Advertisement

Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 155–175 | Cite as

Evaluating a modified Google user interface via screen reader

  • Barbara Leporini
  • Patrizia Andronico
  • Marina Buzzi
  • Carlos Castillo
Long Paper

Abstract

This paper describes the progress of a research project aimed at improving the usability of web search tools for blind users who interact via screen readers and voice synthesizers. In the first stage of research, specific guidelines were proposed for simplifying the interaction with search engines for the blind. To evaluate these criteria, they were applied to Google user interfaces, by re-implementing the search form as well as the results page. Finally, the redesigned interfaces were evaluated through remote testing with 12 totally blind users. The results highlighted how Google, although already accessible, may be further improved in order to simplify interaction for people with impaired vision.

Keywords

Accessibility Usability User interface Blind users Search engine 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all the participants in our user testing who made an enthusiastic effort to help us in our research, and the reviewers of this paper for their very useful comments.

References

  1. 1.
    Andronico, P., Buzzi, M., Leporini, B.: Increasing usability of search engine interfaces for the blind. In: Proceedings of HCI International 2005, Las Vegas, July 2005, Lea (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andronico, P., Buzzi, M., Castillo, C., Leporini B.: Improving search engine interfaces for blind users: a case study. Int. J. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2006 Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Card, S.K., Moran, A., Newell, T.P.: The psychology of human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, New Jersey (1983)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carroll John M.: Scenario-based design. Wiley, USA (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Craven, J., Brophy, P.: Non-visual access to the digital library: the use of digital library interfaces by blind and visually impaired people. Technical report, Manchester: Centre for Research in Library and Information Management, CERLIM. (http://www.cerlim.ac.uk/pubs/index.php) (2003)
  6. 6.
    Damery E.: Jaws for Windows version 4.51. New features and accessing the Internet. In: Proceedings of CSUN 2003, Los Angeles, (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goble C., Harper S., Stevens R.: The Travails of Visually impaired Web Travellers. In: Proceedings of Hypertext 2000, San Antonio, June 2000, ACM, 1–10 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Google.: Google Search API. http://code.google.com/apis/soapsearch/ (2006)
  9. 9.
    Google.: Accessible Search FAQ, http://labs.google.com/accessible/faq.html (2007)
  10. 10.
    Hanson, V.L.: A Web accessibility service: an update and findings. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies, ASSETS 2004, pp. 169–176 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hanson, V.L., Brezin, J.P., Crayne, S., Keates, S., Kjeldsen, R., Richards, J.T., Swart, C., Trewin, S.: Improving Web accessibility through an enhanced open-source browser. IBM Syst. J. 44(3), 573–588 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hartson, H.R., Castillo, J.C., Kelso, J, Neale, W.C.: Remote evaluation: the network as an extension of the usability laboratory. In: Proceedings of CHI 1996, Vancouver, April 1996, ACM, 228–235 (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hartson, H.R., Castillo, J.C.: Remote evaluation for post-deployment usability improvement. In: Proceedings of CHI 98, Los Angeles, April 1998, ACM, pp. 22–29 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO 9241-11, 1998. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs), Part 11: Guidance on Usability, 1st edn., 1998-03-15, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    istat, Disabilità in cifre, Quante sono le persone con disabilità in Italia? http://www.disabilitaincifre.it/index.asp 2004–2005 (in italian)
  16. 16.
    Ivory, M.Y., Yu, S., Gronemyer, K.: Search result exploration: a preliminary study of blind and sighted users’ decision making and performance. In: Proceedings of Extended abstracts of CHI 2004, Vienna, April 2004, ACM, 1453–1456 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ivory, M.Y., Hearst, M.A.: The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces. Computing Surveys, vol. 2001, N.4, December 2004, ACM, 470–516 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leporini, B., Andronico P., Buzzi, m.: Designing search engine user interfaces for the visually impaired. In: Proceedings of International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility, NY, May 2004, ACM, pp. 57–66 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leporini, B., Paternò, F.: Increasing usability when interacting through screen readers. Springer Int J Univers Access Inf Soc (UAIS) vol. 3, Number 1, Special Issue on “Guidelines, standards, methods and processes for software accessibility”, pp. 57–70 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mankoff J., Fait H., Tran T.: Is your Web page accessible? A comparative study of methods for assessing Web page accessibility for the blind. In: Proceedings of CHI2005, Portland, April 2005, 899–908 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nielsen, J.: Alertbox January 21, 2001. Usability Metrics. Available at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010121.html. (2001)
  22. 22.
    Nielsen, J.: Alertbox May 9, 2005. Mental models for search are getting firmer. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20050509.html. (2005)
  23. 23.
    Norman, K.L., Panizzi, E.: Levels of automation and user participation in usability testing. Interact. Comput. 18(2) pp. 246–264 March, 2006, Elsevier, (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Petrie, H, Hamilton, F., King, N., Pavan, P. Remote usability evaluations with disabled people. In: Proceedings of CHI 2006, Montréal, Canada, April 22–27, 2006, pp. 1133–1141 (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scholtz, J.: Adaptation of traditional usability testing methods for remote testing. In: Proceedings of HICSS 2001, Hawaii, January 2001, IEEE 1–9 (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Raman, T.V.: Overview of accessible solutions from Google, http://labs.google.com/accessible/overview.html (2007)
  27. 27.
    Takagi, H., Asakawa, C., Fukuda, K., Maeda, J.: Accessibility designer: visualizing usability for the blind. In: Proceedings of SIGACCESS 2004, Atlanta, October 2004, ACM, pp. 177–184 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thompson, K.E., Rozanski, E.P., Haake, A.R.: Here, there, anywhere: remote usability testing that works. In: Proceedings of SIGITE 2004, Salt Lake City, October 2004, pp. 132–137 (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    WHO. Magnitude and causes of visual impairment. Fact Sheet N°282, November 2004, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs282/en/
  30. 30.
    W3C. Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/, 5 May 1999
  31. 31.
    W3C. SOAP Version 1.2 Part 0: Primer. W3C Recommendation 24 June 2003. http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part0/
  32. 32.
    W3C. XSL Transformations (XSLT). http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt, 16 Nov 1999
  33. 33.
    Yu, W., McAllister, G., Kuber, R., Murphy, E., Strain, P.: Improving Web accessibility using content-aware plug-ins. In: Extended Abstracts of CHI’05, Portland, USA, pp. 1893–1896 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Leporini
    • 1
  • Patrizia Andronico
    • 2
  • Marina Buzzi
    • 2
  • Carlos Castillo
    • 3
  1. 1.CNR-ISTIPisaItaly
  2. 2.CNR-IITPisaItaly
  3. 3.Università la Sapienza RomaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations