The Effect of Accessible Web
Design on Able-bodied Users
Presenter #1
Denis
Anson, MS, OTR
Director of Research and Development
Assistive Technology Research Institute
College Misericordia
301 Lake St.
Dallas, PA 18612
Phone: 570-674-6413
email: danson@misericordia.edu
fax: 570-674-8054
Accessible websites are shown to be as easy to use as conventional websites
under ideal conditions,
• and easier to use on other forms of browser.
The World Wide Web is not only a pervasive source of information in modern society, it is becoming the preferred means of delivery for
many services. An individual who does not have the ability to access the World
Wide Web may face substantial delays and barriers in obtaining both public and private
services. Surveys of web accessibility
have shown that only one third of tested websites provide even basic
accessibility features (Jackson-Sanborn, Odess-Harnish, &
This study tested the assumption that a website designed to comply with
accessibility requirements will be as usable as a conventional site when using
the standard graphical browser, but will be more usable for able-bodied
individuals when using a small format browser, such as might be found in a
cell- phone or PDA, or when using voiced browser, such as might be used over
the telephone.
Methods
A
conventional web-site intended to provide information to the members, the
press, and the general
• public was selected for use in this study. The web-site was replicated
following the W3C guidelines for accessible design while maintaining the look
and feel of the site. A set of specific questions was created which could be
answered from the web-site. 120 able-bodied subjects were recruited and
randomly assigned to use either the conventional web-site or the accessible
web-site via the conventional browser, a small-format browser, or a text-only
browser. The subjects were asked to answer as many of the 24 questions as they
could, as quickly and as accurately possible. The elapsed time and number of
correct responses were recorded. They were then given a questionnaire asking
them about features of the website that supported or hindered their use of the site,
and about the ease of use, pleasure of use, and likelihood of revisiting the
site.
Results:
Using the conventional graphical browser, visitors spent slightly
longer on the conventional site (p> .05), answered the same number of
questions correctly (p> .05) and took slightly longer for each
correct response (p> .05) than users of the accessible site. In addition,
the sites were rated equal in ease of use (p> .05), in pleasant to use(p> .05, and in the likelihood of being reused by the
visitor (p> .05).
These findings indicate that an accessible website can, with attention to the
look and feel, fully replicate the functionality of a conventionally-designed
website for users of the full-screen graphical
small format graphical browser, visitors spent significantly more time on the
accessible site (p < .05), but answered significantly more questions
correctly (p < .05) and were able to get each correct response
significantly more quickly (p < .05) than users of the accessible site. In
addition, the accessible site was considered to be significantly easier to use
(p < .05). However, while the ratings for pleasant to use (p> .05) and
the likelihood of being reused by the visitor (p> .05) both favored the
accessible site, they did not rise to the level of significance.
From the comments made in the experience questionnaire, it appears that the
small-format browser experience was strongly affected by the presence of a
large monitor. Half of the subjects in this study made explicit comments about
their frustration with not being able to expand the iize
of the browser window. If the physical dimensions of the screen were fully
occupied by the browser, this negative reaction might have been lessened.
Alternatively, it is possible that small screens are not really suitable for
web browsing.
Using a text-only browser, visitors spent significantly less time on the
conventional site (p < .05), were able to answer significantly fewer
questions successfully (p < .05) and took substantially longer for each
correct response (p < .05) than users of the accessible site. While users of
neither site enjoyed using the text-only browser, the accessible site was rated
significantly higher in ease of use (p < .05), as more pleasant to use(p <
.05), and in the likelihood of being reused by the visitor (p < .05).
As with the small format browser, it appears that users were strongly affected
by comparisons of the browser to the more familiar graphical browser. The ease
of navigating with a mouse compared with use of the keyboard arrow keys was
commented on by 27 of 40 respondents. In this case, we were using the Lynx
browser to provide an experience similar to what would be obtained using a
voiced browser over the telephone, and the use of the computer as a means of
access may have affected the responses. The user of a telephone to access a
website will not expect to have all of the amenities provided by a full
graphical browser, so will not be as likely to complain about the browser
experience. In spite of this effect, the accessible site was clearly more
usable than the conventional site for users of the text-only browser.
The conventional site was strongly affected, in terms of usability, by the
method used to access it. Because the text-only browser did not provide access
to the navigation features, the conventional site
• was essentially unusable.
Both the conventional and the small-format browser offered full access to the
features of the site. In spite of this, the conventional site was significantly
less usable for able-bodied users of a small-format browser than for users of
the conventional browser. While users spent the same amount of time on the site
(p> .05), they were able to locate fewer answers (p < .05), and
spent more time per correct response (p < .05). This difference was
reflected in poorer ratings for ease of use (p < .05), pleasure of
use (p < .05), and likelihood of reusing the site to locate similar
information (p <05).
Users of the conventional and small format browsers had a very different
experience on the accessible site. Users of the accessible site took
significantly longer to locate answers when using the small format browser (p <
.05), but had equivalent numbers of correct responses (p> .05), and
similar times per correct response (p> .05). In addition, their ratings for
ease of use (p> .05), pleasure of use (p> .05) and likelihood of using
the site to find similar information (p> .05) were not significantly
different.
An interesting finding is that users of the conventional website were more
critical of features than users of the accessible site. For example, when using
the text-only browser, the font size and colors were exactly the same between
the two sites. In spite of this, all users of the conventional site said that
the font was too small and difficult to read, while only half of the users of
the accessible site found the font difficult, and roughly half said that the
font was easy to read. It appears that the frustration of using the
conventional site resulted in a more negative interpretation of all of the
features. It is likely that this same negative spill-over would be directed to
the organization owning the site.
Conclusions
The findings of the study indicate that designing websites for
accessibility makes them more usable for able-bodied users in the conventional
browser, in small format browsers, and in text-only browsers.
These finding are an important part of the case for accessible design. Many
authors on accessible
• design, including Christian 1-Ieilmann (2005) and Joe Clark (2003) have
supported the notion that accessible design has little impact on the
able-bodied user of a website. The results of this study clearly show that
accessible design, even when the Look and feel of the site is changed only
minimally, have a significant effect on the able-bodied user, not only when
using a sub-optimal browser (text only or small format), but even in the
conventional graphical browser.
These results suggest that accessible design should not, in fact, be considered
as an aspect of accommodation for individuals with disabilities, but as an
implementation of universal design. As with other implementations of universal
design, the primary beneficiaries are the able-bodied users of the device, when
working in a sub-optimal environment. As an added benefit, universal design
accommodates the needs of those with functional imitations, brought about by
disability or by the processes of normal aging.
Since this increased usability comes at minimal cost, this study provides
strong support for businesses creating accessible websites. As able-bodied
users increase their demands access to the web through their cell phones, or
through web-reader services, the importance of designing sites for these sub- optimal delivery channels increases, and
accessible design provides guidelines for such methods of delivery of web
content.
Bibliography
Clark, J. (2003). Building accessible
websites.
Heilman, C. (2005). 10 reasons clients don’t care
about accessibility. Retrieved Sept. 20, 2005, from
http://www.digital-web.comlarticles/teneasons clients dont care about accessibility! Jackson-Sanborn,
E., Odess-Hamish, K., & Warren, N. (2001).
Website accessiblity: A study of ada
compliance. Retrieved May 25, 2004, from
http://www.ils.unc.edu/ils/researchlreports/accessibility.pdf
Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2006 Table of Contents