designed for reading and alphabet learning, employing two different guidelines, by conducting heuristic evaluation based on research-based guideline and a design standard introduced by The World Wide Web Consortium. Three experts, each bringing a unique perspective and background, were engaged in the evaluation process. The heuristic evaluations were executed based on the criteria outlined in the selected guidelines. This involved identifying violations and employing a scoring system to quantify the findings. Subsequently, the experts engaged in discussions to achieve consensus and establish final scores for each checkpoint. The results provided a quantitative basis for our analysis. The results of the evaluation performed in this study expose a prevalent disregard for guideline checkpoints among these interactive mobile learning apps. Only two applications could be considered highly inclusive, indicating the need of improvement. Based on the results, the accessibility criteria were also categorized into four primary groups, highlighting the requirements that were least and most addressed by the applications.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.