ArticleScientific reports2025
User cum expert judgement model for accessibility using fuzzy approach.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Well-designed websites play a pivotal role in technological innovation by improving accessibility, user interaction and digital inclusivity. It is crucial to evaluate website accessibility as it meets the diverse needs of its users and adheres to legal and ethical standards. Significant research has been conducted that relies on user evaluation by apprehending user experiences or expert evaluation by capturing technical barriers. The current study proposes a fuzzy-based novel modeling approach that increases the strengths of both evaluation approaches. The datasets of twenty websites from two different domains of healthcare and incubation have been evaluated against the conformance of Web Accessibility Content Guidelines 2.1 (WCAG 2.1). The evaluation has been done by including low-vision impaired users and experts. The fuzzy-based approach has been used to aggregate the insights collected from users and experts. In order to compile the results, both domain websites have been evaluated with respect to parameters and ranking. At the end, both domains have been compared as per their accessibility index. The evaluation results indicate that the healthcare websites are more accessible, as these could achieve a very good level of accessibility, whereas the incubation websites failed to achieve the same level of accessibility. However, the makers of these websites must need to address certain critical issues to achieve an excellent level of accessibility. In order to validate, another sample as another case study with the same datasets of healthcare and incubation domain websites has been taken. As per the statistical analysis, the difference in accessibility indexes of both samples is insignificant at an interval of [Formula: see text]. FUEJMA may be beneficial for the aggregation of diverse responses from the users as well as from the experts that results in contributing more inclusive digital environments and providing accessibility evaluation with more accuracy and context-sensitivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.