Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 107 references

Exploring the Intersections of Web Science and Accessibility

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Automated accessibility testing could work by comparing which states of a JavaScript app a fully-abled user model and a disabled user model can reach.

desk verdict An honest survey with a plausible but unvalidated proposal that remains a thought exercise. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02804 v1 pith:QA6YRC2X submitted 2019-08-07 cs.IR cs.CY

Trevor Bostic , Jeff Stanley , John Higgins , Rachael L. Bradley-Montgomery , Justin F. Brunelle , Daniel Chudnov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.CY
keywords webaccessibilityautomatedtestingrichinternetapplicationsJavaScriptcrawlinguserinteractionmodelsclient-sidestatearchivingdeep
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that automated accessibility evaluation of modern, JavaScript-driven web applications is feasible if three bodies of work are combined: accessibility measurement, user interaction modeling, and dynamic web crawling. The proposed method simulates two users on the same application, one fully-abled and one with a specific disability, and compares the client-side states each can reach, so that states only the fully-abled model reaches become candidate accessibility barriers. This turns accessibility testing from a manual, mostly static checklist exercise into an automated reachability analysis over a web application's dynamic states. The paper is a forward-looking synthesis rather than an empirical demonstration: it surveys the needed building blocks and uses web archiving as evidence that these pieces can be integrated.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a user-model-driven crawler over a client-side state graph, following the Hypercube model from earlier work on crawling rich Internet applications. In that model a state is a representation reachable from a URL through client-side events and is identified by its DOM, and transitions are user interactions that trigger JavaScript event listeners. The novel move is to run two user models over this graph and compare reachable states: the fully-abled model's graph and the disabled model's graph should coincide, and discrepancies are the proposed accessibility signal. This shifts the unit of analysis from individual HTML elements to navigable application states.

What would settle it

Run both user-model crawls on a set of production JavaScript applications, then have human accessibility experts audit the same applications independently; if many flagged state gaps are not real barriers and many expert-identified barriers do not appear as state gaps, the reachability proxy is not measuring accessibility.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that accessibility of an interactive web application can be assessed by running user models over a crawled state graph of the application. A fully-abled user model and a disabled user model, for example one restricted to keyboard interaction, each trigger client-side events through JavaScript and Ajax, and the crawler records which DOM states each model can make reachable from a starting URL. The difference between the two reachable sets marks where the application places barriers; the authors state that the result should inform future ubiquitous, automated web accessibility tools. The paper does not report an implemented system, but asserts that the building blocks, including state-equivalence definitions and model-based crawling strategies from prior work, are mature enough to support this convergence.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the set of client-side states a simulated disabled user can reach is a faithful stand-in for real accessibility barriers, and that a model such as keyboard-only adequately represents how disabled users experience the application.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Interactive, JavaScript-heavy applications could receive automated accessibility audits that exercise real client-side behavior instead of checking only server-delivered HTML.
  • A keyboard-only user model would expose interactions that require pointer input, giving concrete, reproducible evidence for a class of accessibility violations.
  • The same crawled state graph could be reused for web archiving, since both tasks need high-recall discovery of deferred representations and a definition of state equivalence.
  • Organizations that currently rely on periodic manual audits could move toward more frequent automated assessment of the states users can actually reach.
  • Because state equivalence is defined by the DOM, the method can be applied uniformly across applications without per-site testing scripts, though form-based deep web content would still require input-generation techniques.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the reachability gap is used as the sole signal, barriers that exist inside reachable states, such as missing labels, poor focus order, or low contrast, could go undetected; a robust tool would likely pair the state-gap comparison with element-level checks.
  • The fidelity of the disabled user model is the deciding factor; a keyboard-only model captures one access pathway but not, say, screen-reader semantics or cognitive load, so predicted barriers should be validated against human expert assessments.
  • The same comparison could serve as a regression oracle: if a deployed change shrinks the disabled model's reachable set relative to the fully-abled set, that is an automatable, concrete signal that accessibility has regressed.
  • A testable extension would be to run both models on a corpus of production applications and check whether state gaps concentrate in element types or interaction patterns known to be problematic from manual audits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a survey-and-position manuscript. It reviews three research threads—web accessibility assessment, web user interaction modeling, and crawling of JavaScript/Ajax-driven web applications—and argues that their convergence can enable automated accessibility evaluation of dynamic web applications. The paper also presents a use case from web archiving and closes with a proposed model (Section 4): compare the client-side states reachable by a fully-abled simulated user against those reachable by a simulated user with a disability (e.g., keyboard-only), treating reachability differences as accessibility barriers. The authors explicitly call the closing portion a 'thought exercise' and do not report an implementation or experiments.

Significance. If the proposed approach were validated, it would address a real and growing problem: existing automated tools detect only a fraction of accessibility issues, and JavaScript-heavy applications are particularly poorly covered. The survey is a useful synthesis of literature that is often scattered across accessibility, crawling, and user-modeling communities, and the web-archiving use case gives a concrete domain where the same technical challenges arise. The paper is honest about the preliminary nature of its central model, but the abstract's feasibility claim is stronger than the evidence provided, and the proposed reachability-based proxy has serious unaddressed validity gaps. As a survey with a research agenda, the paper has value; as a demonstration of a viable automated accessibility method, it does not yet succeed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4] The central proposal treats differences in reachable client-side states between a fully-abled model and a disabled user model as an accessibility assessment. This proxy is asserted without any mapping to WCAG or Section 508 conformance. Many WCAG success criteria (e.g., 1.1.1 non-text content, 1.4.3 color contrast, 2.4.7 focus visible) can be violated without changing the set of reachable states, so identical reachability would not imply accessibility. Conversely, observed reachability differences could arise from limitations of the disabled user model rather than from genuine accessibility barriers. The manuscript should either reframe this as a clearly labeled hypothesis requiring validation, or provide an argument and supporting evidence for why reachability differences correspond to accessibility conformance.
  2. [Section 4] The disabled user model is described only as a user 'unable to use the mouse' and restricted to keyboard interactions. Accessibility barriers span visual, auditory, motor, cognitive, and speech dimensions, and a keyboard-only model does not represent a screen-reader user, a low-vision user, or a user with a cognitive disability. The claim that the approach can lead to 'automated accessibility testing' for US government organizations therefore overstates the scope of the proposed model. The authors should either narrow the claim to keyboard accessibility or explain how other disability models would be incorporated.
  3. [Section 3.4 and Section 5] The web-archiving research is offered as a 'roadmap' for automated accessibility evaluation, but the paper provides only an analogy: both domains need to crawl and map client-side states. No evidence is presented that techniques developed for high-recall archival crawling—such as the adapted Hypercube model—transfer to the goal of detecting accessibility barriers. Since the paper's feasibility claim rests on this transferability, this is a load-bearing gap. The authors should explicitly discuss the limits of the analogy and identify which elements of archiving research are directly reusable and which need new validation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Title] The title contains a spacing artifact: 'Accessibili ty' should be 'Accessibility'.
  2. [References] Reference [97], cited for the Census Bureau disability statistic, has a URL pointing to a blog post about CNN being unarchivable (the same URL as reference [8]). This appears to be a copy-paste error and should be corrected.
  3. [Section 2.1] The author name is spelled 'Brajnick' in the text but 'Brajnik' in the reference list; the spelling should be consistent.
  4. [Section 1.1] The paper uses 'Universal Resource Identifiers' but the correct expansion of URI is 'Uniform Resource Identifiers'; this should be corrected.
  5. [Section 4] The sentence 'a user may be unable to use the mouse and is restricted to keyboard interactions' mixes 'may' with 'is'; consider 'may be unable to use the mouse and may be restricted to keyboard interactions'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a survey and forward-looking proposal with no fitted parameters, derived equations, or load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper does not perform a derivation, fit parameters to data, or claim to predict an outcome from a model. Its central proposal in Section 4 is explicitly aspirational: the authors state 'Our intent is to create a method of automatically crawling and assessing the accessibility of a web application based on the client-side events the user model is able to trigger' and 'We will compare the navigation of a fully-abled user model with that of a disabled user model.' No results are reported, so there is nothing that could reduce to its inputs by construction. The discussion of Dincturk et al. and the authors' prior web-archiving work is presented as background and inspiration, not as an unverified theorem that carries the argument. The paper itself labels the synthesis a 'thought exercise' in the abstract and Section 5, which further confirms that no empirical or formal claim is being derived. The validity of the proposed reachability proxy relative to WCAG or Section 508 is an open empirical question, not a circularity. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central proposal rests on unverified domain assumptions about the equivalence between simulated user navigation and accessibility. These assumptions are stated in Sections 2.3, 3.4, and 4, and they are not tested in the paper.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Accessibility can be operationalized as the set of client-side states a simulated user can reach.
    In Section 4 the authors propose comparing the navigation of a fully-abled user model with a disabled user model to identify states that are not navigable. This assumes reachability differences correspond to accessibility barriers, which is not validated.
  • domain assumption Crawling strategies developed for web archiving and RIA testing transfer to accessibility evaluation.
    Section 3.4 states the archiving domain is 'a potential roadmap' for accessibility testing; no empirical evidence is given for this transfer.
  • domain assumption WCAG and Section 508 standards provide a valid basis for judging accessibility.
    The survey in Section 2.1 frames existing accessibility measurement primarily in terms of these standards; the paper does not question whether standards coverage captures real user barriers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the Intersections of Web Science and Accessibility." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QA6YRC2X

@misc{pith2026190802804,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the Intersections of Web Science and Accessibility},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QA6YRC2X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02804}
}
read the original abstract

The web is the prominent way information is exchanged in the 21st century. However, ensuring web-based information is accessible is complicated, particularly with web applications that rely on JavaScript and other technologies to deliver and build representations; representations are often the HTML, images, or other code a server delivers for a web resource. Static representations are becoming rarer and assessing the accessibility of web-based information to ensure it is available to all users is increasingly difficult given the dynamic nature of representations. In this work, we survey three ongoing research threads that can inform web accessibility solutions: assessing web accessibility, modeling web user activity, and web application crawling. Current web accessibility research is continually focused on increasing the percentage of automatically testable standards, but still relies heavily upon manual testing for complex interactive applications. Along-side web accessibility research, there are mechanisms developed by researchers that replicate user interactions with web pages based on usage patterns. Crawling web applications is a broad research domain; exposing content in web applications is difficult because of incompatibilities in web crawlers and the technologies used to create the applications. We describe research on crawling the deep web by exercising user forms. We close with a thought exercise regarding the convergence of these three threads and the future of automated, web-based accessibility evaluation and assurance through a use case in web archiving. These research efforts provide insight into how users interact with websites, how to automate and simulate user interactions, how to record the results of user interactions, and how to analyze, evaluate, and map resulting website content to determine its relative accessibility.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Rehabilitation Act Amendments (Secti on 508)

    Access Board. The Rehabilitation Act Amendments (Secti on 508). http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/act . htm, 1998

    1998

  2. [2]

    Ainsworth

    S. Ainsworth. Web Archiving in Popular Media. http://ws -dl.blogspot.com/2016/09/web-archiving-in-popular-m edia. html, 2016

    2016

  3. [3]

    Archive.is

    Archive.is. Archive.is. http://archive.is/, 2013

    2013

  4. [4]

    Ashok, Y

    V. Ashok, Y. Borodin, S. Stoyanchev, Y. Puzis, and I. V. Ra makrishnan. Wizard-of-Oz Evaluation of Speech-driven Web Browsing Interface for People with Vision Impairments. In Proceedings of the 11th Web for All Conference , pages 1–9, 2014

    2014

  5. [5]

    Bartoli, E

    A. Bartoli, E. Medvet, and M. Mauri. Recording and replay ing navigations on ajax web sites. In Web Engineering , volume 7387 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 370–377. 2012

    2012

  6. [6]

    Bartoli, E

    A. Bartoli, E. Medvet, and M. Mauri. A tool for registerin g and replaying web navigation. In International Conference on Information Society , pages 509 –510, June 2012

    2012

  7. [7]

    Benjamin, G

    K. Benjamin, G. von Bochmann, M. Dincturk, G.-V. Jourdan , and I. Onut. A Strategy for Efficient Crawling of Rich Internet Applications. In Web Engineering, volume 6757 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 74–89, 2011

    2011

  8. [8]

    J. Berlin. CNN.com has been unarchivable since November 1st, 2016. http://ws-dl.blogspot.com/2017/01/ 2017-01-20-cnncom-has-been-unarchivable.html, 2017

    2016

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    Borodin, J

    Y. Borodin, J. P. Bigham, R. Raman, and I. V. Ramakrishnan . What’s new?: Making web page updates accessible. In Proceedings of the 10th International ACM SIGACCESS Confer ence on Computers and Accessibility , Assets ’08, pages 145–152. ACM, 2008

    2008

  2. [10]

    G. Brajnik. Measuring Web Accessibility by Estimating Severity of Barriers. In Web Information Systems Engineering – WISE 2008 Workshops , volume 5176, pages 1–13, 2008

    2008

  3. [11]

    Brajnik and R

    G. Brajnik and R. Lomuscio. SAMBA: a semi-automatic met hod for measuring barriers of accessibility. In Proceedings of the 9th international ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Comput ers and Accessibility , pages 43–50, 2007

    2007

  4. [12]

    A. Bright. Web evidence points to pro-Russia rebels in d owning of MH17. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/ 2014/0717/Web-evidence-points-to-pro-Russia-rebels - in-downing-of-MH17-video, 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    Brown and S

    A. Brown and S. Harper. AJAX time machine. In Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conf erence on Web Accessibility , pages 28:1–28:4, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    J. F. Brunelle. Replaying the SOPA Protest. http://ws- dl.blogspot.com/2013/11/2013-11-28-replaying-sopa-p rotest. html, November 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    J. F. Brunelle. Google and JavaScript. http://ws-dl.b logspot.com/2014/06/2014-06-18-google-and-javascrip t.html, 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    J. F. Brunelle. PhantomJS+VisualEvent or Selenium for Web Archiving? http://ws-dl.blogspot.com/2015/06/ 2015-06-26-phantomjsvisualevent-or.html, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    J. F. Brunelle. Scripts in a Frame: A Framework for Archiving Deferred Repre sentations. PhD thesis, Old Dominion University, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    J. F. Brunelle, M. Kelly, M. C. Weigle, and M. L. Nelson. T he Impact of JavaScript on Archivability. International Journal on Digital Libraries , 17(2):95–117, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    J. F. Brunelle, M. C. Weigle, and M. L. Nelson. Archiving Deferred Representations Using a Two-Tiered Crawling Approach. In Proceedings of iPRES 2015 , 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    J. F. Brunelle, M. C. Weigle, and M. L. Nelson. Adapting t he Hypercube Model to Archive Deferred Representations at Web-Scale. Technical Report arXiv:1601.05142, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    J. F. Brunelle, M. C. Weigle, and M. L. Nelson. Archival C rawlers and JavaScript: Discover More Stuff but Crawl More Slowly. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digita l Libraries , pages 1–10, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Carta, F

    T. Carta, F. Paternò, and V. Santana. Web usability pro be: A tool for supporting remote usability evaluation of web sites. In Human-Computer Interaction INTERACT 2011 , volume 6949 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , 12 Trevor Bostic, Jeff Stanley, John Higgins, Daniel Chu...

    2011

  15. [23]

    Chakrabarti, S

    S. Chakrabarti, S. Srivastava, M. Subramanyam, and M. T iwari. Memex: A browsing assistant for collaborative archiving and mining of surf trails. In The Proceedings of the Very Large Database Endowment Endowm ent, 2000

    2000

  16. [24]

    Chisholm, G

    W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden, and I. Jacobs. Web Conten t Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Interactions, 8(4):35–54, July 2001

    2001

  17. [25]

    S. R. Choudhary, H. Versee, and A. Orso. A cross-browser web application testing tool. 28th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance , 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    R. G. Coram. django-phantomjs. https://github.com/u kwa/django-phantomjs, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Croniser

    S. Croniser. Are WordPress themes Accessibility Ready ? In Proceedings of the 2018 ICT Accessibility Testing Symposium: Mobile Testing, 508 Revision, and Beyond , pages 21–26, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    DHS Trusted Tester Pr ogram

    Department of Homeland Security. DHS Trusted Tester Pr ogram. https://www.dhs.gov/trusted-tester, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Laws & Regulations

    Department of Labor. Laws & Regulations. https://www. dol.gov/general/topic/disability/laws, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Americans with Disabilities Act

    Departmente of Labor. Americans with Disabilities Act . https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/disability/ada, 2 018

  23. [31]

    M. E. Dincturk. Model-based Crawling - An Approach to De sign Efficient Crawling Strategies for Rich Internet Applications. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ottawa, 2 013

  24. [32]

    M. E. Dincturk, G.-V. Jourdan, G. V. Bochmann, and I. V. O nut. A Model-Based Approach for Crawling Rich Internet Applications. ACM Transactions on the Web , 8(3):19:1–19:39, July 2014

    2014

  25. [33]

    C. Duda, G. Frey, D. Kossmann, and C. Zhou. AjaxSearch: c rawling, indexing and searching Web 2.0 applications. The Proceedings of the Very Large Database Endowment Endowm ent, 1:1440–1443, August 2008

    2008

  26. [34]

    D. A. Fahrenthold. SOPA protests shut down Web sites. ht tp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ sopa-protests-to-shut-down-web-sites/2012/01/17/gIQ A4WYl6P_story.html, January 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    P. Fejfar. Interactive crawling and data extraction . PhD thesis, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    K. D. Fenstermacher and M. Ginsburg. Client-side monit oring for web mining. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 54(7):625–637, May 2003

    2003

  29. [37]

    Garrison

    A. Garrison. Continuous Accessibility Inspection & Te sting. In Proceedings of the 2018 ICT Accessibility Testing Symposium: Automated & Manual Testing, WCAG2.1, and Beyond , pages 57–66, 2017

    2018

  30. [38]

    Getting Started with Ajax Crawling

    Google. Getting Started with Ajax Crawling. https://d evelopers.google.com/webmasters/ajax-crawling/docs/ getting-started, 2012

    2012

  31. [39]

    Making AJAX Applications Crawlable

    Google. Making AJAX Applications Crawlable. https:// developers.google.com/webmasters/ajax-crawling/, 201 2

  32. [40]

    AJAX crawling: Guide for webmasters and develo pers

    Google. AJAX crawling: Guide for webmasters and develo pers. http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answe r. py?hl=en&answer=174992, 2013

    2013

  33. [41]

    Gorniak and D

    P. Gorniak and D. Poole. Predicting future user actions by observing unmodified applications. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligenc e and Twelfth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence , pages 217–222, 2000

    2000

  34. [42]

    Hackett, B

    S. Hackett, B. Parmanto, and X. Zeng. Accessibility of I nternet Websites Through Time. Proceedings of the 6th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Ac cessibility, pages 32–39, 2003

    2003

  35. [43]

    Hagedorn and J

    K. Hagedorn and J. Sentelli. Google Still Not Indexing H idden Web URLs. D-Lib Magazine , 14(7), August 2008. http://dlib.org/dlib/july08/hagedorn/07hagedorn.html

    2008

  36. [44]

    Puppeteer

    hambster. Puppeteer. https://github.com/hambster/ Puppeteer, 2014

    2014

  37. [45]

    Harper and A

    S. Harper and A. Chen. Web Accessibility Guidelines: A L esson from the Evolving Web. World Wide Web , 15(61), 2012

    2012

  38. [46]

    B. He, M. Patel, Z. Zhang, and K. C.-C. Chang. Accessing t he Deep Web. Communications of the ACM , 50(5):94–101, May 2007

    2007

  39. [47]

    Y. He, D. Xin, V. Ganti, S. Rajaraman, and N. Shah. Crawli ng Deep Web Entity Pages. In Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining , 2013

    2013

  40. [48]

    J. I. Hong, J. Heer, S. Waterson, and J. A. Landay. Webqui lt: A proxy-based approach to remote web usability testing. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) , 19(3):263–285, July 2001

    2001

  41. [49]

    J. I. Hong and J. A. Landay. Webquilt: a framework for cap turing and visualizing the web experience. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web , pages 717–724. ACM, 2001

    2001

  42. [50]

    Brozzler

    Internet Archive. Brozzler. https://github.com/int ernetarchive/brozzler, 2017

    2017

  43. [51]

    P. Jack. Extractorhtml extract-javascript. https:// webarchive.jira.com/wiki/display/Heritrix/ ExtractorHTML+extract-javascript, 2014

    2014

  44. [52]

    Jones and R

    R. Jones and R. Steinberger. Using JA WS as a Manual Web Pa ge Testing Tool. In Proceedings of the 2018 ICT Accessibility Testing Symposium: Automated & Manual Testi ng, WCAG2.1, and Beyond , pages 51–56, 2017

    2018

  45. [53]

    S. Kanta. Insights with PowerMapper and R: An explorato ry data analysis of U.S. Government website accessibility scans. In Proceedings of the 2018 ICT Accessibility Testing Symposiu m: Mobile Testing, 508 Revision, and Beyond , Exploring the Intersections of Web Science and A...

    2018

  46. [54]

    Koutsabasis, E

    P. Koutsabasis, E. Vlachogiannis, and J. S. Darzentas. Beyond Specifications: Towards a Practical Methodology for Evaluating Web Accessibility. Journal of Usability Studies , 5(4):1–15, 2010

    2010

  47. [55]

    I. Kreymer. Browsertrix: Browser-Based On-Demand Web Archiving Automation. https://github.com/ikreymer/ browsertrix, 2015

    2015

  48. [56]

    I. Kreymer. Webrecorder.io. https://webrecorder.io /, 2015

    2015

  49. [57]

    Kundu and S

    S. Kundu and S. Rohatgi. Generating Queries to Crawl Hid den Web using Keyword Sampling and Random Forest Classifier. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Sci ence, 8(9):337–341, Nov/Dec 2017

    2017

  50. [58]

    LaFrance

    A. LaFrance. Raiders of the Lost Web. http://www.theat lantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/ raiders-of-the-lost-web/409210/, 2015

    2015

  51. [59]

    J. P. Lage, A. S. da Silva, P. B. Golgher, and A. H. Laender . Automatic generation of agents for collecting hidden web pages for data extraction. Data & Knowledge Engineering , 49(2):177–196, 2004

    2004

  52. [60]

    J. Lepore. The Cobweb: Can the Internet be Archived? The New Yorker , January 26, 2015, 2015

    2015

  53. [61]

    I. Li, J. Nichols, T. Lau, C. Drews, and A. Cypher. Here’s what I did: sharing and reusing web activity with ActionShot . In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Com puting Systems , pages 723–732, 2010

    2010

  54. [62]

    Y. Li, P. Han, C. Liu, and B. Fang. Automatically Crawlin g Dynamic Web Applications via Proxy-Based JavaScript Injection and Runtime Analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE Third International Conference on D ata Science in Cyberspace, pages 242–249, 2018

    2018

  55. [63]

    Likarish and E

    P. Likarish and E. Jung. A targeted web crawling for buil ding malicious javascript collection. In Proceedings of the ACM first international workshop on Data-intensive softwar e management and mining , pages 23–26. ACM, 2009

    2009

  56. [64]

    Little, T

    G. Little, T. A. Lau, A. Cypher, J. Lin, E. M. Haber, and E. Kandogan. Koala: capture, share, automate, personalize business processes on the web. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Com puting Systems , pages 943–946. ACM, 2007

    2007

  57. [65]

    Madhavan, L

    J. Madhavan, L. Afanasiev, L. Antova, and A. Y. Halevy. H arnessing the Deep Web: Present and Future. Technical report, University of Oxford, 2009. arXiv:0909.1785

    2009 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Mankoff, H

    J. Mankoff, H. Fait, and T. Tran. Is your web page accessib le?: a comparative study of methods for assessing web page accessibility for the blind. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Com puting Systems , pages 41–50, 2005

    2005

  59. [67]

    Melnyk, V

    V. Melnyk, V. Ashok, V. Melnyk, Y. Puzis, Y. Borodin, A. S oviak, and I. V. Ramakrishnan. Look Ma, No ARIA: Generic Accessible Interfaces for Web Widgets. In Proceedings of the 12th Web for All Conference , pages 1–21, 2015

    2015

  60. [68]

    Melnyk, V

    V. Melnyk, V. Ashok, Y. Puzis, A. Soviak, Y. Borodin, and I. V. Ramakrishnan. Widget Classification with Applica- tions to Web Accessibility. In Web Engineering, pages 341–358, 2014

    2014

  61. [69]

    A. Mesbah. Analysis and Testing of Ajax-based Single-p age Web Applications. Ph.D. Dissertation, Delft Universit y of Technology, 2009

    2009

  62. [70]

    Mesbah, E

    A. Mesbah, E. Bozdag, and A. van Deursen. Crawling Ajax b y inferring user interface state changes. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Web Engineering , pages 122 –134, 2008

    2008

  63. [71]

    Mesbah and A

    A. Mesbah and A. van Deursen. An Architectural Style for Ajax. Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, pages 1–9, 2007

    2007

  64. [72]

    Mesbah and A

    A. Mesbah and A. van Deursen. Migrating multi-page web a pplications to single-page ajax interfaces. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, pages 181–190, 2007

    2007

  65. [73]

    Mesbah and A

    A. Mesbah and A. van Deursen. Invariant-based automati c testing of Ajax user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering , pages 210–220, 2009

    2009

  66. [74]

    Mesbah, A

    A. Mesbah, A. van Deursen, and S. Lenselink. Crawling Aj ax-Based Web Applications Through Dynamic Analysis of User Interface State Changes. ACM Transactions on the Web , 6(1):3:1–3:30, Mar. 2012

    2012

  67. [75]

    G. Mohr, M. Kimpton, M. Stack, and I. Ranitovic. Introdu ction to Heritrix, an archival quality web crawler. In Proceedings of the 4th International Web Archiving Worksho p, September 2004

    2004

  68. [76]

    K. C. Negulescu. Web Archiving @ the Internet Archive. P resentation at the 2010 Digital Preservation Partners Meeting, 2010 http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/meet ings/documents/ndiipp10/NDIIPP072110FinalIA.ppt

    2010

  69. [77]

    IIPC Future of the Web Workshop – Intr oduction & Overview

    NetPreserve.org. IIPC Future of the Web Workshop – Intr oduction & Overview. http://netpreserve.org/sites/defa ult/ files/resources/OverviewFutureWebWorkshop.pdf, 2012

    2012

  70. [78]

    B. Neuberg. Really simple histoy. http://code.google .com/p/reallysimplehistory/wiki/ReallySimpleHistoryLinks, 2012

    2012

  71. [79]

    Ntoulas, P

    A. Ntoulas, P. Zerfos, and J. Cho. Downloading textual h idden web content through keyword queries. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Librarie s, pages 100–109, 2005

    2005

  72. [80]

    Oney and B

    S. Oney and B. Myers. Firecrystal: Understanding inter active behaviors in dynamic web pages. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centr ic Computing , pages 105–108, Washington, DC, 14 Trevor Bostic, Jeff Stanley, John Higgins, Daniel Chudnov...

    2009

  73. [81]

    PhantomJS

    PhantomJS. PhantomJS. http://phantomjs.org/, 2013

    2013

  74. [82]

    N. Potter. Wikipedia Blackout: Websites Wikipedia, Re ddit, Others Go Dark Wednesday to Protest SOPA, PIPA. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wikipedia-blackout-websites-wikipedia-reddit -dark-wednesday-protest/story?id=15373251#.Txdpx6UV1V4, January 2012

    2012

  75. [83]

    Puerta and J

    A. Puerta and J. Eisenstein. XIML: a common representat ion for interaction data. In Proceedings of the 7th inter- national conference on Intelligent user interfaces , pages 214–215. ACM, 2002

    2002

  76. [84]

    Raghavan and H

    S. Raghavan and H. Garcia-Molina. Crawling the Hidden W eb. Technical Report 2000-36, Stanford InfoLab, 2000

    2000

  77. [85]

    S. Raj, R. Krishna, and A. Nayak. Distributed Component -Based Crawler for AJAX Applications. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Advances in Elect ronics, Computers and Communications , pages 1–6, 2018

    2018

  78. [86]

    S. Reed. Introduction to Umbra. https://webarchive.j ira.com/wiki/display/ARIH/Introduction+to+Umbra, 201 4

  79. [87]

    D. S. H. Rosenthal. Talk on Harvesting the Future Web at I IPC2013. http://blog.dshr.org/2013/04/ talk-on-harvesting-future-web-at.html, 2013

    2013

  80. [88]

    D. S. H. Rosenthal, D. L. Vargas, T. A. Lipkis, and C. T. Gr iffin. Enhancing the LOCKSS Digital Preservation Technology. D-Lib Magazine , 21(9/10), September/October 2015

    2015

  81. [89]

    Sigurðsson

    K. Sigurðsson. Incremental crawling with Heritrix. In Proceedings of the 5th International Web Archiving Worksho p, Sept. 2005

    2005

  82. [90]

    Sigurðsson

    K. Sigurðsson. The results of URI-agnostic deduplicat ion on a domain crawl. http://kris-sigur.blogspot.com/20 14/ 12/the-results-of-uri-agnostic.html, 2014

    2014

  83. [91]

    Sigurðsson

    K. Sigurðsson. URI agnostic deduplication on content d iscovered at crawl time. http://kris-sigur.blogspot.com /2014/ 12/uri-agnostic-deduplication-on-content.html, 2014

    2014

  84. [92]

    Singer, D

    P. Singer, D. Helic, A. Hotho, and M. Strohmaier. HypTra ils: A Bayesian Approach for Comparing Hypotheses About Human Trails on the Web. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World W ide Web , pages 1003–1013, 2015

    2015

  85. [93]

    T. V. Raman and A. Malhotra. Identifying application st ate. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ IdentifyingApplicationState, 2011

    2001

  86. [94]

    Team Pa11y. Pa11y. https://github.com/pa11y/pa11y, 2018

    2018

  87. [95]

    Tennison

    J. Tennison. Hash URIs. http://www.jenitennison.com /blog/node/154, 2011

    2011

  88. [96]

    B. Tofel. ‘Wayback’ for Accessing Web Archives. In Proceedings of the 7th International Web Archiving Worksho p, 2007

    2007

  89. [97]

    Nearly 1 in 5 People Have a D isability in the U.S., Census Bureau Reports

    United States Census Bureau. Nearly 1 in 5 People Have a D isability in the U.S., Census Bureau Reports. http:// ws-dl.blogspot.com/2017/01/2017-01-20-cnncom-has-be en-unarchivable.html, 2012

    2017

  90. [98]

    Vigo and G

    M. Vigo and G. Brajnik. Automatic web accessibility met rics: Where we are and where we can go. Interacting with Computers, 23(2):137–155, March 2011

    2011

  91. [99]

    Hash URIs

    W3C staff and working group participants. Hash URIs. htt p://www.w3.org/QA/2011/05/hash_uris.html, December 2011

    2011

  92. [100]

    Accessibility Conformance Task Force

    W3.org. Accessibility Conformance Task Force. https ://www.w3.org/W AI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/ work-statement, 2018

    2018

  93. [101]

    WCAG Techniques

    W3.org. WCAG Techniques. https://www.w3.org/W AI/W CAG21/Understanding/understanding-techniques, 2018

    2018

  94. [102]

    Web Accessibility Initiative

    W3.org. Web Accessibility Initiative. https://www. w3.org/W AI/, 2018

    2018

  95. [103]

    S. J. Waterson, J. I. Hong, T. Sohn, J. A. Landay, J. Heer , and T. Matthews. What did they do? understanding clickstreams with the webquilt visualization system. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, pages 94–102. ACM, 2002

    2002

  96. [104]

    G. Wild. Testing social media for WCAG2 compliance. In Proceedings of the 2018 ICT Accessibility Testing Symposium: Mobile Testing, 508 Revision, and Beyond , pages 57–64, 2018

    2018

  97. [105]

    Wild and S

    G. Wild and S. Byrne-Haber. Accessibility Testing 201 . In Proceedings of the 2018 ICT Accessibility Testing Symposium: Mobile Testing, 508 Revision, and Beyond , pages 2–7, 2018

    2018

  98. [106]

    World report on disabilit y

    World Health Organization. World report on disabilit y. Technical report, World Health Organization, 2011

    2011

  99. [107]

    Zheng, T

    Y. Zheng, T. Bao, and X. Zhang. Statically Locating Web Application Bugs Caused by Asynchronous Calls. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World W ide Web , pages 805–814, 2011

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.