Toward Inclusive Low-Code Development: Detecting Accessibility Issues in User Reviews

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19085v1
• Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 02:54:28 GMT
• Title: Toward Inclusive Low-Code Development: Detecting Accessibility Issues in User Reviews
• Authors: Mohammadali Mohammadkhani, Sara Zahedi Movahed, Hourieh Khalajzadeh, Mojtaba Shahin, Khuong Tran Hoang,
• Abstract summary: Low-code applications may unintentionally exclude users with visual impairments, such as color blindness and low vision.<n>We construct a comprehensive dataset of low-code application reviews, consisting of accessibility-related reviews and non-accessibility-related reviews.<n>Our proposed hybrid model achieves an accuracy and F1-score of 78% in detecting accessibility-related issues.
• Score: 4.116734692256577
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Low-code applications are gaining popularity across various fields, enabling non-developers to participate in the software development process. However, due to the strong reliance on graphical user interfaces, they may unintentionally exclude users with visual impairments, such as color blindness and low vision. This paper investigates the accessibility issues users report when using low-code applications. We construct a comprehensive dataset of low-code application reviews, consisting of accessibility-related reviews and non-accessibility-related reviews. We then design and implement a complex model to identify whether a review contains an accessibility-related issue, combining two state-of-the-art Transformers-based models and a traditional keyword-based system. Our proposed hybrid model achieves an accuracy and F1-score of 78% in detecting accessibility-related issues.

Related papers

• Are You Getting What You Pay For? Auditing Model Substitution in LLM APIs [60.881609323604685]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) accessed via black-box APIs introduce a trust challenge.<n>Users pay for services based on advertised model capabilities.<n> providers may covertly substitute the specified model with a cheaper, lower-quality alternative to reduce operational costs.<n>This lack of transparency undermines fairness, erodes trust, and complicates reliable benchmarking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T03:57:41Z)
• Human or LLM? A Comparative Study on Accessible Code Generation Capability [8.97029281376629]
  We compare the accessibility of web code generated by GPT-4o and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct-AWQ against human-written code. Results show that LLMs often produce more accessible code, especially for basic features like color contrast and alternative text. We introduce FeedA11y, a feedback-driven ReAct-based approach that significantly outperforms other methods in improving accessibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T06:14:26Z)
• A Prototype VS Code Extension to Improve Web Accessible Development [0.8039067099377079]
  This paper introduces a Visual Studio Code plugin that integrates calls to a Large Language Model (LLM) to assist developers in identifying and resolving accessibility issues.<n>Our evaluation shows promising results: the plugin effectively generates functioning fixes for accessibility issues when the errors are correctly detected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T17:33:34Z)
• Are your apps accessible? A GCN-based accessibility checker for low vision users [22.747735521796077]
  We propose a novel approach, named ALVIN, which represents the Graphical User Interface as a graph and adopts the Graph Convolutional Neural Networks (GCN) to label inaccessible components.<n>Experiments on 48 apps demonstrate the effectiveness of ALVIN, with precision of 83.5%, recall of 78.9%, and F1-score of 81.2%, outperforming baseline methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T06:04:06Z)
• From Bugs to Benefits: Improving User Stories by Leveraging Crowd Knowledge with CrUISE-AC [0.0]
  We present CrUISE-AC as a fully automated method that investigates issues and generates non-trivial additional acceptance criteria for a given user story.<n>Our evaluation shows that 80-82% of the generated acceptance criteria add relevant requirements to the user stories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-25T11:44:24Z)
• A Contrastive Framework with User, Item and Review Alignment for Recommendation [25.76462243743591]
  We introduce a Review-centric Contrastive Alignment Framework for Recommendation (ReCAFR)<n>ReCAFR incorporates reviews into the core learning process, ensuring alignment among user, item, and review representations.<n>Specifically, we leverage two self-supervised contrastive strategies that exploit review-based augmentation to alleviate sparsity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-21T08:21:45Z)
• On the Fairness, Diversity and Reliability of Text-to-Image Generative Models [49.60774626839712]
  multimodal generative models have sparked critical discussions on their fairness, reliability, and potential for misuse. We propose an evaluation framework designed to assess model reliability through their responses to perturbations in the embedding space. Our method lays the groundwork for detecting unreliable, bias-injected models and retrieval of bias provenance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T09:46:55Z)
• Sketch2Code: Evaluating Vision-Language Models for Interactive Web Design Prototyping [55.98643055756135]
  We introduce Sketch2Code, a benchmark that evaluates state-of-the-art Vision Language Models (VLMs) on automating the conversion of rudimentary sketches into webpage prototypes. We analyze ten commercial and open-source models, showing that Sketch2Code is challenging for existing VLMs. A user study with UI/UX experts reveals a significant preference for proactive question-asking over passive feedback reception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T17:39:49Z)
• Retrieval Augmentation via User Interest Clustering [57.63883506013693]
  Industrial recommender systems are sensitive to the patterns of user-item engagement. We propose a novel approach that efficiently constructs user interest and facilitates low computational cost inference. Our approach has been deployed in multiple products at Meta, facilitating short-form video related recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T16:35:10Z)
• UltraEval: A Lightweight Platform for Flexible and Comprehensive Evaluation for LLMs [74.1976921342982]
  This paper introduces UltraEval, a user-friendly evaluation framework characterized by its lightweight nature, comprehensiveness, modularity, and efficiency. The resulting composability allows for the free combination of different models, tasks, prompts, benchmarks, and metrics within a unified evaluation workflow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-11T09:17:12Z)
• The Stereotyping Problem in Collaboratively Filtered Recommender Systems [77.56225819389773]
  We show that matrix factorization-based collaborative filtering algorithms induce a kind of stereotyping. If preferences for a textitset of items are anti-correlated in the general user population, then those items may not be recommended together to a user. We propose an alternative modelling fix, which is designed to capture the diverse multiple interests of each user.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-23T18:37:47Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.