Both Table 5 and Table 6 demonstrate that conventional non-PWA websites retain more errors than PWA websites in checks performed by accessibility auditing tools. Similarly, in new technology, the maximum axe DevTool (T7) error value is 450, while it is 2134 in older technology, showing that PWAs are operating significantly better and that error rates in websites have been lowered to a larger extent. The average error value in new technology is 13.40, while it is 51.55 in older technology. We can observe from the above plots that CSS Validation Service by W3 (T5) error value reduced to a significant level in new technology. The evaluation results for PWA websites are presented in Table 3 and for non-PWA in Table 4, respectively.Ī way to start the descriptive analysis is by looking at what kind of ranges each tool has and how much they vary around their average values (mean). For the sake of simplicity, a unique ID key has been assigned to each auditing tool presented in the following tables: (T1) Lighthouse by Google, (T2) Wave by WebAim, (T3) Web Accessibility by Level Access, (T4) Power Mapper, (T5) CSS Validation Service by W3, (T6) Nu Html Checker by W3, (T7) AXE DevTools, (T8) Accessibility Insights Chrome, (T9) Equal Access by IBM, and (T10) Site Improve. The remaining eight tools show the results as the number of the errors found. Two of them, Google Lighthouse and PowerMapper, show the errors as a percentage of total checks. Each tool has its own metrics for measuring and displaying the results-total errors. The results returned by the auditing tools for each website were documented in excel sheets to be easily manageable by the program that will perform later the descriptive analysis. Auditing tools, in turn, accept the URL, sending a bot to the given website to perform accessibility inspections. For each website of the dataset, a manual procedure was performed, taking the website’s URL and placing it to the auditing tool’s input area. The dataset of 20 PWAs and 20 conventional non-PWA websites was manually fully tested against 10 accessibility evaluation tools-auditing tools. A general approach is that the callbacks follow a more functional way of programming, instead of promises following a more object-oriented way. In promises, instead, the executing function returns an object (the promise), in which we describe what it has to do when the asynchronous task has been completed. As regards the callbacks, the executing function knows in advance what has to be done when the asynchronous task has been completed. An alternative method to promises is the callbacks. Promises technically fix the gap between function execution order by telling the asynchronous method that it “promises” to call a given function as soon as the asynchronous (async) function is finished. A JS Promise is an asynchronous managing mechanism that enables programmers to chain asynchronous computations while supporting proper error-handling methods. It acts as an intermediary between the app and the internet, and its main purpose is to execute functions as “promises,” in a specific order, sending results back to the app. More specifically, a service worker is a JavaScript script that runs in the background of the application, deploying in a separate thread from the UI, thereby avoiding app freezing. A service worker is a set of APIs introduced by PWA, running in its own thread and providing generic entry points for event-driven background processing that allows developers to programmatically cache and preload assets and data and manage push notifications, among other things.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |