Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Universal Access in the Information Society 1/2016

01.03.2016 | Long paper

Contrasting usability evaluation methods with blind users

verfasst von: Mei Miao, Hoai Anh Pham, Jens Friebe, Gerhard Weber

Erschienen in: Universal Access in the Information Society | Ausgabe 1/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Usability tests are a part of user-centered design. Usability testing with disabled people is necessary, if they are among the potential users. Several researchers have already investigated usability methods with sighted people. However, research with blind users is insufficient, for example, due to different knowledge on the use of assistive technologies and the ability to analyze usability issues from inspection of non-visual output of assistive devices. From here, the authors aspire to extend theory and practice by investigating four usability methods involving the blind, visually impaired and sighted people. These usability methods comprise of local test, synchronous remote test, tactile paper prototyping and computer-based prototyping. In terms of effectiveness of evaluation and the experience of participants and the facilitator, local tests were compared with synchronous remote tests and tactile paper prototyping with computer-based prototyping. Through the comparison of local and synchronous remote tests, it has been found that the number of usability problems uncovered in different categories with both approaches was comparable. In terms of task completion time, there is a significant difference for blind participants, but not for the visually impaired and sighted. Most of the blind and visually impaired participants prefer the local test. As for the comparison of tactile paper prototyping and computer-based prototyping, it has been revealed that tactile paper prototyping provides a better overview of an application while the interaction with computer-based prototypes is closer to reality. Problems regarding the planning and conducting of these methods as they arise in particular with blind people were also discussed. Based on the authors’ experiences, recommendations were provided for dealing with these problems from both the technical and the organization perspectives.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
Fidelity means how similar are the produced prototypes to the final product.
 
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Mayhew, D.: The Usability Engineering Lifecycle—A practitioner’s Handbook For User Interface Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1999). ISBN 1558605614 Mayhew, D.: The Usability Engineering Lifecycle—A practitioner’s Handbook For User Interface Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1999). ISBN 1558605614
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Miao, M., Köhlmann, W., Schiewe, M., Weber, G.: Tactile paper prototyping with blind subjects. In: Haptic and Audio Interaction Design (HAID), Dresden, pp. 81–90. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2009) Miao, M., Köhlmann, W., Schiewe, M., Weber, G.: Tactile paper prototyping with blind subjects. In: Haptic and Audio Interaction Design (HAID), Dresden, pp. 81–90. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2009)
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Magnusson, C., Brewster, S. (eds.): Guidelines for Haptic Lo-Fi Prototyping. Workshop, NordiCHI 2008, Lund, Sweden, 19 Now. (2008) Magnusson, C., Brewster, S. (eds.): Guidelines for Haptic Lo-Fi Prototyping. Workshop, NordiCHI 2008, Lund, Sweden, 19 Now. (2008)
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Rudd, J., Stern, K., Isensee, S.: Low vs. high-fidelity prototyping debate. In: Interactions 3, Nr. 1, pp. 76–85 (1996) Rudd, J., Stern, K., Isensee, S.: Low vs. high-fidelity prototyping debate. In: Interactions 3, Nr. 1, pp. 76–85 (1996)
5.
Zurück zum Zitat ISO 9241-171: Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction—Part 171: Guidance on Software Accessibility (2009) ISO 9241-171: Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction—Part 171: Guidance on Software Accessibility (2009)
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Virzi, R.A., Sokolov, J.L., Karis, D.: Usability problem identification using both low- and high-fidelity prototypes. In: CHI’96: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 236–243. New York, USA (1996) Virzi, R.A., Sokolov, J.L., Karis, D.: Usability problem identification using both low- and high-fidelity prototypes. In: CHI’96: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 236–243. New York, USA (1996)
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Miriam, W., James, A.L.: High-fidelity or low-fidelity, paper or computer? Choosing attributes when testing web prototypes. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 661–665 (2002) Miriam, W., James, A.L.: High-fidelity or low-fidelity, paper or computer? Choosing attributes when testing web prototypes. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 661–665 (2002)
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Petrie, H., Hamilton, F., King, N. et al.: Remote usability evaluation with disabled people. In: Proceedings of CHI, pp. 1133–1141. ACM Press (2006) Petrie, H., Hamilton, F., King, N. et al.: Remote usability evaluation with disabled people. In: Proceedings of CHI, pp. 1133–1141. ACM Press (2006)
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Hartson, H.R., Castillo J.C., Kelso, J., Kamler, J., Neale, W.C.: Remote evaluation: the network as an extension of the usability laboratory. In: Proceedings of CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems ACM, pp. 228–235. New York (1996) Hartson, H.R., Castillo J.C., Kelso, J., Kamler, J., Neale, W.C.: Remote evaluation: the network as an extension of the usability laboratory. In: Proceedings of CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems ACM, pp. 228–235. New York (1996)
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Selvaraj, P.: Comparative Study of Synchronous Remote and Traditional In-Lab Usability Evaluation Methods. Master of Science Thesis. The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (2004) Selvaraj, P.: Comparative Study of Synchronous Remote and Traditional In-Lab Usability Evaluation Methods. Master of Science Thesis. The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (2004)
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Hartson, H.R., Castillo, J.C.: Remote evaluation for post-deployment usability improvement. Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, pp. 22–29. L’Aquila, Italy (1998)CrossRef Hartson, H.R., Castillo, J.C.: Remote evaluation for post-deployment usability improvement. Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, pp. 22–29. L’Aquila, Italy (1998)CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Brush, A.J.B., Ames, M., Davis, J.: A comparison of synchronous remote and local usability studies for an expert interface. Proceeding of CHI, pp. 1179–1182. Austria, Vienna (2004) Brush, A.J.B., Ames, M., Davis, J.: A comparison of synchronous remote and local usability studies for an expert interface. Proceeding of CHI, pp. 1179–1182. Austria, Vienna (2004)
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson, J.: Don’ts and Do’s for Software Developers and Web Designers, 1st edn. Morgan Kaufmann (2000) Johnson, J.: Don’ts and Do’s for Software Developers and Web Designers, 1st edn. Morgan Kaufmann (2000)
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Morgen Kaufmann (1993) Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Morgen Kaufmann (1993)
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Sefelin, R.: Comparison of Paper- and Computer Based Low-Fidelity Prototypes/Center for Usability Research & Engineering (CURE). Research report (2002) Sefelin, R.: Comparison of Paper- and Computer Based Low-Fidelity Prototypes/Center for Usability Research & Engineering (CURE). Research report (2002)
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Nielsen, J., Loranger, H.: Prioritizing Web Usability. New Riders Press, Berkeley (2006) Nielsen, J., Loranger, H.: Prioritizing Web Usability. New Riders Press, Berkeley (2006)
Metadaten
Titel
Contrasting usability evaluation methods with blind users
verfasst von
Mei Miao
Hoai Anh Pham
Jens Friebe
Gerhard Weber
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2016
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Universal Access in the Information Society / Ausgabe 1/2016
Print ISSN: 1615-5289
Elektronische ISSN: 1615-5297
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0378-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2016

Universal Access in the Information Society 1/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Premium Partner