ArticleJournal on technology and persons with disabilities : ... Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference2025
Systematically Evaluating Digital Map Tools Based on the WCAG.
Article in Journal on technology and persons with disabilities : ... Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study examines the accessibility of digital map tools in relation to the Web Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, highlighting critical issues for disabled users. Despite the widespread use of digital maps across various professions and daily activities, their accessibility remains insufficient. The research involved a partial Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) comparison of the top 14 digital map tools, focusing on 15 WCAG criteria particularly relevant to geographic maps. The study expanded definitions for three criteria - 1.1.1 Non-Text Content, 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast, and 2.1.1 Keyboard Accessibility - to better apply them to map contexts. Findings revealed significant accessibility shortcomings, with only one tool (Audiom) achieving full compliance and others lacking adequate text alternatives, proper contrast, and keyboard operability. The discussion emphasizes the urgency for map developers to enhance accessibility, especially in light of upcoming legal requirements like the ADA Title II regulations. Making maps accessible not only aids users with disabilities but also offers business benefits by expanding the user base and fostering innovation. The study provides a systematic evaluation framework and clear guidelines to encourage greater digital map accessibility within an academic context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40400716PMC12094671What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.