Guideline aggregation: web accessibility evaluation for older users

ABSTRACT

Web site evaluation methodologies and validation engines take the view that all accessibility guidelines must be met to gain compliance. Problems exist in this regard as contradictions within the rule set may arise, and the type of impairment or its severity is not isolated. The Barrier Walkthrough (BW) method goes someway to addressing these issues by enabling barrier types derived from guidelines to be applied to different user categories such as motor or hearing impairment, etc. In this paper, we use set theory to create a validation scheme for older users by combining barrier types specific to motor impaired and low vision users, thereby creating a new "older users" category from the results of this set addition. To evaluate this approach, we have conducted a BW study with four pages, 19 expert and 49 non-expert judges. This study shows that the BW generates reliable data for the proposed aggregated user category and shows how experts and non-experts evaluate pages differently. The study also highlights a limitation of the BW by showing that a better aggregated user category would have been created by having a severity level of disability for different impairment types. By extending the BW with these impairment levels, we argue that the BW would become more useful for validating Web pages when dealing with users which multiple disabilities and thus we would be able to create a "Personalised Validation and Repair" method.

REFERENCES

• 1: A. Arch. Web accessibility for older users: A literature review. W3C, 2008. http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-age-literature.
• 2: G. Brajnik. Barrier walkthrough: Heuristic evaluation guided by accessibility barriers. http://users.dimi.uniud.it/~giorgio.brajnik/projects/bw/bw.html.
• 3: G. Brajnik. Web accessibility testing: When the method is the culprit. In 10th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (ICCHP), 2006.
• 4: Giorgio Brajnik , Raffaella Lomuscio, SAMBA: a semi-automatic method for measuring barriers of accessibility, Proceedings of the 9th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility, October 15-17, 2007, Tempe, Arizona, USA [doi>10.1145/1296843.1296853]
• 5: G. Cockton and A. Woolrych. Understanding inspection methods: lessons from an assessment of heuristic evaluation. In A. Blandford and J. Vanderdonckt, editors, People & Computers XV, pages 171--192. Springer-Verlag, 2001.
• 6: K. P. Coyne and J. Nielsen. Web usability for senior citizens: 46 design guidelines based on usability studies with people age 65 and older. Nielsen Norman Group Report, 2002.
• 7: DRC. Formal investigation report: web accessibility. Disability Rights Commission, www.drc-gb.org/publicationsandreports/report.asp, April 2004. Visited Jan. 2006.
• 8: A. D. Fisk, W. A. Rogers, N. Charness, S. J. Czaja, and J. Sharit. Designing for Older Adults. CRC, 2004.
• 9: J. Fozard. The handbook of the psychology of ageing, chapter Vision and hearing in aging, pages 150--170. Academic, 1990.
• 10: Wayne D. Gray , Marilyn C. Salzman, Damaged merchandise? a review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods, Human-Computer Interaction, v.13 n.3, p.203-261, September 1998 [doi>10.1207/s15327051hci1303_2]
• 11: H. R. Hartson, T. S. Andre, and R. C. Williges. Criteria for evaluating usability evaluation methods. Int. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 15(1):145--181, 2003.
• 12: S. Henry and M. Grossnickle. Just Ask: Accessibility in the User-Centered Design Process. Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 2004. On-line book: www.UIAccess.com/AccessUCD.
• 13: Morten Hertzum , Niels Ebbe Jacobsen , Rolf Molich, Usability inspections by groups of specialists: perceived agreement in spite of disparate observations, CHI '02 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, April 20-25, 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA [doi>10.1145/506443.506534]
• 14: Brian Kelly , David Sloan , Stephen Brown , Jane Seale , Helen Petrie , Patrick Lauke , Simon Ball, Accessibility 2.0: people, policies and processes, Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A), May 07-08, 2007, Banff, Canada [doi>10.1145/1243441.1243471]
• 15: S. H. Kurniawan. Ageing. In S. Harper and Y. Yesilada, editors, Web Accessibility: A Foundation for Research, Human-Computer Interaction Series, chapter 5, pages 47--58. Springer, London, 1st edition, September 2008.
• 16: S. Milne , A. Dickinson , A. Carmichael , D. Sloan , R. Eisma , P. Gregor, Are guidelines enough?: an introduction to designing web sites accessible to older people, IBM Systems Journal, v.44 n.3, p.557-571, August 2005
• 17: J. Mitchell, R. Adkins, and B. Kemp. The effects of aging on employment of people with and without disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 49(3), 2006.
• 18: R. Molich, N. Bevan, I. Curson, S. Butler, E. Kindlund, D. Miller, and J. Kirakowski. Comparative evaluation of usability tests. In Proc. of the Usability Professionals Association Conference, Washington, DC, June 1998.
• 19: Anne Morris , Joy Goodman , Helena Brading, Internet use and non-use: views of older users, Universal Access in the Information Society, v.6 n.1, p.43-57, May 2007 [doi>10.1007/s10209-006-0057-5]
• 20: T. Nichols, W. Rogers, A. Fisk, and L. West. How old are your participants? An investigation of age classifications as reported in human factors. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, Aging, pages 260--261, 2001.
• 21: B. Schwartz. The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. Harper Perennial, 2005.
• 22: A. Sears. Heuristic walkthroughs: Finding the problems without the noise. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 9:213--234, 1997.
• 23: C. Tobias. Computers and the elderly: A review of the literature and directions for future research. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st annual meeting, pages 866--870, Santa Monica, CA, 1987.
• 24: Markel Vigo , Alfred Kobsa , Myriam Arrue , Julio Abascal, User-tailored web accessibility evaluations, Proceedings of the eighteenth conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, September 10-12, 2007, Manchester, UK [doi>10.1145/1286240.1286267]
• 25: A. Woolrych and G. Cockton. Assessing heuristic evaluation: mind the quality, not just the percentages. In Proc. of HCI 2000, pages 35--36, 2000.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Evaluation/methodology

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Interaction styles (e.g., commands, menus, forms, direct manipulation); User-centered design; Input devices and strategies (e.g., mouse, touchscreen)

  K. Computing Milieux
  K.4 COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY
      K.4.2 Social Issues
          Subjects: Assistive technologies for persons with disabilities

General Terms:
Experimentation, Human Factors

Keywords:
evaluation, older users, web accessibility guideline