The Web: Access and Inclusion for Disabled People
Download
1 / 37

Aims of the Formal Investigation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 71 Views
  • Uploaded on

The Web: Access and Inclusion for Disabled People Helen Petrie Centre for Human Computer Interaction Design City University London. Aims of the Formal Investigation. 1. Systematically evaluate accessibility of the Web in Great Britain 2. Analyse recurrent barriers to Web accessibility

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Aims of the Formal Investigation' - nelly


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

The Web: Access and Inclusion for Disabled PeopleHelen PetrieCentre for Human ComputerInteraction Design City University London


Aims of the formal investigation
Aims of the Formal Investigation

1. Systematically evaluate accessibility of the Web in Great Britain

2. Analyse recurrent barriers to Web accessibility

3. Make recommendations for further work which will contribute towards enabling disabled people to enjoy full access to, and use of, the Web


Aim 1:

Systematically evaluate

the accessibility of the Web

in Great Britain


User panel
User Panel

Established User Panel of 50 disabled people

  • Blind

  • Partially sighted

  • Deaf and hard of hearing

  • Dyslexic

  • Physically impaired

    Wide range of ages, gender, ethnicity, geographic location, experience with Web, assistive technologies used in accessing the Web

    Conducted interviews, focus groups, live Web sessions


Sample of 1000 websites
Sample of 1000 websites

Took a representative sample of 1000 Websites of interest and importance to disabled people in Great Britain

Five main categories:

  • Government and information

  • Businesses (SMEs to multinationals)

  • E-commerce (banking, travel, retail…)

  • Entertainment and leisure

  • Web services (ISPs, portals, search engines, chat rooms …)


Automated testing of the home pages of the 1000 Websites

Criteria: the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG version 1.0)

Tested only those items in the Guidelines which can be checked automatically (13 out of 65 Checkpoints)


Results of automated testing

19% of home pages (192) passed the automatic Priority 1 checks, so less than 19% would be fully Priority 1 compliant (A Conformance)

32.2% of government/information Website home pages passed automatic Priority 1 checks

No other differences between the sectors


only 6 (0.6%) of home pages passed Priority 1 + Priority 2 automatic checks

But only 2 (0.2%) passed both automatic and manual checks at Priority 1 + 2 checks (AA conformance)

No home pages passed Priority 1 + Priority 2 + Priority 3 (even automatic checks) (AAA conformance)

Conclusion: basic technical accessibility very poor


In depth testing of 100 websites
In-depth testing of 100 Websites automatic checks

Selected 100 Websites from the sample of 1000 on the basis of a number of measures:

  • the 5 categories

  • use of different Web technologies

  • accessibility level on automated testing


Automated testing of whole site or the first 500 pages in the site

In total we have conducted automated testing on approximately 39,000 Web pages

By far the largest and most comprehensive study of Website accessibility ever undertaken


User evaluations
User evaluations the site

Testing whether sites conform to the WAI Guidelines is important, but what we are really trying to achieve is Websites that disabled people can use

So wanted to compare the results from the automated testing with user evaluations - getting the User Panel to undertake real tasks on the Web in realistic situations


Evaluation procedure
Evaluation procedure the site

First session: at our lab, with researcher next to the user

Procedure:

  • free exploration

  • 2 representative tasks for the site (e.g. find out current interest rate)

  • questions from the researcher (rating scales, open ended)

    Evaluated 2 - 3 Web sites this way


Users then used the same procedure in their own time [“homework” - at home, office…]

evaluated 7 - 8 other Websites for homework

each member of the User Panel evaluated 10 Websites in total

target was 1000 tasks = 50 users x 100 sites x 2 tasks per site

913 tasks attempted, logged and analysed


Success at tasks
Success at tasks [“homework” - at home, office…]

Overall, panel members were successful on only 76% of the tasks

but also significant differences between impairment groups:

  • Blind successful 53%

  • Partially sighted 76%

  • Dyslexic 83%

  • Hearing impaired/physically impaired 85%

    So, blind Panel members unable to complete nearly half the tasks


Problems the users encountered
Problems the users encountered [“homework” - at home, office…]

585 problems were encountered in undertaking the tasks

55% (319) related to the WAI Checkpoints, but 45% (266) did not

Need to use the Guidelines, a site which violates them will definitely not be accessible, but currently also need user testing

Guidelines are necessary but not sufficient


Of the 55% (319) problems related to the WAI Checkpoints: [“homework” - at home, office…]

8 WAI Checkpoints accounted for 82% (262) of these (45% of all 585 problems identified)


If developers would address these 8 issues, the Web would be a lot more accessible and usable for disabled people

These 8 Checkpoints should form the bedrock of Web design

They are not enormously difficult and they do not inhibit creativity or innovation in Web design


The accessibility gap and the usability bonus
The accessibility gap and the usability bonus a lot more accessible and usable for disabled people

Controlled study of six websites to see how disenfranchised blind people are on the web

  • Three sites with high technical accessibility

  • Three sites with low technical accessibility

    Time blind and sighted users take to undertake representative tasks


F a lot more accessible and usable for disabled people or the sighted/non disabled users:

Average task time

High accessibility sites 36 seconds

Low accessibility sites 52 seconds

35% faster on high accessibility sites

Conclusion: Accessible sites are also usable sites


The good news for website developers and owners
The good news for website developers (and owners) a lot more accessible and usable for disabled people

The benefits of addressing accessibility issues - you also address the usability issues

“Extreme” Web site testing - test your site with disabled users and you will deal with accessibility and usability


Aim 2: a lot more accessible and usable for disabled people

Analyse recurrent barriers to

Web accessibility


Survey of website owners and website developers
Survey of website owners and website developers a lot more accessible and usable for disabled people

Sent questionnaires to 712 website owners in public and private sectors

  • randomly selected

  • 89 questionnaires returned [suggests a level of apathy in itself?]

    Interviewed 21 website owners and 25 website developers

  • also randomly selected


Res ults from website owners
Res a lot more accessible and usable for disabled people ults from Website owners

Large organizations seemed to be well aware of the issues of Web accessibility and their responsibilities under the DDA

68% said they took accessibility into account when commissioning their Website (unfortunately it doesn’t seem to have had much effect)

SMEs

less aware of the topics

only 29% said they took accessibility into account


Perceived barriers
Perceived barriers a lot more accessible and usable for disabled people

  • Cost (money, time, staff resources)

  • Low level of knowledge of the issues and how to address them

    Myths of Web accessibility:

  • incompatibility between sophisticated Websites and accessibility

  • incompatibility between creativity/ innovation on the Web and accessibility


Results from website developers
Results from Website developers a lot more accessible and usable for disabled people

80% said they attempted to develop accessible Websites at least some of the time

Reported lack of interest by commissioners of Websites [doesn’t really match results from website owners]

Best argument with clients for accessibility is increased in potential audience for the Website

Level of expertise low: only 9% claimed any sort of expertise


Conclusions
Conclusions a lot more accessible and usable for disabled people

  • Current state of Website accessibility is poor

  • Blind people are the most disenfranchised

  • Doing 8 things will make a big difference to accessibility of the Web

  • Automated testing necessary but not sufficient

  • User involvement is very important - will address both accessibility and usability

  • Awareness and training for Web developers and Website owners is vital


Many thanks to the research team
Many thanks to the research team … a lot more accessible and usable for disabled people

In alphabetical order:

Christine Booth, Wendy Fisher, Kulvinder Gill, Fraser Hamilton, Neil King, Terry Hoi-Ya Ma, Claire Paterson and Panayiotis Zaphiris


More detailed information about the formal investigation can be found at
More detailed information about the Formal Investigation can be found at:

www-hcid.soi.city.ac.uk/rhDrc.html

or contact me at:

[email protected]


Web content accessibility guidelines wcag
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) be found at:

Version 1.0 (Version 2.0 in development)

14 Guidelines

Divided into 65 checkpoints

  • 13 can be checked automatically by computer (e.g. images in a web site have ALT text)

  • 52 need human judgement (e.g. do not rely on colour alone to convey information)


Web content accessibility guidelines wcag1
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) be found at:

Priority 1 – A Web content developer must satisfy this checkpoint. Otherwise one or more groups will find it impossible to access information … Satisfying this checkpoint is a basic requirement for some groups to be able to use Web documents.

Priority 2 – A Web content developer should satisfy this checkpoint. Otherwise one of more groups will find it difficult to access information … Satisfying this checkpoint will remove significant barriers to accessing Web documents.

Priority 3 – A Web content developer may address this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it somewhat difficult to access information …. Satisfying this checkpoint will improve access to Web documents.


Checkpoints accounting for most problems
Checkpoints accounting for most problems be found at:

1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element

2.2Ensure that foreground and background colour combinations provide sufficient contrast

6.3Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets and other programmatic objects are turned off

7.3Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid movement in pages


10. be found at:1 Until user agents (=browsers, assistive technologies) allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear …

12.3Divide large blocks of information into more manageable groups where natural and appropriate

13.1 Clearly identify the target of each link

14.1Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site’s content


Problems experienced by blind users
Problems experienced by blind users be found at:

Incompatibility between screenreading software and web pages (26)

Incorrect or non-existent labelling of links, form elements and frames (24)

Cluttered and complex page structures (23)

ALT tags on images non-existent or unhelpful (16)

Confusing and disorienting navigation mechanisms (16)


Problems experienced by partially sighted users
Problems experienced by partially sighted users be found at:

Inappropriate use of colours and poor contrast between content and background (20)

Incompatibiity between assistive technology (e.g. for magnification) and web pages (19)

Unclear and confusing layout of pages (18)

Confusing and disorienting layout of pages (18)

Confusing and disorienting navigation mechanisms (16)

Graphics and text size too small (10)


Problems experienced by physically impaired users
Problems experienced by physically impaired users be found at:

Confusing and disorienting navigation mechanisms (20)

Unclear and confusing layout of pages (19)

Graphics and text size too small (11)

Inappropriate use of colours and poor contrast between content and background (10)


Problems experienced by deaf hearing impaired users
Problems experienced by Deaf/hearing impaired users be found at:

Unclear and confusing layout of pages (23)

Confusing and disorienting navigation mechanisms (12)

Lack of alternative media for audio-based information and complex terms/language (10)

Inappropriate use of colours and poor contrast between content and background (9)

Graphics and text size too small (9)


Problems experienced by dyslexic users
Problems experienced by dyslexic users be found at:

Unclear and confusing layout of pages (41)

Confusing and disorienting navigation mechanisms (32)

Inappropriate use of colours and poor contrast between content and background (20)

Graphics and text size too small (14)

Complicated language or terminology (7)


ad