Advertisement

What we know about dyslexia and Web accessibility: a research review

  • Jacob E. McCarthyEmail author
  • Sarah J. Swierenga
Short Paper

Abstract

Compared to the online interaction behavior of other users, little is known about the difficulties dyslexic Web users encounter online. This paper reviews existing literature at the intersection of dyslexia and accessibility research to determine what useful knowledge exists regarding this important and relatively large group of users. This review uncovers that, although there are few published usability tests with dyslexic users, there is a considerable body of knowledge on dyslexia as well as many design guidelines for authoring dyslexic-accessible interfaces. Through a comparison of existing accessibility guidelines for dyslexic and non-dyslexic users and discussion of the plain language movement, it is argued that dyslexic-accessible practices may redress difficulties encountered by all Internet users. This conclusion suggests that usability testing yielding a clearer profile of the dyslexic user would further inform the practice of universal design, but also that enough knowledge is already available to allow doing more to increase accessibility for dyslexic Internet users.

Keywords

Dyslexia Accessibility Disabilities Usability Interface design Universal design 

References

  1. 1.
    Craven, J., Booth, H.: Putting awareness into practice: practical steps for conducting usability tests. Libr. Rev. 55(3), 179–194 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A.: The neurobiology of reading and dyslexia. National center for the study of adult learning and literacy. Focus Basics 5(A), 11–15 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reid, G., Kirk, J.: Dyslexia in Adults: Education and Employment. Wiley, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Williams, P., Nichols, D.: Testing the usability of information technology applications with learners with special educational needs. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs 6(1), 31–41 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harryson, B., Svensk, A., Johansson, G.: How people with developmental disabilities navigate the Internet. Br. J. Spec. Educ. 31(3), 138–142 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petrie, H., Weber, G., Fisher, W.: Personalization, interaction, and navigation in rich multimedia documents for print-disabled users. IBM Syst. J. 44(3), 629–635 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boldyreff, C., Burd, E., Donkin, J.: The case for the use of plain English to increase Web accessibility. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Web Site Evolution, Florence, Italy (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    NINDS Dyslexia Information Page: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/dyslexia/dyslexia.htm. Accessed 29 Sept 2008
  9. 9.
    Kolatch, E.: Designing for users with cognitive disabilities. In: The Universal Usability Guide, University of Maryland, College Park. http://www.otal.umd.edu/UUGuide/erica (2000). Accessed 29 Sept 2008
  10. 10.
    Seeman, L.: Inclusion of cognitive disabilities in the Web accessibility movement. In: Proceedings of The 11th International World Wide Web Conference, Honolulu, HI (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Francik, E.: Telecommunications problems and design strategies for people with cognitive disabilities: annotated bibliography and research recommendations. In: Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Universal Telecommunication Access. http://www.wid.org/publications/downloads/telecom_design_strategies.pdf (1999). Accessed 29 Sept 2008
  12. 12.
    Bohman, P.: Cognitive disabilities part 1: we still know too little and we do even less. In: Webaim. http://www.Webaim.org/articles/cognitive/cognitive_too_little/ (2004). Accessed 29 Sept 2008
  13. 13.
    Small, J., Schallau, P., Brown, K., Appleyard, R.: Web accessibility for people with cognitive disabilities. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2005 Conference, Portland, USA, pp. 1793–1796Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Andersen, A., Rowland, C.: Improving the outcomes of students with cognitive and learning disabilities: phase I development for a Web accessibility tool. In: Proceedings of the 9th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, Tempe, Arizona, USA, pp. 221–222 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hudson, R., Weakly, R., Firminger, P.: An accessibility frontier: cognitive disabilities and learning difficulties. In: Web Usability. http://www.usability.com.au/resources/cognitive.cfm (2004). Accessed 29 Sept 2008
  16. 16.
    Rainger, P.: A dyslexic perspective on e-content accessibility. In: JISC TechDis. http://www.techdis.ac.uk/seven/papers/dyslexia.html (2003). Accessed 29 Sept 2008
  17. 17.
    Jiwnani, K.: Designing for users with cognitive disabilities. In: Universal Usability in Practice, University of Maryland, College Park. http://www.otal.umd.edu/uupractice/cognition/ (2001). Accessed 29 Sept 2008
  18. 18.
    Bradford, J.: Designing Web pages for dyslexic users. In: Dyslexia Online Magazine. http://www.dyslexia-parent.com/mag35.html (2005). Accessed 29 Sept 2007
  19. 19.
    Caldwell, B., Chisholm, W., Slatin, J., Vanderheiden, G. (eds.): Understanding WCAG 2.0 W3C Working Draft 27 April 2006. W3C World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/. Accessed 17 Mar 2008
  20. 20.
    Bruck, M.: Persistence of dyslexics’ phonological awareness deficits. Dev. Psychol. 28, 874–886 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Pugh, K.R., Fulbright, R.K., Constable, R.T., Mencl, W.E., Shankweiler, D.P., Liberman, A.M., Skudlarski, P., Fletcher, J.M., Katz, L., Marchione, K.E., Lacadie, C., Gatenby, C., Gore, J.C.: Functional disruption in the organization of the brain for reading dyslexia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 95(5), 2636–2649 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rumsey, J.M., Nace, K., Donohue, B., Wise, D., Maisog, J.M., Andreason, P.: A positron emission tomographic study of impaired word recognition and phonological processing in dyslexic men. Arch. Neurol. 54, 562–573 (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shankweiler, D.P., Katz, L., Liberman, I.Y., Stuebing, K.K., Francis, D.J., Fowler, A.E., Shaywitz, B.A.: Cognitive profiles of reading disability: comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. J. Educ. Psychol. 86, 6–23 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hamm, M.W., Seidenberg, M.S.: Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models. Psychol. Rev. 106(3), 491–528 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pollak, D.: Dyslexia, the Self and Higher Education. Trentham Books, Sterling (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Elkind J (1998) Computer reading machines for poor readers. Perspect. Int. Dyslexia Assoc. 24(2), 9–14 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Deibel, K.: Understanding and supporting the use of accommodating technologies by adult learners with reading disabilities. Access. Comp. 86, 32–35 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Phipps, L., Sutherland, A., Seale, J. (eds.): Access all areas: disability, technology and learning. In: JISC TechDis. http://www.techdis.ac.uk/resources/files/AAA.pdf (2002). Accessed 29 Sept 2008
  29. 29.
    Beacham, N.A., Alty, J.L.: An investigation into the effects that digital media can have on the learning outcomes of individuals who have dyslexia. Comp. Educ. 47, 74–93 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dixon, M.: Comparative study of disabled vs. non-disabled evaluators in user-testing: dyslexia and first year students learning computer programming. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) Universal Access in Human Computer Interaction. Coping with Diversity. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4554, pp. 647–656. Springer, Berlin (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Disability Rights Commission (DRC): The Web: Access and Inclusion for Disabled people. A formal Investigation conducted by the Disability Rights Commission. DRC, London (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Al-Wabil, A., Zaphiris, P., Wilson, S.: Web navigation for individuals with dyslexia: an exploratory study. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) Universal Access in Human Computer Interaction. Coping with Diversity. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4554, pp. 593–602. Springer, Berlin (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kurniawan, S., Conroy, G.V.: Comparing comprehension speeds and accuracy of online information in students with and without dyslexia. In: Kuriawan, S., Zaphiris, P. (eds.) Advances in Universal Web Design and Evaluation, pp. 271–292. Idea Group, Hersey (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nielsen, J.: Lower-literacy users. In: Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20050314.html (2005). Accessed 29 Sept 2008
  35. 35.
    Swierenga, S.J., Porter, J.E., Ghosh, S., McCarthy, J.E.: Dyslexia and Website Design: The Importance of User-based Testing. Fourth International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, Urbana-Champaign, IL, 16 May (2008)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gregor, P., Dickinson, A., Macaffer, A., Andreasen, P.: SeeWord—a personal word processing environment for dyslexic computer users. Br. J. Educ. Tech. 34(3), 341–355 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Asaravala, A.: New typeface to help dyslexics. In: Wired News. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2003/10/60834 (2004). Accessed 29 Sept 2008
  38. 38.
    Pearson, E., Koppi, T.: Essential elements in the design and development of inclusive online courses. Int. J. E-Learn. 2(4), 52–59 (2003)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zarach, V.: Ten Guidelines for Improving Accessibility for People with Dyslexia. CETIS University of Wales Bangor. http://www.cetis.ac.uk/members/accessibility/links/disabilities/documents/dyslexia (2002). Accessed 2 April 2007
  40. 40.
    Readability test: Juicy Studio. http://juicystudio.com/services/readability.php (2007). Accessed 29 Sept 2008
  41. 41.
    Evett, L., Brown, D.: Text formats and Web design for visually impaired and dyslexic readers—clear text for all. Interact. Comp. 17(4), 453–472 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Crawford, A.: State targets bureaucratese to improve communication. In: Arizona Republic, 6 Jan (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations