## 3 Methodology
### Automated Accessibility Tools  
To evaluate the accessibility of web pages, there is an array of automated accessibility-testing tools that have been introduced by accessibility-testing groups and scholars [31; 32]. In this work, two automated accessibility-testing tools have been incorporated, as listed in Table 1, to evaluate the selected hospital web pages and compute the integrated accessibility score. Mauve++ is an open-source accessibility-evaluation environment that allows users to test a particular website through their URLs [33]. It validates websites against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), providing various platforms (such as desktop, iPad, mobile phone, and tablet) to conduct the evaluation process. It evaluates websites against various checkpoints of the WCAG and classifies the evaluation report in terms of \"Passed\", \"Failed\", \"Not Tested\", and \"Not Decided\" evaluation matrices. Figure 1 shows the accessibility-evaluation result of the SOPRONI Gyogykozpont website via Mauve++, which shows the evaluation result in terms of four assessment terminologies. The details of the Mauve++ tool can be found in [34]. TAW is another open-source accessibility evaluation framework that allows the evaluation of a website's accessibility status without charging costs. It generates an evaluation report that mentions the total number of issues on the web page that are related to accessibility aspects in terms of the number of \"Passed\", \"Failed\", \"Not Tested\", and \"Not Decided\" success criteria [33]. Figure 2 shows the accessibility-evaluation result of the SOPRONI Gyogykozpont website via TAW, in terms of their assessment terminologies. Figure 1: The evaluation result of the Soproni hospital website by Mauve++ environment. Figure 2: The evaluation result of the Soproni hospital website by TAW environment. Recently, the web initiative World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) published several accessibility-evaluation tools that can be found at [[https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/](https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/)]([https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/](https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/)) (accessed on 6 January 2023). In addition, some research classified these tools in terms of particular domains [35; 36]. Many aspects could be considered during appropriate accessibility-testing tool selection. In our case, we wanted to select tools that allow analyzing the computed result via our proposed approach. Therefore, we set two criteria that allowed us to identify the appropriate tools to incorporate into this work: (i) the result should specify which success criteria or guidelines have passed, failed, not been tested, or not been decided, and (ii) the report should highlight all the investigated guidelines. By taking these two criteria into consideration, we evaluated six tools: WAVE, Nibbler, MAUVE++, Web accessibility, AChecker, and TAW, according to their popularity and capability in performing the validation process. Unexpectedly, among these six tools, Mauve++ and TAW fulfilled the selected criteria, and we decided to incorporate them into the proposed approach. The Mauve++ and TAW tools highlight all the tested guidelines and represent their results in terms of four terminologies: \"Pass\", \"Fail\", \"Not Tested\", and \"Not Decided\", where \"Pass\" refers to the guidelines that were properly implemented in the website, following the WCAG; \"Fail\" refers to the guidelines that were not properly implemented in the website, following the WCAG; \"Not Tested\" refers to the guidelines that were not considered for implementation in the website, according to the WCAG; and \"Not Decided\" refers to the guidelines that were undetected, according to the WCAG. The details of these terminologies could be found in [36]. In addition, the secondary reason to consider these two tools is their ability to provide the evaluation results structurally, which allows us to integrate the results via our proposed approach.