Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 58, Issue 2, pp 319–339 | Cite as

Comparing sighted and blind users task performance in responsive and non-responsive web design

  • Tiago do Carmo Nogueira
  • Deller James FerreiraEmail author
  • Sérgio Teixeira de Carvalho
  • Luciana de Oliveira Berretta
  • Mycke R. Guntijo
Regular Paper


This article highlights the necessity to go beyond accessibility guidelines in interactive web design, and more specifically in new web trends, as well as the importance of investigations concerning universal web design usability for blind users. In this work, we compared the task performance of blind and sighted users in responsive and non-responsive web design. The results comparing task performance in responsive and non-responsive Web sites indicate that when responsive web design involves deep structures with fewer choices and more levels, it might be considered a design strategy that does not work well for both sighted and blind user populations, showing that a reasonable criterion that should be considered is to design Web sites with good usability for blind as well as sighted users.


Accessibility Blind users Usability Responsive design 



We are grateful to Cássio Dener Noronha Vinhal and Matheus Rudolfo Diedrich Ullmann of the School of Mechanical, Electrical and Computer Engineering of the Federal University of Goiás, for their helping to revising the paper.


  1. 1.
    Aizpurua A, Harper SS, Vigo MM (2016) Exploring the relationship between web accessibility and user experience. Int J Hum Comput Stud 91:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Babu R, Singh R, Ganesh J (2010) Understanding blind users’ Web accessibility and usability problems. AIS Trans Hum–Comput Interact 2(3):73–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnicle K (2000) Usability testing with screen reading technology in a Windows environment. In: Proceedings of the 2000 conference on universal usability. ACM, pp 102–109Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bigham JP, Cavender AC, Brudvik JT, Wobbrock JO, Ladner RE (2007) WebinSitu: a comparative analysis of blind and sighted browsing behavior. In: Proceedings of the 9th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility. ACM, pp 51–58Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brophy P, Craven J (2007) Web accessibility. Libr Trends 55(4):950–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calvo R, Seyedarabi F, Savva A (2016) Beyond Web content accessibility guidelines: expert accessibility reviews. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on software development and technologies for enhancing accessibility and fighting info-exclusion, December 01–03, 2016, Vila Real, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colosimo EA, Giolo SR (2006) Survival analysis applied. Blucher, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghiani G, Leporini B, Paternò F (2008) Supporting orientation for blind people using museum guides. In: CHI’08 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 3417–3422Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gillenwater ZM (2010) Flexible Web design: creating liquid and elastic layouts with CSS. Peachpit Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harper S, Michailidou E, Stevens R (2009) Toward a definition of visual complexity as an implicit measure of cognitive load. ACM Trans Appl Percept 6(2):10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hochheiser H, Lazar J (2010) Revisiting breadth vs. depth in menu structures for blind users of screen readers. Interact Comput 22(5):389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lakatos EM, Marconi MDA (2010) Fundamentos da metodologia científica. In: Fundamentos da metodologia científica. AltasGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lazar J, Allen A, Kleinman J, Malarkey C (2007) What frustrates screen reader users on the web: a study of 100 blind users. Int J Hum–Comput Interact 22(3):247–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lopes R, Gomes D, Carriço L (2010) Web not for all: a large scale study of web accessibility. In: Proceedings of the 2010 international cross disciplinary conference on Web Accessibility (W4A) W4A’10. ACM, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marcotte E (2013) Responsive Web design (No. 4). Editions EyrollesGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nielsen J (1994) Usability engineering. Elsevier, AmsterdamzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nielsen J (2000) Why you only need to test with 5 users. Jakob Nielsen’s Alterbox., 19
  18. 18.
    Nielsen J (2001) Beyond accessibility: treating users with disabilities as people. The Alertbox: current issues in Web usability (work prepared by the Nielsen Norman Group). See:
  19. 19.
    Nielsen J, Budiu R (2013) Mobile usability. MITP-Verlags GmbH & Co. KGGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nielsen J, Loranger H (2007) Usabilidade na web: projetando websites com qualidade. Rio de Janeiro: CampusGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pascual A, Ribera M, Granollers T, Coiduras JL (2014) Impact of accessibility barriers on the mood of blind, low-vision and sighted users. Procedia Comput Sci 27:431–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Poore-Pariseau CL (2011) Principles of universal design for learning: What is the value (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Power C, Freire A, Petrie H, Swallow D (2012) Guidelines are only half of the story: accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the web. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’12, pp 433–442Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Theofanos MF, Redish JG (2003) Bridging the gap: between accessibility and usability. Interactions 10(6):36–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vigo M, Harper S (2013) Evaluating accessibility-in-use. In: Proceedings of the 10th international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility, May 13–15, 2013, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Watanabe T (2009) Experimental evaluation of usability and accessibility of heading elements. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 4(4):236–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yesilada Y, Brajnik G, Harper S (2011) Barriers common to mobile and disabled web users. Interact Comput 23(5):525–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yesilada Y, Brajnik G, Vigo M, Harper S (2015) Exploring perceptions of web accessibility: a survey approach. Behav Inf Technol 34(2):119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tiago do Carmo Nogueira
    • 1
  • Deller James Ferreira
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sérgio Teixeira de Carvalho
    • 1
  • Luciana de Oliveira Berretta
    • 1
  • Mycke R. Guntijo
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto de InformáticaUniversidade Federal de GoiásGoiâniaBrazil

Personalised recommendations