Advertisement

Usability analysis: Is our software inclusive?

  • Hans Guerrero
  • Vianca Vega
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 688)

Abstract

Usability is considered as one of the most important quality attributes, being a fundamental aspect in all software products. It is even more crucial in those systems that are designed for a wide variety of users, called by different authors as inclusive products. It can be observed that the traditional requirements elicitation process does not consider the special needs of people with disabilities. Not even in the proposals of inclusive systems are special techniques included. In this context, the present article seeks to provide a broad perspective on different factors influencing usability identified in several investigations focused on software products for users with sensory disability. A comparative chart is presented showing the strengths and weaknesses of several models, guides and frameworks designed to satisfy the needs of this group of users. Finally, several metrics of usability requirements are proposed, quantifying the process of requirements capture by means of usability factors in inclusive systems.

Keywords

Usability Inclusive Design Requirements Elicitation Sensory Disability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization (WHO): Disabilities, http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en.
  2. 2.
    Keates, S: Design for the Value of Inclusiveness. Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design. Springer Netherlands (2014).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization (WHO): Visual impairments and blindness, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs282/en/.
  4. 4.
    World Health Organization (WHO): Deafness and hearing loss: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs300/en/.
  5. 5.
    SENADIS (Servicio Nacional de la Discapacidad), http://www.senadis.gob.cl.
  6. 6.
    International Organization for Standardization. Assistive products for persons with disabilities – classification and terminology. DS/EN ISO 9999:2007(E). Genova (2007).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mesiti, M., Ribaudo, M., Valtolina, S., Barricelli, B., Boccacci, P., Dini, S.: Collaborative Environments: Accessibility and Usability for Users with Special Needs. In Community-Built Databases: Research and Development. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Department of trade and industry: A study on the difficulties disabled people have when using everyday consumer products. In Government Consumer Safety Research, London (2000).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keates, S: Designing for accessibility: a business guide to countering design exclusion. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (2007).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    British Standard Institution: BS 7000-6: 2005 design management systems. Managing inclusive design. Guide. London (2005).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aizpurua, A., Harper, S., Vigo, M.: Exploring the relationship between web accessibility and user experience. Int. J. Human–Computer Studies. 91, 13-23 (2016).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petrie, H., Kheir, O.: The relationship between accessibility and usability of websites. In: Proceeding of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, USA, pp. 397-206. ACM, New York (2007).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    International Organization for Standardization: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals – part 11: guidance on usability ISO 9241-11. Genova (1998).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zitkus, E., Brigatto, A., Ferrari, A., Bonfim, G., Carvalho, I., Reis, T., Medola, F., Paschoarelli, L: Accessibility and usability of websites intended for people with disabilities: a preliminary study. In: Marcus A. (eds.) Design, User Experience, and Usability: Novel User Experiences DUXU 2016, LNCS, vol. 9747, pp. 678-688. Springer, Cham (2016).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lepirini, B., Paternò, F.: Criteria for usability of accessible web sites. In: Carbonell N., Stephanidis C. (eds.) Universal Access Theoretical Perspectives, Practice, and Experience, UI4ALL 2002, LNCS, vol. 2615, pp. 43-55. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Morgan Kauffmann, San Diego (1993).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    International Organization for Standardization: Software process: improvement and practice ISO/IEC 9126-1. Genova (2001).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    International Organization For Standardization: System and software quality requirements and evaluation, Square ISO/IEC 25010: 2011. Genova (2011).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beyene, W.: Realizing inclusive digital library environments: opportunities and challenges. In: Fuhr, N., Kovács, L., Risse, T., Nejdl, W. (eds.) Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries TPDL 2016, LNCS, vol. 9819, pp. 3-14. Springer, Cham (2016).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Principles of universal design, the center for universal design, North Caroline State University: https://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm.
  21. 21.
    Real, B., Berlot, J., Jaeger, P.: Rural public libraries and digital inclusion: issues and challenges. Inormation Technology and Libraries. 33(1), 6-24 (2013).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cano, S., Alghazzawi, D., Muñoz, J., Fardoun, H., Collazos, C., Bustos, V.: Applying the information search process model to analyze aspects in the design of serious games for children with hearing impairment. Universal Access in the Information Society (2017).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Navarrete R., Luján-Mora S.: Bridging the accessibility gap in Open Educational Resources. Universal Access in the Information Society (2017).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Petrie, H., Bevan, N.: The evaluation of accessibility, usability and user experience. In: The Universal Access Handbook, pp. 10-20, CRC Press (2009).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Holzinger, A., Searle, G., Wernbacher, M.: The effect of previous exposure to technology on acceptance and its importance in usability and accessibility engineering. Universal Access in the Information Society 10 (3), 245-260 (2011).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seffah, A., Donyaee, M., Kline, R., Padda, H.: Usability measurement and metrics: A consolidated model. Software Quality Journal, 14(2), 159-178 (2006).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Silva, S., Vilela, L.: Technology acceptance evaluation by deaf students cionsidering the inclusive education context. In: Abascal, J., Barbosa, S., Fetter, M., Gross, T., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2015, LNCS, vol. 9296. Springer, Cham (2015).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Keates, S., Clarkson, P: Countering design exclusion: bridging the gap between usability and accessibility. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2(3), 215-225 (2003).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    CEN/CENELEC Guide 6: Guidelines for standards developers to address the needs of older persons and persons with disabilities: ftp://ftp.cen.eu/BOSS/Reference_Documents/Guides/CEN_CLC/CEN_CLC_6.pdf.
  30. 30.
    Cook, A., Hussey, S.: Assistive technology: principles and practice. 4th edn. Mosby Inc., St. Louis, USA (2015).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hersh, M., Johnson, M.: Assistive technology for visually impaired and blind people, chapter 1: Disability and assistive technology systems. Springer, London (2008).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Abascal, J., Arrue, M., Garay, N., Tomás, J.: Userfit tool. A tool to facilitate design for all. In: Carbonell, N., Stephanidis, C. (eds.) Universal Access Theoretical Perspectives, Practice, and Experience, UI4ALL 2002, LNCS, vol. 2615, pp. 141-152. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Goodman, J., Langdon, P., Clarkson, P.: Providing strategic user information for designers: methods and initial findings. In: Clarkson, J., Langdon, P., Robinson, P. (eds.) Designing Accessible Technology, pp. 41-51. Springer, London (2006).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bonacin, R., Calani, M., Rodrigues, M.: An agile process model for inclusive software development. In: Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J. (eds.) Enterprise Information Systems, ICEIS 2009, LNBIP, vol. 24, pp. 807-818. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Good, M., Sine, T., Whiteside, J., Geroge, P.: User-derived impact analysis as a tool for usability engineering. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 241-246. Boston , USA (1986).).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Padda, H.: QUIM map: A repository for usability/quality in use. Master’s thesis, Degree of Master of Computer Science at Concordia University (2003).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rochimah, S., Rahmani, H., Laili, U.: Usability characteristics evaluation on administration module of academic information system using ISO/IEC 9126 quality model. In: Imternational Seminar on Intelligent Technology and its Applications (ISITIA), pp. 363-368, Surabaya, Indonesia (2015).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Carlson, N., Laphante, P.: The NASA automated requirement tool: a reconstruction. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering, 10(2), 77-91 (2014).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Escuela de IngenieríaUniversidad Católica del NorteAntofagastaChile
  2. 2.Departamento de Ingeniería de Sistemas y ComputaciónUniversidad Católica del NorteAntofagastaChile

Personalised recommendations