Towards an Engineering Process for Developing Accessible Software

in Small Software Enterprises

Sandra Sanchez-Gordon

, Mary-Luz Sánchez-Gordón

and Sergio Luján-Mora

Escuela Politécnica Nacional, Quito, Ecuador

Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain

Keywords: Software Engineering, Very Small Entity, VSE, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, SME, Accessible

Software, Web Accessibility Evaluation, WAVE, WCAG 2.0, ISO/IEC 29110.

Abstract: This study presents the results of a web accessibility evaluation performed on a sample of six software

products developed by small software enterprises of two countries. According to the International Standard

Organization (ISO), an enterprise, organization, department or project with up to 25 people is considered

small. All the products evaluated presented accessibility issues, mainly lack of HTML labels, alternative texts,

and color contrast errors. These results showed there is a need in small software enterprises of an engineering

development process that, taking into account their constraints of staff and budget, includes activities for

improving the accessibility of their software. We present the current state of an ongoing work to define such

process based on ISO/IEC 29110 that includes accessibility-related task in each of the following activities:

initiation, analysis, design, construction, integration and test, and delivery.

1 INTRODUCTION

The European Commission (EU, 2015) defines two

factors to define the size of a company: staff

headcount and annual turnover. A company with less

than 10 employees and less than 2 million annual

turnover is a micro enterprise; a company with less

than 50 employees and less than 10 million annual

turnover is a small enterprise, and a company with

less than 250 employees and less than 50 million

annual turnover is a medium-sized enterprise. Micro,

small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)

represent 90% of all businesses in the European

Union. Laporte et al. (2015) reports that in the United

States, micro enterprises with less than 10 employees

account for 57% of companies. Moreno-Campos et al.

(2014) presents statistics for the Information

Technology (IT) sector. In Europe, 85% of the IT

companies have less than 10 employees. In Montreal,

Canada, 80% of the IT companies have less than 25

employees. In Wallace, Belgium, 60% of the IT

companies have less than five employees. In

Northern, Ireland, 66% of the IT companies have less

than 20 employees. Sanchez-Gordon (2012) reports

that 90% of the Ecuadorian IT companies have less

than 10 employees.

ISO (2011a) defines a very small entity (VSE) as

an enterprise, organization, department or project

with up to 25 people. VSEs that develop software face

many challenges to embrace traditional software

engineering processes, let alone to include additional

tasks to improve the accessibility of the software they

produce.

In this study, we present the results of

accessibility evaluations performed to software

products developed by six VSEs. These results point

to the need of software engineering approaches with

accessibility considerations specifically designed for

VSEs.

This proposal is based on the standard ISO/IEC

29110 “Software Engineering -- Lifecycle profiles for

Very Small Entities (VSEs)” (ISO, 2011b). This

standard has two processes: Project Management and

Software Implementation. The Project Management

process carries out the tasks of the software project to

achieve the objectives with the expected quality, time

and cost. The Software Implementation process is the

systematic execution of initiation, analysis, design,

construction, integration and test, and delivery

activities for developing or maintaining software

products, as show in Figure 1 (Laporte et al., 2015).

Sanchez-Gordon, S., Sánchez-Gordón, M-L. and Luján-Mora, S.

Towards an Engineering Process for Developing Accessible Software in Small Software Enterprises.

In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Software Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE 2016), pages 241-246

ISBN: 978-989-758-189-2

241

Figure 1: ISO/IEC 29110 processes (Laporte et al., 2015).

In the literature review, we found some published

research about ISO/IEC 29110, including a

systematic review of 24 studies (Moreno-Campos et

al., 2014; Sanchez-Gordon et al., 2015). There is one

study about developing a social network website

using ISO/IEC 29110 (Laporte et al., 2014).

However, these studies do not considered

accessibility. Conversely, we found few published

research focused on accessibility in software

engineering (Goncalves de Branco et al., 2014).

Nevertheless, none of them applied to the specific

context of VSEs.

The goal of the present study is to introduce a

proposal for a software process for VSEs based on the

ISO/IEC 29110 that includes accessibility-related

tasks.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows:

Section 2 explains the research method; Section 3

presents the results; Section 4 discusses the proposed

engineering approach; and Section 5 presents final

remarks and future work.

2 METHOD

The following steps describe the method used in this

study. We selected the type of software product to be

evaluated and defined the evaluation dataset

consisting of a sample of six VSEs that have

developed this type of software product. Then, we

selected a tool to perform the accessibility evaluation

of the software products in the dataset. Based on the

analysis of the results and taking in account the

constrains for VSEs, we proposed a software

engineering process based on ISO/IEC 29110 that

includes accessibility-related tasks.

2.1 Software Product

In Ecuador, companies must issue sales invoices

electronically and these invoices must be available for

future reference through web portals (IRS, 2014).

Software companies have developed and deployed

web portals for electronic invoicing for Ecuadorian

customers. This is the type of software product

evaluated in this study. The two user interfaces of

interest are the Authentication web page and the

Invoices Viewing web page.

2.2 Evaluation Dataset

We selected a sample of six web portals for electronic

invoicing developed by five Ecuadorian VSEs and

one VSE from Spain. Table 1 shows the VSE names

and software product URLs.

Table 1: Accessibility evaluation dataset.

VSE Name Software Product URL

Tandicorp http://www.puntonatural.com.ec/

Under Media https://www.flacso.edu.ec/swinfo

GPF

https://www.corporaciongpf.com/

facturacionGPF

ANFAC https://facturas.com.ec

Boyaca IT http://facturacion.boyaca.com/

6 Zabyca http://72.52.152.44/entrepapeles/

2.3 Evaluation Tool

We performed the evaluation using the web

accessibility evaluation tool WAVE, developed by

WebAIM. Specifically, we used the WAVE Chrome

extension 1.0 released on November 2015 (WebAIM,

2015) and installed it on a Google Chrome Browser

Version 47.0.2526.106 running on Windows 8.

3 RESULTS

In this section, we present the accessibility issues

found in the software products evaluated, as well as

the most common accessibility errors and alerts.

Figure 2 presents the evaluation results for the

Authentication web page developed by VSE #5.

WAVE presents the evaluated page with embedded

icons. For example, red icons indicate errors and

yellow icons indicate alerts. The other icons indicate

accessibility features presented in the pages,

structural elements errors, HTML5/ARIA errors, and

contrast errors.

Table 2 summarizes the results of the

Authentication web pages. The less accessible web

page was developed by VSE #1 with 14 errors and 12

alerts, while the most accessible web page was

ENASE 2016 - 11th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Software Approaches to Software Engineering

242

developed by VSE #2 with two errors and two alerts.

Figure 2: Results of VSE #5 authentication web page.

Table 2: Results of authentication web pages.

Issue Type #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6

Errors 14 2 6 2 9 3

Alerts 12 2 3 7 3 5

Features 29 8 0 7 5 1

Structural 52 6 1 5 7 2

Contrast 2 2 2 6 5 2

ARIA 0 3 0 4 0 1

Similarly, Table 3 summarizes the results of the

evaluation of the six Invoices Viewing web pages. In

this case, the less accessible web page was also

developed by VSE #1 with 43 errors and 128 alerts,

while the most accessible web page was developed by

VSE #6 with three errors and one alert.

Table 3: Results for invoices viewing web pages.

Issue Type #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6

Errors 43 26 7 14 12 3

Alerts 128 89 124 4 2 1

Features 135 2 9 11 0 0

Structural 228 28 29 39 11 5

Contrast 6 4 11 0 12 1

ARIA 8 25 0 117 0 0

Figure 3 shows the five most common

accessibility errors found in the web pages evaluated.

The most common error was “Missing form labels”,

with 77 occurrences that accounts for 54% of the

errors. When a form control or input field does not

have a properly associated text label, the function or

purpose may be clear enough from the context when

the content is rendered visually, but the label still

needs to be provided to support other forms of

presentation and interaction, such as for screen reader

and speech input users. This corresponds to Web

Content Accessibility Guideline (WCAG) 2.0 1.1.1

Level A, Controls and Input: “If non-text content is a

control or accepts user input, then it has a name that

describes its purpose” (W3C, 2008).

Figure 3: Five most common accessibility errors.

Figure 4 shows the five most common

accessibility alerts found in the web pages evaluated.

The most common alert was “Device dependent event

handler”, with 258 occurrences that accounts for 68%

of the alerts.

Figure 4: Five most common accessibility alerts.

Finally, the VSE #5 Invoices Viewing web page

was the page with the highest number of color

contrast errors: twelve. The color contrast between

background and foreground colors was 3.6:1, which

is low compared with the minimum of 4.5:1

recommended by WCAG 2.0 1.4.3 Level AA (W3C,

2008). This type of accessibility error has a huge

negative impact in users with low vision.

4 DISCUSSION

In this section, we present the current state of an

ongoing effort to define a software engineering

process for VSEs that includes accessibility-related

tasks. For each activity of the ISO/IEC 29110

software implementation process as explained by

Gonzalez and Hernandez (2012), we present main

constraints faced by VSEs and a preliminary list of

tasks to improve the accessibility of the software

products developed. For now, these lists are not

exhaustive and once completed, they will serve as

input for a comprehensive method.

Towards an Engineering Process for Developing Accessible Software in Small Software Enterprises

243

The goal of the software implementation process

is to achieve a software product that satisfies the

needs and expectations of all potential users,

including users with accessibility needs due to

permanent, temporal, or environmental disabilities,

e.g. users born blind, users with temporary

immobilized arm due to surgery, or users working

under extreme light conditions.

4.1 Software Implementation Initiation

This activity prepares the team for the rest of

activities and it selects the tools to accomplish the

project. Table 4 shows the tasks and roles.

Table 4: Initiation tasks.

ID Task Name Roles

SI.1.1 Review the project plan to

achieve a common understanding

and commitment.

Manager

Team

SI.1.2 Set or update the implementation

environment.

Team

In this stage, the main constraint for VSEs is

limited budget for setting up the environment. The

proposed accessibility-related tasks are (Keates and

Looms, 2014):

 Select simulations aids for testing purposes, e.g.

blindfolds, ear defenders.

 Select simulators for different types of

disabilities, e.g. SimDaltonism simulates eight

types of colour blindness (Fortin, 2014).

 Select assistive technologies, e.g. NVDA screen

reader (Nvacess, 2015).

 Select accessibility evaluation tools, e.g. WAVE

(WAVE, 2015).

 Select HTML and CSS checkers, e.g. W3C

HTML Validator (W3C, 2013).

4.2 Software Analysis

This activity studies users’ needs and expectations to

define the project scope and identify key

functionalities, including non-functional

requirements. Table 5 shows the tasks and roles.

In this stage, the main constraints for VSEs are

cost and time. Recruiting users with disabilities is

costly. Moreover, it is unfeasible to include all types

of potential users with disabilities. Including an

accessibility expert is also costly. A participatory

approach with users with disabilities and experts also

demands time.

Table 5: Analysis tasks.

ID Task Name Roles

SI.2.1

Assign tasks to the team

according to their role and the

plan.

Manager

Team

SI.2.2

Create or update the

Requirements Specification.

Identify information sources.

Determinate the scope and

feasibility.

Verify the correctness and

testability.

Team

Customer

SI.2.3

Validate and obtain approval of

the Requirements Specification.

Validate the Requirements

Specification traceability with

the needs and expectations.

Customer

The proposed accessibility-related tasks are:

 Sensitize the team members through the

observation of users with disabilities interacting

with software products.

 Use a cost-effective and quick approach to gather

and validate accessibility requirements based on

guidelines and standards, e.g. WCAG 2.0 (W3C,

2008), ISO/IEC 13066 (ISO, 2011c).

 Include accessibility requirements in the

Requirements Specification.

 When using agile development, include

accessibility requirements in the product stack.

4.3 Software Design

This activity is the keystone of a software project.

Failure to describe a design architecture that will

incorporate all the requirements is a common reason

for project failure. Table 6 shows the tasks and roles.

In this stage, the main constraint for VSEs is the

size of the development team. The proposed

accessibility-related tasks are:

 Review the design architecture, software

components and interfaces for traceability with

accessibility requirements in the Requirements

Specification.

 Guide team members in getting accessibility

knowledge and using techniques for building

accessible software components, e.g. use of WAI

ARIA in HTML5 (W3C, 2015).

ENASE 2016 - 11th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Software Approaches to Software Engineering

244

Table 6: Design tasks.

ID Task Name Roles

SI.3.1 Assign tasks to the team

according to their role and the

plan.

Manager

Team

SI.3.2 Understand Requirements

Specification.

Team

SI.3.3 Create or update the Software

Component Identification.

Analyze the Requirements

Specification to generate the

components.

Provide details of the software

components and their interfaces.

Team

4.4 Software Construction

This activity involves programmers producing

components using a systematic approach. Table 7

shows the tasks and roles.

Table 7: Construction tasks.

ID Task Name Roles

SI.4.1 Assign tasks to the team

according to their role and the

plan.

Manager

Team

SI.4.2 Understand the Software

Component Identification.

Team

SI.4.3 Construct or update the

Software Components.

Team

SI.4.4 Create or update Test Cases and

Test Procedures for unit and

integration.

Customer provides testing data.

Team

SI.4.5 Test the Software Components.

Correct the defects found until

successful unit test is achieved.

Team

In this stage, the main constraint for VSEs is the

size of the development team and the short time to

deliver. The proposed accessibility-related tasks are:

 Built accessibility features in the Software

Components.

 Create Test Cases and Test Procedures for testing

the accessibility requirements.

 Use accessibility checklists, e.g. WebAIM´s

WCAG 2.0 Checklist (WebAIM, 2014).

4.5 Software Integration and Tests

This activity involves executing different types of

tests and identifying issues that must be addressed.

Table 8 shows the tasks and roles.

Table 8: Integration and tests tasks.

ID Task Name Roles

SI.5.1 Assign tasks to the team

according to their role and the

plan.

Manager

Team

SI.5.2 Understand the Test Cases and

Test Procedures.

Set or update the testing

environment.

Team

SI.5.3 Integrate the software using

Software Components and

update Test Cases and Test

Procedures for integration

testing, as needed.

Team

SI.5.4 Perform software tests using

Test Cases and Test Procedures

for integration and create the

Test Report.

Team

SI.5.5 Correct the defects found until

successful test is achieved.

Team

SI.5.6 Incorporate the Requirements

Specification and Software to

the Software Configuration.

Team

In this stage, the main constraint for VSEs is the

size of the development team. The proposed

accessibility-related tasks are:

 Use automated tools in the testing environment.

 When using agile development, include

accessibility testing in the Definition of Done.

4.6 Software Product Delivery

This activity ensures there would be no delays to

obtain product acceptance. Table 9 shows the tasks

and roles.

Table 9: Delivery tasks.

ID Task Name Roles

SI.6.1 Assign tasks to the team

according to their role and the

plan.

Manager

Team

SI.6.2 Review the Software

Configuration for

understandability.

Team

SI.6.3 Perform delivery to the Manager

and support.

Manager

Team

At this stage, the main constraint for VSEs is short

time to deliver. The proposed accessibility-related

task is to include the accessibility assets in the

Software Configuration.

Towards an Engineering Process for Developing Accessible Software in Small Software Enterprises

245

5 CONCLUSIONS

Building accessible software is the right thing to do

because it benefits all users – both able and disabled.

Besides, web accessibility is a legal requirement in

several countries, the United States being the first

country to have legislation on web accessibility since

1998. There have been more than 230 related

settlements and lawsuits.

In the evaluation presented in this study, we found

that all the software products in the sample have

accessibility issues. The most common accessibility

errors were missing form labels, missing alternative

texts in linked images and image buttons, and

document language missing. The most common

accessibility alerts were device dependent error

handlers and very small text. These errors and alerts

prevent certain users from fully interacting with the

software web pages.

In our proposal, for each activity of the ISO/IEC

29110 software implementation process, we

identified constraints faced by VSEs and presented

preliminary lists of accessibility-related tasks. We are

working on improving these accessibility-related lists

since they are not exhaustive.

As future work, we plan to systematize these lists

to obtain a comprehensive method that can be applied

for VSEs that develop software to improve the

accessibility of their products. This method will have

to be empirically validated in pilot software projects.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research is partially supported by the Prometeo

Project by SENESCYT, Ecuadorian Government.

REFERENCES

EU, 2015. SME Definition. Available online:

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/business-friendly-

environment/sme-definition/index_en.htm.

Fortin, M., 2014. Sim Daltonism. Available online:

https://michelf.ca/projects/sim-daltonism/

Goncalves de Branco, R., Cagnin, M. I., Barroso Paiva, D.

M., 2014. AccTrace: Accessibility in phases of

requirements engineering, design, and coding software.

In Computational Science and Its Applications, pp.

225-228.

Gonzales, W., Hernandez, G. 2012. Entry-profile DP-

Software Implementation Engineering - Lifecycle

Profiles for Very Small Entities (VSEs) - Part 5-1-2:

Management and engineering guide.

IRS, 2014. Electronic vouchers scheme. Available online:

http://www.sri.gob.ec/de/10109.

ISO, 2011a. ISO/IEC TR 29110-4-1:2011, Software

Engineering -- Lifecycle Profiles for Very Small

Entities (VSEs) -- Part 4-1: Profile Specifications.

ISO, 2011b. ISO/IEC TR 29110-1:2011, Software

Engineering -- Lifecycle Profiles for Very Small

Entities (VSEs) – Part 1: Overview.

ISO, 2011c. ISO/IEC 13066-1:2011 Information

technology -- Interoperability with assistive technology

(AT) -- Part 1: Requirements and recommendations for

interoperability.

Keates, S., Looms, P. O., 2014. The role of simulation in

designing for universal access. In Universal Access in

Human-Computer Interaction. Design and

Development Methods for Universal Access, pp. 54-63.

Springer International Publishing.

Laporte, C., Hébert, C., Mineau, C., 2014. Development of

a social network website using the new ISO/IEC 29110

standard developed specifically for very small entities.

In Software Quality Professional, 16(4), pp. 4-25.

Laporte, C., O'Connor, R., Garcia Paucar L., 2015.

Software engineering standards and guides for very

small entities: implementation in two start-ups. In

Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software

Engineering ENASE 2015, pp. 5-15.

Moreno-Campos, E., Sanchez-Gordon, M.L., Colomo, R.,

De Amescua Seco, A., 2014. Towards Measuring the

Impact of the ISO/IEC 29110 Standard: A Systematic

Review. In Systems, Software and Services Process

Improvement, pp. 1-12. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Nvaccess, 2015. NVDA Screen Reader. Available online:

http://www.nvaccess.org/

Sanchez-Gordon, S., 2012. Criteria for the adaptability of

software process models and standards in Ecuadorian

SMEs. In International Conference of Software

Engineering and New Technologies in Systems

Engineering.

Sanchez-Gordon, M.L., O’Connor R.V., Colomo, R., 2015.

Evaluating VSEs Viewpoint and Sentiment towards the

ISO/IEC 29110 Standard: A Two Country Grounded

Theory Study. In Software Process Improvement and

Capability Determination, pp. 114-127. Springer

International Publishing.

WebAIM, 2014. WCAG 2.0 Checklist. Available online:

http://webaim.org/standards/wcag/checklist.

WebAIM, 2015. WAVE Chrome Extension. Available

online: http://wave.webaim.org/extension/

W3C, 2008. Web content accessibility guidelines WCAG

2.0. Available online: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/

W3C, 2013. Markup Validation Service. Available online:

http://validator.w3.org.

W3C, 2015. Notes on Using ARIA in HTML. Available

online: http://www.w3.org/TR/aria-in-html/

ENASE 2016 - 11th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Software Approaches to Software Engineering

246