Accessibility and usability: Web technologies Essay Example

relationship between accessibility and usability (Garrett 2005).

Definitions and methodologies

New web technologies (Web 2.0)

The term "Web 2.0" emerged from a brainstorming session during a conference, where participants observed that despite many online businesses failing in 2001, the internet remained lively, constantly producing innovative applications and websites (O’Reilly 2002).

Web 2.0 websites, characterized by interactive content, offer a contrasting experience compared to static HTML. Through scripting technologies like JavaScript and AJAX, web-based applications resembling desktop ones have been made available for access almost anywhere. Scripting libraries enable the addition of interactive desktop-like interface items and the ability for users to modify current content. The core characteristics of Web 2.0 websites include: web services instead of packaged software (Web applications), user control over comprehensive data sources (Wikis), user trust as co-developers (Wikis, blogs), collective intelligence harnessing, software availability across devices (Mobile Apps), and lightweight user interfaces and development models. Considering these new technologies and coding techniques, the impact on the relationship between accessibility and usability arises. While Web 2.0 has the potential to enhance usability by providing a rich and interactive environment for users, the question of whether these technologies can be interpreted by assistive technologies used by disabled users remains. The consideration of disabled users is crucial amidst all these advancements.Do methodologies like design and evaluation have to be adapted for accessibility?

Accessibility

The internet provides opportunities for individuals with disabilities to accomplish tasks that would otherwise be difficult or impossible for them.

Although the web offers freedom and independence, website design that lacks accessibility hampers these opportunities. Accessibility refers to granting access to all individuals, regardless of disability (Berners-Lee, via Henry W3C 2009). Clark (2002) proposes

a more flexible approach by suggesting accommodations for disabled users to ensure accessibility. Another related term is Universal Design, which combines usability principles with the aim of maximizing website and product usability for a diverse range of individuals without requiring specific design adaptations or specialization.

According to Mace (2008), the primary guidelines used by accessibility practitioners for developing and evaluating websites are Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. These standards were created by The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) to address emerging technologies and offer comprehensive support to developers and designers in achieving website accessibility. WCAG 2.0 comprises 12 guidelines that are categorized under four principles: perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust. Furthermore, each guideline includes testable success criteria, prioritized at three levels: A, AA, and AAA, with A guidelines being of the highest priority (Caldwell et al., W3C 2008).

According to Caldwell et al. (W3C 2008), the WCAG 2.0 guidelines encompass four principles that can be summarized as follows:
Perceivable – Web content must be accessible to different senses, such as sight, hearing, and touch.
Operable – Interface elements like forms, controls, and navigation should be usable regardless of the input method.
Understandable – The website's content, information, and interface should be easily comprehensible for the target audience.
Robust – Websites should function reliably across various user agents like web browsers, mobile devices, and assistive technologies. The W3C also provides different methods for evaluating website accessibility and assessing compliance with WCAG (Abou-Zahra et al. W3C WAI 2008). These methods include preliminary reviews, manual evaluations, and automated evaluation tools.

When developing websites, it is recommended to adhere to Web Standards coding practices in order to comply with

WCAG 2.0 guidelines. These coding practices are based on technologies and practices set by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and other organizations for creating and understanding web-based content. By utilizing these technologies, it becomes possible to create web content that caters to a wider range of users and remains functional despite technological advancements (Featherstone et al., WASP 2006).

The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has developed ARIA, an Accessible Rich Internet Applications Suite, to enhance accessibility for individuals with disabilities (Henry et al. W3C 2009). However, not all browsers and AJAX libraries fully support this suite (Henry et al. W3C 2009). It is important to consider whether updated accessibility practices can improve or be integrated into usability practices.

Usability

The ISO 9241 defines usability as "the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use" (Nielsen 2003). Usability is evaluated based on five quality components:

Learnability: Ease of completing a basic task on the first attempt.
Efficiency: The speed at which a task is performed.
Memorability: The ease of remembering an interface.

Errors: This refers to the number and severity of errors encountered.

Satisfaction: Satisfaction relates to the level of enjoyment or pleasure experienced when using an interface. User-Centered Design (UCD) is an extension of usability, where users are actively involved throughout the website development process. This involvement includes the use of structured methodologies to identify and meet all the needs of the target user (Usability.gov 2009). Some techniques used in UCD include:

• Usability testing: This involves observing representative users as they try to complete predetermined tasks. Observations on
  

user behavior and comments are recorded.

Individual interviews – These interviews are usually conducted with individual participants, either in person, over the phone, or through any means that enable conversation. They can be formal or informal and do not involve observation.

Contextual interview or field studies – Contextual interviews are similar to user testing as users are observed, but they are not assigned specific tasks and instead are observed in their natural environment. Observers also make notes.

Surveys serve as a means to acquire user requirements and gather data from large groups of people efficiently. They can also be utilized for summative usability evaluation.

Focus groups entail discussions involving eight to twelve individuals who are either current users, potential users, or stakeholders of a website. These discussions, led by an experienced moderator, typically last approximately two hours. The topics covered in focus groups are predetermined.

Task analysis is a technique employed to identify the typical tasks that users engage in to accomplish a specific objective. It involves examining work patterns and breaking them down into a list of tasks and their sequential order.

Prototypes serve the purpose of visually representing websites or applications and are presented to users for feedback on design and identification of major issues prior to further development. These prototypes can range from basic sketches (low-fidelity) to nearly complete products (high-fidelity).

Expert evaluations involve experts assessing website usability using various methods, such as heuristic evaluation where sites are evaluated against a set of usability principles. Additional methods like Cognitive walkthroughs and pluralistic

evaluation are also utilized (Preece et al. 2006). The question arises whether integrating accessibility practices into usability practices would compromise overall web product usability or benefit disabled users by improving efficiency and satisfaction.

Relationship

If accessibility guidelines were incorporated into the work of usability practitioners, could it enhance the experience, efficiency, and satisfaction of disabled users? By exploring the definitions of accessibility and usability and understanding their relationship, we observe that accessibility aims to accommodate a specific user group in order to enhance their experience, while usability focuses on how effectively and efficiently a particular user can achieve their goals when using a website.

The goals of considering disabled users when building websites are similar to those for usability, but with a slight difference in focus. Disabled users are a diverse group with specific needs that are often overlooked during the website development process (Disability Rights Commission 2004). However, it is important to make websites accessible to all users to ensure an enjoyable and effective user experience (Clark 2002). Usability techniques such as questionnaires, surveys, and focus groups can help determine the target audience and improve the usability of a website (Preece et al. 2006).

However, in many cases, accessibility practitioners do not assess the level of usage by specific disability groups for a given website (Chandrashekar et al. 2006). While some progress has been made in this area, it has not met expectations (Sloan 2006). Moreover, when creating websites, the focus on accessibility usually revolves around the needs of visually impaired individuals, overlooking other user groups such as those with color blindness or low vision. This oversight is largely due to a lack of awareness regarding the different

disability groups aside from blind users and the diverse challenges faced by these individuals.

The WCAG 2.0 guidelines aim to address these issues, but without firsthand experience of users with disabilities encountering problems, there is limited impact and therefore less incentive to accommodate these users. This suggests that disabled users should be considered as a potential target audience, and this determination can be made by incorporating usability techniques into web accessibility practices.

Should both groups of practitioners adopt both sets of guidelines and principles, or should a single "Universal" set of guidelines be used?

By comparing the commonly used guidelines of both parties, we can identify similarities. Usability practitioners often utilize Nielsen's usability heuristics for expert evaluations (Nielsen 1994):

Visibility of system status

– Users should receive appropriate and timely feedback.

Match between system and the real world

– The system should use language and terms familiar to the target audience, and information should be presented in a natural and logical manner.

User control and freedom

– Users should have the ability to easily exit a function or undo an action if they make a mistake, without encountering confusing and unnecessary screens or dialogs.

Consistency and standards

– The system should maintain consistency in using words for actions and navigation, as well as adopting familiar conventions for the user.

Error prevention

– The design should prioritize preventing errors rather than relying on effective error messages.

Recognition rather than recall

– System elements, actions, and objects should always be visible or accessible so that users do not need to remember previous actions or instructions.

Flexibility and efficiency of use

– The system should be adaptable to both experienced and inexperienced users, promoting efficient interactions.

Configurability is crucial for easy access to frequently used actions in the system.

The system design should prioritize minimalism and aesthetics, displaying only important and relevant information in dialogues. Including irrelevant or unnecessary information can reduce the visibility of crucial information.

To assist users in recognizing, diagnosing, and recovering from errors, it is essential to provide helpful assistance through error messages and suggested solutions. These should be written in plain, precise, and constructive language.

Help and documentation

– If needed, the documentation should be focused, concise, concrete, and easy to find. Now, let's delve into the four principles of the WCAG 2.0 accessibility guidelines mentioned in section 2.1 (WCAG 2008) and identify any similarities with Nielsen's heuristics.

Perceivable

– Web content should be available to any or all of the senses – sight, hearing, and/or touch. Usability guidelines for Visibility of System Status and Recognition rather than recall (Nielsen 1994) will fail for disabled users if the site's items are not perceivable.

Operable

– Interface objects, such as forms, controls, and navigation, must be operable regardless of the input method. User control and freedom and Flexibility and efficiency of use (Nielsen 1994) guidelines are not met if these objects are not operable. If a site is very complex or unattractive, it may be difficult to operate; therefore, it should utilize Aesthetic and minimalist design (Nielsen 1994). Consistency and standards (Nielsen 1994) must be applied for a site to be operable.

Understandable

– The content, information, and interface of the website must be clear and comprehensible for the intended audience. User control and freedom, consistency and standards, error prevention, and help documentation are all essential factors for enhancing understanding. Additionally, the ability to help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors is dependent on the website's level of understandability.

Robust

– Websites should be capable of reliable use across different user agents, such as web browsers, mobile devices, and assistive technologies. By implementing a minimalist design approach, websites can be developed using web standards-based coding techniques that enable compatibility with various devices.

Also be easier to follow platform conventions in terms of Consistency and standards (Nielsen 1994). As we can see, there is an overlap between the two sets of principles. This overlap in principles could be the reason that Thatcher et al. (2003) suggest that accessibility issues are a type of usability problem, hence accessibility is a subset of usability. Conversely, Universal usability, as conceptualized by Shneiderman (2003), considers usability problems as a subset of accessibility problems, which expands the scope of usability to include disabled users in usability evaluations. However, it is suggested that the relationship between accessibility and usability is not simply a case of applying a universal approach but that issues also be grouped into categories (Petrie et al. 

2007). These being:

1. Problems that only disabled users experience are referred to as pure accessibility problems
2. Problems that only able-bodied users experience are referred to

as pure usability problems

The use of a universal set of guidelines is a good starting point however they will need to be refined to include the various accessibility and usability problems encountered by disabled and able-bodied users.
Should accessibility professionals employ usability practices?
Usability practitioners employ numerous methods to determine the effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction of a project whereas accessibility practitioners will use various techniques and methods to achieve compliance with a set of guidelines. User testing is used by both sets of practitioners, more so by usability practitioners (Chandrashekar et al. 2006). However the difference being that usability practitioners will use this method early on and throughout the design process (Preece et al.

According to Kelly et al. (2007) and (2006 p412), accessibility practitioners and usability experts both use design guidelines (section 3.2) as part of their evaluation process. However, guidelines are not necessarily the most effective method for evaluating accessibility or usability because they only provide guidance and cannot guarantee the desired results. The principles of accessibility and usability have similarities, but accessibility guidelines are more technical in nature, requiring websites to meet specific coding standards.

Despite the existence of non-technical accessibility guidelines, it is commonly believed that implementing these guidelines or universal design techniques will make a website accessible to all users. However, this is not always true (Petrie 2007). Usability guidelines can also create challenges (Spool 2002). Like any set of guidelines, they can contradict each

other, be misunderstood, and not necessarily lead to desired outcomes. In actuality, accessibility experts typically assess websites based on guidelines rather than conducting user testing.

However, according to the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) investigation on website accessibility for disabled people, it has been discovered that this approach is not the most effective. The study revealed that designers might not be able to comprehend and resolve the issues encountered by disabled users while browsing a website. To address this issue, the report suggests involving disabled users directly in the development process (Disability Rights Commission 2004). Although guidelines are crucial from a technical perspective, it is also important to acknowledge that they cannot cater to every user at all times.

The text emphasizes the importance of clearly identifying areas where the guidelines may not be practical or important, and suggesting alternate methods to achieve accessibility. The WCAG 2.0, published in 2008, offers a variety of success criteria and methods for achieving accessibility. However, guidelines for measuring accessibility are still widely used because expert evaluations are less costly and more readily available than user testing. It is challenging to find a diverse group of users with varying disabilities for testing purposes, leading accessibility practitioners to repeatedly use the same participants. The cost issue stems from the fact that accessibility is often not considered from the beginning of a project, and some may underestimate its importance due to the belief that disabled users constitute a smaller proportion compared to non-disabled users.

According to Christopherson (2007), there is a compelling argument for including disabled users in businesses. In the UK alone, there are 10 million people with disabilities, collectively possessing ?80 billion in

spending power. Additionally, there are 6 million individuals with dyslexia, with around 4 million suffering from severe cases. It is worth noting that many users may not identify as disabled, even though they may experience non-physically evident disabilities like age-related issues, color blindness, or cognitive difficulties. It is important to consider older devices when designing websites.

Not fully including disabled users on a website could result in a significant revenue loss. Many times, accessibility testing is viewed as a task that can be quickly completed towards the end of a project in order to meet legal requirements. However, this approach to web accessibility is lacking foresight and can potentially be expensive. Issues with accessibility that are discovered at the end of a project are often challenging to fix afterwards.

As recognized in the usability field, it is now understood that it is more efficient and cost effective to incorporate usability evaluation from the start and throughout a project. This principle also applies to accessibility evaluation, as advocated by Henry (2007) in his book Just Ask: Integrating Accessibility Throughout Design. The key chapters cover: The importance of integrating accessibility from the start and throughout the project; Involvement of disabled users, rather than relying solely on standards and guidelines; Suggestions on how to engage with disabled users. It is better to involve disabled users at every stage of a project, rather than solely relying on guidelines. By involving disabled users, practitioners can identify accessibility and usability issues that may have otherwise been missed in usability testing (Petrie 2007 pp 405). Accessibility professionals should not adopt usability principles if they only intend to rely on guidelines.

However, it is important to

adopt the usability practice of including actual users in evaluation and design from the beginning and throughout a project.

What impact do new technologies have on usability?

According to Nielsen (2007), new web technologies can enhance usability. However, the ability to add more interactivity to a website does not always improve usability. Nielsen's report found that Web 2.0 technologies can add complexity to a website unnecessarily, diverting design resources. Some key findings include:

1. Internet applications were too complex
2. Community content had too few users
3. Features merged from different websites ("Mashups") could cause branding confusion
4. Application type websites benefitted most from Web 2.0 technologies
5. Most other websites did not require the use of this technology due to limited repeated actions

In conclusion, Nielsen states that simplicity is more important than efficiency and that a moderate use of Web 2.0 technologies can be beneficial. However, advanced features do not significantly improve the user's experience.

If new technologies are used in moderation, they can have positive effects on certain types of user experience, particularly for web applications.

How does the introduction of new technologies impact accessibility?

According to a study conducted by Hailpern et al. (2009), Web 2.0 applications currently present challenges for blind users, as they are required to adapt to an inaccessible use model. However, the development of technologies such as WAI-ARIA (section 2.3) and AJAX (section 2.3) holds the potential to change this in the future. It is widely believed that Web 2.0 could pose difficulties in creating accessible websites if accessibility considerations are not taken into account. Christopherson, as cited in Everett (2006), emphasizes the risk of Web 2.0

causing issues for disabled users if accessibility is not prioritized.

In essence, Web 2.0 adds complexity to both accessibility and usability, requiring careful consideration during the design process when these technologies are incorporated.

Conclusion

To create usable and accessible websites, our perception of usability needs to change. It is not sufficient for the site to be easily navigable for sighted individuals if it proves frustrating for those who are blind (Clark 2003). In order to understand what constitutes an accessible site, we must recognize that the experience of a disabled person does not need to be identical to that of someone without disabilities. Well-written and simple accessibility features should go unnoticed (Clark 2002). Clark (2002) emphasizes that "equality" is an incorrect term in this context.

Equivalency is the goal. There is an overlap between the definitions and methodologies used by accessibility and usability practitioners, allowing for accessibility guidelines to be utilized by usability practitioners and vice versa. However, creating a universal set of guidelines is not as simple as it seems. Accessibility and usability issues cannot be universally categorized, and distinct groups of accessibility issues exist. Additionally, relying solely on guidelines can be controversial and does not guarantee a site's accessibility or usability. The most effective approach in creating a usable and accessible product is involving both disabled and able-bodied users throughout the project lifecycle. This approach also makes good business sense. The relationship between accessibility and usability is influenced by Web 2.0 technologies.

To prevent negative effects, the use of should be done with caution. It is important to consider the added complexity for both able-bodied and disabled users. By embracing techniques and methodologies and recognizing similarities between

usability and accessibility practices, a web design can achieve both usability and accessibility.

References

1. Abou-Zahra, S (ed) (2008) Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility: Overview. Worldwide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative. Available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/Overview.html. Accessed 7 December 2009.
2. Caldwell, B, Cooper, M, Reid, LG & Vanderheiden, G (2008) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/. Accessed 7 December 2009.
3. Christopherson, R (2007) Making the business case for accessibility. AbilityNet. Available at: http://www.abilitynet.org.uk/webbusinesscase.

Accessed 7 December 2009.

Available at: http://joeclark.org/dossiers/DRC-GB.html. Accessed 7 December 2009.

Gustavson, A. Sims, G (1998) Working together for standards

The source of the information is from http://www.adaptivepath.com/ideas/essays/archives/000385.php. This was accessed on 7 December 2009.

The second source is from Hailpern, J, Guarino-Reid, L, Boardman, R, & Annam, S. The title of the article is "Web 2.0: blind to an accessible new world." This was presented at the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web (Madrid, Spain, April 20 – 24, 2009). The proceedings of the

conference were published by ACM in New York, NY.

The third source is from Henry, SL. The topic of the source is W3C and accessibility.

Worldwide Web Consortium. Available at: http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility. Accessed 7 December 2009.

WAI-ARIA Overview. Available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria. Accessed 7 December 2009.
International Standards Organization. (1992 – 2000).

Standard 9241: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals. Available at: http://www.iso.org. Accessed 7 December 2009.

• Kelly, B, Sloan, D, Brown, S, Seale, J, Petrie, H, Lauke, P & Ball, S (2007) Accessibility 2.0: people, policies and processes, Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A), May 07-08, 2007, Banff, Canada
• Koch, PP (2004) Accessibility and usability. Digital web magazine. Available at: http://www.digital-web.com/articles/accessibility_and_usability/.

Accessed on 7th December 2009.