Advertisement

Towards Characteristics of Accessibility and Usability Issues for Older People - A Brazilian Case Study

  • Sandra Souza RodriguesEmail author
  • Renata Pontin de Mattos Fortes
  • André Pimenta Freire
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9754)

Abstract

The constant evolution of the Web is a worldwide phenomenon that needs to deal quickly with the various segments of current society. Thus, Web content should be accessible to the different user profiles. In this century, the aging population has presented a high rate of demographic growth. Older people (aged 60+) have some of their capacities limited and may face barriers to interact with services and content available on the Web. Despite of legislation and recommendations concerning how to make Web content more accessible and usable, there are still many problems related to accessibility and usability to be solved, especially those related to recent technological advances of current Web resources. The purpose of this study was to investigate the main accessibility and usability issues on websites. The study involved a sample of 20 Brazilian older people. Results showed the most common issues found and participants manifested their main difficulties.

Keywords

Web accessibility Web usability Website Older people 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all volunteers that took part in the interview, CAPES and University of São Paulo for their great support. We also thank Rafael J. Geraldo for his great help at the analysis in this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Brazilian Government. Accessibility Model for e-Government (e-MAG) - version3.1. http://www.governoeletronico.gov.br/acoes-e-projetos/e-MAG/o-que-e-acessibilidade. Accessed 28 Feb 2016
  2. 2.
    United Nations (UN). http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/ageing/index.shtml. Accessed 28 Feb 2016
  3. 3.
    Law 10.741 - (Statute of the Elderly) - Estatuto do Idoso do Brasil (2003). http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/2003/L10.741.htm. Accessed 28 Feb 2016 (in Portuguese)
  4. 4.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Introduction to Web Accessibility (2005). http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php. Accessed 28 Feb 2016
  5. 5.
    International Standards Organization: ISO 9241-171: Ergonomics of human-system interaction–Part 171: Guidance on software accessibility (2008). http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39080. Accessed 28 Feb 2016
  6. 6.
    Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) (2015). http://goo.gl/DLhLXV. Accessed 28 Feb 2016
  7. 7.
    National Institute on Aging (NIA). Making Your Website Senior Friendly. National Institute on Aging (2015). https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/staffpubs/od/ocpl/agingchecklist.html. Accessed 28 Feb 2016
  8. 8.
    World Health Organization (WHO) (2015). http://www.who.int/ageing/events/idop_rationale/en/. Accessed 28 Feb 2016
  9. 9.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG2.0) (2015). http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag. Accessed 28 Feb 2016
  10. 10.
    Arch, A.: Web accessibility for older users: successes and opportunities (keynote). In: Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibililty (W4A), W4A 2009, pp. 1–6 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arfaa, J., Wang, Y.K.: A usability study on elder adults utilizing social networking sites. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8518, pp. 50–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bergstrom, J.C.R., Olmsted-Hawala, E.L., Jans, M.E.: Age-related differences in eye tracking and usability performance: website usability for older adults. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 29(8), 541–548 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Braun, M.T.: Obstacles to social networking website use among older adults. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29(3), 673–680 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Costa, D., Fernandes, N., Neves, S., Duarte, C., Hijón-Neira, R., Carriço, L.: Web accessibility in africa: a study of three african domains. In: Winckler, M. (ed.) INTERACT 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8117, pp. 331–338. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dias, A.L., de Mattos Fortes, R.P., Masiero, P.C.: Heua: A heuristic evaluation with usability and accessibility requirements to assess web systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th Web for All Conference, W4A 2014, NY, USA, pp. 18:1–18:4 (2014). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2596695.2596706
  16. 16.
    Finn, K., Johnson, J.: A usability study of websites for older travelers. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M. (eds.) UAHCI 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8010, pp. 59–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hayflick, L.: How and why we become older, Campus, Rio de Janeiro–RJ (1996). In PortugueseGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kurniawan, S.: Age-related differences in the interface design process. In: Universal Access Handbook, pp. 8:1–8:12. CRC Press (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lara, S.M.A., de Mattos Fortes, R.P., Russo, C.M., Freire, A.P.: A study on the acceptance of website interaction aids by older adults. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 15, 1–16 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Power, C., Freire, A.P., Petrie, H.: Integrating accessibility evaluation into web engineering processes. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Web Eng. 4(4), 54–77 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Souza Rodrigues
    • 1
    Email author
  • Renata Pontin de Mattos Fortes
    • 1
  • André Pimenta Freire
    • 2
  1. 1.ICMC University of São PauloSão CarlosBrazil
  2. 2.Federal University of LavrasLavrasBrazil

Personalised recommendations