
doi: 10.1111/cgf.14522
AbstractNovices and experts have struggled to evaluate the accessibility of data visualizations because there are no common shared guidelines across environments, platforms, and contexts in which data visualizations are authored. Between non‐specific standards bodies like WCAG, emerging research, and guidelines from specific communities of practice, it is hard to organize knowledge on how to evaluate accessible data visualizations. We present Chartability, a set of heuristics synthesized from these various sources which enables designers, developers, researchers, and auditors to evaluate data‐driven visualizations and interfaces for visual, motor, vestibular, neurological, and cognitive accessibility. In this paper, we outline our process of making a set of heuristics and accessibility principles for Chartability and highlight key features in the auditing process. Working with participants on real projects, we found that data practitioners with a novice level of accessibility skills were more confident and found auditing to be easier after using Chartability. Expert accessibility practitioners were eager to integrate Chartability into their own work. Reflecting on Chartability's development and the preliminary user evaluation, we discuss tradeoffs of open projects, working with high‐risk evaluations like auditing projects in the wild, and challenge future research projects at the intersection of visualization and accessibility to consider the broad intersections of disabilities.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 65 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
