Runtime UI Accessibility Compliance Evaluation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current methods for accessibility compliance checking of user interfaces are not conducive to on-demand, unbiased, comprehensive, and selective evaluations, especially for native and user-defined UI elements, due to their implementation-dependent nature across different platforms and varying accessibility features.

Innovation Solution

A method and system for runtime evaluation of user interfaces that categorize UI elements based on accessibility requirements and apply corresponding compliance rules, generating a report on any violations found, allowing for real-time assessment of native and user-defined elements across diverse platforms.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If accessibility compliance checking is performed using current methods, then some level of compliance evaluation can be achieved, but the evaluation is not comprehensive, unbiased, or selective due to implementation-dependent nature across different platforms

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveaccessibility compliance evaluation accuracyVSAvoidplatform independence

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments accessibility compliance checking into distinct phases: static analysis of UI element hierarchy during development, and runtime analysis when UI elements are selected for inclusion. This segmentation allows platform-specific implementation details to be handled separately while maintaining consistent accessibility evaluation criteria across platforms, resolving the contradiction between measurement precision and platform adaptability

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent performs preliminary static analysis of the UI element hierarchy during the development phase, identifying potential accessibility issues before the application is deployed. This preliminary action enables the system to have accessibility compliance rules ready and configured in advance, allowing comprehensive and unbiased evaluation at runtime without being constrained by platform-specific implementation details

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

2Measurement precision

If runtime evaluation of all UI elements is performed, then comprehensive accessibility compliance checking is achieved, but processing time and system resources are significantly consumed

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecompliance checking completenessVSAvoidruntime evaluation duration

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by associating each UI element category with a specific subset of accessibility compliance rules that are relevant to that category. Instead of applying all rules to all UI elements, the system selectively applies only the necessary rules to each element type, achieving comprehensive compliance checking while minimizing processing time and resource consumption

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The patent performs partial action by evaluating only the UI elements that are actually selected for inclusion in the UI at runtime, rather than analyzing the entire UI hierarchy. This selective evaluation approach maintains completeness for the relevant elements while significantly reducing the overall processing burden compared to evaluating all possible UI elements

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

3Stability of the object's composition

If accessibility compliance rules are applied to all UI elements uniformly, then consistent evaluation is achieved, but the evaluation cannot address platform-specific and element-specific accessibility requirements

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveevaluation consistencyVSAvoidrule applicability to different element types

Core Design Contradiction:

Stability of the object's compositionVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements local quality by categorizing UI elements into different types and associating each category with specific accessibility compliance rules. This allows the system to maintain consistent evaluation methodology across all elements while adapting the specific rules applied to each element type and platform, resolving the contradiction between evaluation consistency and rule applicability

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The patent creates a universal framework that can handle multiple UI element types and platforms through a common categorization system. The system universally applies the same analytical approach to all UI elements while being versatile enough to accommodate platform-specific and element-specific requirements, achieving both consistency and adaptability

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentUS10169188B2Runtime evaluation of user interfaces for accessibility compliance

Publication Date: 2019.01.01 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION

AI summary

From an element hierarchy of a User Interface (UI), a UI element that is selected for inclusion in the UI at runtime is determined. A category of the UI element is determined. A subset of a set of accessibility compliance rules is associated with the UI element. The subset of accessibility compliance rules corresponds to the category of the UI element. The UI element is analyzed to determine that the UI element fails to satisfy an accessibility compliance rule in the subset of accessibility compliance rules. Responsive to the analyzing, in an accessibility compliance report, a violation information is output describing the UI element and the accessibility compliance rule from the subset of accessibility compliance rules.