Advertisement

Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 180–188 | Cite as

On the efficiency of keyboard navigation in Web sites

  • Martin Schrepp
LONG PAPER

Abstract

An efficient keyboard access to Web sites is highly important for many groups of disabled users. However, the current design of most Web sites makes the efficient keyboard navigation nearly impossible. This paper investigates the performance of the keyboard and mouse navigation in Web pages. The comparison is based on the theoretical arguments and on two small studies. The results show that the current amount of keyboard support in common Web sites is far from being sufficient. Typical problems concerning keyboard support in Web sites are discussed, along with possible solutions and the related constraints.

Keywords

Accessibility Universal design Web sites Keyboard navigation 

References

  1. 1.
    Bühler C, Stephanidis C (2004) European co-operation activities promoting design for all in information society technologies. In: Miesenberger K, Klaus J, Zagler W, and Burger D (Eds), ICCHP—computer helping people with special needs. vol 3118, pp 80–87Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Card SK, Moran TP, Newell A (1983) The psychology of human–computer interaction. Hillsdale, EarlbaumGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chrisholm W, Vanderheiden G, Jacobs I (1999) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Available online under http://www.w3c.org/TR/WCAG10/
  4. 4.
    Coyne KP, Nielsen J (2001) Beyond ALT text: making the Web easy to use for users with disabilities Design guidelines for Web sites and intranets based on usability studies with people using assistive technology. Nielsen Norman Group, FreemontGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Disability Rights Commission (2004). The Web Access and inclusion for disabled people. A formal investigation conducted by the Disability Rights Commission. TSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grappa H, Nordbrock G (2004) Applying web accessibility to internet portals. Universal Access Inf Soc 3(3):80–87Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grappa H, Nordbrock G, Mohamad Y, Velasco CA (2004) Preferences of people with disabilities to improve information presentation and information retrieval inside internet services—results of a user study. In: Miesenberger K, Klaus J, Zagler W, Burger D (eds) ICCHP—computer helping people with special needs, vol 3118, pp 296–301Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO/TS 16071 (2003). Ergonomics of human-system interaction–Guidance on accessibility for human–computer interfaces. Genf: International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    IBM Accessibility Guidelines. Available online under http://www-306.ibm.com/able/ guidelines/software/accesssoftware.html
  10. 10.
    Jacko JA, Slavendy G (1996) Hierarchical menu design: breadth, depth and task complexity. Percept Mot Skills 82:1187–1201Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jani R, Schrepp M (2004) Influence of accessibility related activities on the usability of the business software. In: Miesenberger K, Klaus J, Zagler W, Burger D (eds) ICCHP—computer helping people with special needs, vol 3118, pp 52–59Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    John D (1995) Why GOMS? Interactions, pp 80–89Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keates S, Clarkson PJ, Robinson P (1998) Developing a methodology for the design of accessible interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 4rth ERCIM workshop. Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keates S, Clarkson PJ, Coy J, Robinson P (1999) Universal access in the work-place: a case study. In: Proceedings of the 5th ERCIM workshop. Dagstuhl, Germany, pp. 73–80Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    John D, Kieras DE (1996) The GOMS family of user interface analysis techniques: comparison and contrast. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 3(4):320–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kiger JI (1984) The depth/breadth trade-off in the design of menu-driven interfaces. Int J Man Mach Stud 20:201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Larson K, Czerwinski M (1998) Web page design: implications of memory, structure and scent from information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the association of computing machinery’s computer–human interaction conference, pp 18–23Google Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Nordbrock G, Gappa H, Velasco CA and Mohamad Y (2003) Accessibility and usability issues of Internet Portals. In: proceedings of CSUN 2003 international conference technology and persons with disabilities (Los Angeles, 2003). Northridge: California State University Northridge. Available online under http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2003/proceedings/322.htm
  20. 20.
    Powlik JJ, Karshmer AI (2002) When accessibility meets usability. Universal Access Inf Soc 1 217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raskin J (2002) The humane interface. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    SAP Accessibility Guidelines. Available online under http://www.saplabs.com/accessibility/guide_eval/guides_checks.htm
  23. 23.
    Stephanidis C, Salvendy G (1999) Towards an information society for all: HCI challenges and R&D recommendations. Int J Hum Comput Interact 11(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    UaS Department of Justice. Section 508 of the federal rehabilitation act. Available online under http://www.section508.gov/
  25. 25.
    Velasco CA, Verelst T (1999) Raising awareness among designers of accessibility issues. In: de Baenst-Vandenbroucke A (ed), Proceedings of making designers aware of existing guidelines for accessibility (INTERACT’99 workshop, Edinburgh, 1999). University of Namur, Namur. Available online under http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/IFIP13-3/INT99workshop-accessibility.htm#4s
  26. 26.
    Zaphiris P, Mtei I (1997) Depth versus breadth in the arrangement of Web links. Available online under http://www.otal.umd.edu/SHORE/bs04/index.html

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HockenheimGermany

Personalised recommendations