Advertisement

Conducting Acceptance Tests for Elderly People on the Web

Using the GPII Preference Set for a Personalized Evaluation
  • Alexander HenkaEmail author
  • Andreas Stiegler
  • Gottfried Zimmermann
  • Thomas Ertl
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9193)

Abstract

Due to the overlapping requirements with people with disabilities, elders can benefit from accessible web design and the use of assistive technologies. But elderlies face also semantic problems that are derived from different perception models or the mere anxiety of using new technologies, which can’t be evaluated by accessibility guideline conformance only. Tackling those semantic issues calls for more user-centered evaluation. The Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure (GPII) provides user interface adaptation based on peoples individual needs and preferences. These preferences are stored in so-called preference sets and can also contain sematic settings. In this paper, we propose an accessibility evaluation method, using the preference sets of the GPII to derive authentic accessibility requirements. Hereby, we’re able to carry out tests according to guideline conformance and semantic requirements. In this context, we propose a personalized accessibility evaluation approach based on original user preferences that addresses the need for a user-centered evaluation.

Keywords

Human computer interaction Accessibility Elderlies Acceptance tests Web accessibility guidelines GPII User-preference set User-centered accessibility evaluation Technical accessibility Semantical accessibility 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Part of the research leading to these results has been researched within the Cloud4all project. Cloud4all is an R&D project that receives funding from the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 289016. This publication reflects only the authors’ views and the European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.

References

  1. 1.
    Becker, S.A.: A study of web usability for older adults seeking online health resources. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 11(4), 387–406 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Affonso de Lara, S.M., Watanabe, W.M., dos Santos, E.P.B., Fortes, R.P.M.: Improving WCAG for elderly web accessibility. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication, New York, NY, USA, pp. 175–182 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dickinson, A., Arnott, J., Prior, S.: Methods for human–computer interaction research with older people. Behav. Inf. Technol. 26(4), 343–352 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abou-Zahra, S., Brewer, J., Arch, A.: Towards bridging the accessibility needs of people with disabilities and the ageing community. In: Proceedings of the 2008 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), New York, NY, USA, pp. 83–86 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arch, A.: Web accessibility for older users: successes and opportunities (keynote). In: Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–6 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leitner, M., Subasi, Ö., Höller, N., Geven, A., Tscheligi, M.: User requirement analysis for a railway ticketing portal with emphasis on semantic accessibility for older users. In: Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), New York, NY, USA, pp. 114–122 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sloan, D., Atkinson, M.T., Machin, C., Li, Y.: The potential of adaptive interfaces as an accessibility aid for older web users. In: Proceedings of the International Cross Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), New York, NY, USA, pp. 35:1–35:10 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brajnik, G.: Beyond conformance: the role of accessibility evaluation methods. In: Hartmann, S., Zhou, X., Kirchberg, M. (eds.) WISE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5176, pp. 63–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cooper, M., Sloan, D., Kelly, B., Lewthwaite, S.: A challenge to web accessibility metrics and guidelines: putting people and processes first. In: Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, New York, NY, USA, pp. 20:1–20:4 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petrie, H., Kheir, O.: The relationship between accessibility and usability of websites. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, pp. 397–40 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Brown, S., Seale, J., Petrie, H., Lauke, P., Ball, S.: Accessibility 2.0: people, policies and processes. In: Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), pp. 138–147. ACM, New York (2007). doi: 10.1145/1243441.1243471
  12. 12.
    Brajnik, G.: Web accessibility testing: when the method is the culprit. In: Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, W.L., Karshmer, A.I. (eds.) ICCHP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4061, pp. 156–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Phipps, L., Petrie, H., Hamilton, F.: Forcing standardization or Ac-commodating diversity? a framework for applying the WCAG in the real world. In: Proceedings of the 2005 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A), New York, NY, USA, pp. 46–54 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henka, A., Zimmermann, G.: Persona based accessibility testing. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) HCI 2014, Part II. CCIS, vol. 435, pp. 226–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freire, A.P., Russo, C.M., Fortes, R.P.M.: A survey on the accessibility awareness of people involved in web development projects in Brazil. In: Proceedings of the 2008 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A), New York, NY, USA, pp. 87–96 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greeff, M., Kotzé, P.: A lightweight methodology to improve web accessibility. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, New York, NY, USA, pp. 30–39 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Watanabe, W.M., Fortes, R.P.M., Dias, A.L.: Using acceptance tests to validate accessibility requirements in RIA. In: Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, New York, NY, USA, pp. 15:1–15 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    W3C: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, 11 December 2008. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/
  19. 19.
    Pernice, K., Estes, J., Nielsen, J.: Senior Citizens on the Web, 2nd edn. Nielsen Norman Group, Fremont (2013). Research Report by Nielsen Norman GroupGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Iglesias-Pérez, A., Loitsch, C., Kaklanis, N., Votis, K., Stiegler, A., Kalogirou, K., Serra-Autonell, G., Tzovaras, D., Weber, G.: Accessibility through preferences: context-aware recommender of settings. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M. (eds.) UAHCI 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8513, pp. 224–235. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Web Accessibility Initiative: Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools (2005). http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/selectingtools.html
  22. 22.
    Brajnik, G., Lomuscio, R.: SAMBA: a semi-automatic method for measuring barriers of accessibility. In: Proceedings of the 9th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, New York, NY, USA, pp. 43–50 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vigo, M., Brown, J., Conway, V.: Benchmarking web accessibility evaluation tools: measuring the harm of sole reliance on automated tests. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1:1–1:10 (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cooper, A.: The Inmates are Running the Asylum. SAMS, Indiana (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Adlin, T., Pruitt, J.: The Persona Lifecycle. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fernandes, N., Batista, A.S., Costa, D., Duarte, C., Carricco, L.: Three web accessibility evaluation perspectives for RIA. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, p. 12 (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carroll, J.M.: Making Use, Scenario Based Design of Human Computer Interactions. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ignelzi, M.: Meaning-making in the learning and teaching process. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2000, 5–14 (2000). doi: 10.1002/tl.8201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schulz, T., Skeide Fuglerud, K.: Creating personas with disabilities. In: Miesenberger, K., Karshmer, A., Penaz, P., Zagler, W. (eds.) ICCHP 2012, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7383, pp. 145–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bailey, C., Pearson E.: Development and trial of an educational tool to support the accessibility evaluation process. In: Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, New York, NY, USA, pp. 2:1–2:10 (2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure, January 2015. http://gpii.net/
  32. 32.
    Selenium browser automation framework, January 2015. https://code.google.com/p/selenium/
  33. 33.
    Loitsch, C., Stiegler, A., Strobbe, C., Tzovaras, D., Votis, K., Weber, G., Zimmerman, G.: Improving. In: Assistive Technology: From Research to Practice, Vilamoura, Portugal, pp. 1357–1365 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Henka
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andreas Stiegler
    • 1
  • Gottfried Zimmermann
    • 1
  • Thomas Ertl
    • 2
  1. 1.Stuttgart Media UniversityStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Visualization and Interactive Systems (VIS)University of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options