Week 4: Web Standards

This week we looked at web standards particularly in relation AX. Not the most interesting area in HCI in my opinion but very much a necessary area for correct practice. The main focus in the talk was on WCAG, guidelines for website design. Breaking these guidelines is not illegal, but it is considered unlawful. In other words sufferers from unlawful practice can take the offenders to court. Luckily this hasn't happened in the UK, but in the suing culture of the USA there have been several cases. I think there needs to be a better way of enforcing web standards, which doesn’t involve hundreds of unnecessary law suits that cost disabled peoples' and organizations' time, and tax payers money. If for example following good web standards (recognized by an algorithm) placed websites higher in search results, then the web site designers would be positively reinforced to comply with such standards. Also web standards such as WCAG 1 are criticised for being too specific and are uncontextual to the variety of practical issues in developing usable and accessible websites. Researchers such as Sloan et al. (2006) have proposed more flexible frameworks such as the 'Tangram' model (a puzzle with many solutions), and 'Blended learning' approaches that take each disability as a specific learning style to tackle. Ultimately web standards are important, particularly with the rise in web use over the past decade, and it is important that standards are implemented so that they are fair to both users and developers!

Week 3: Designing for AX

This week we delved further into the topic of universal usability by looking at accessibility for impaired users. I didn't realise but commercial websites actually have to be made accessible for the disabled in certain ways by law. But even with legal issues aside I think it’s fair to say we have a moral obligation to help the disabled work with technology. Moreover with the rising aging population the issue of accessibility will become ever more important in the future since we are all likely to want to make use of it when we are older. However the issue was raised in class that this may not be the case if in the future bioengineering and nanotechnology provide solutions to people's impairments, so that they can use the same technology as normal users. But since it may be quite some time for such advances in technology to become realised, accessibility will certainly be important for a while. Furthermore designing interactive products with universible accessibility in mind usually makes them more usable for everyone (not just the disabled), and can make greater profits for companies making interactive products.

 

George, who gave the presentation this week, showed us a video example with a blind man using a screen reader to help him use his PC. The speed at which he could crank the voice up to and still understand was incredible! This is far faster than I can read text visually. I would hypothesise that this may be due to the speed of language encoding in the auditory system compared to the visual system (after all we do communicate predominately through spoken word). One thing that blind people have trouble interacting with computers is their location on the screen. The speech screen readers give no clue as to spatial location. It seems to me that the best way to do this is by using haptic devices, either as a pad the user can touch with their hands, or somehow attached to the user (on the back or tongue) so that tactic sensations can be administered where appropriate and the user can build a spatial mental map of the screen. I have no doubt we will see some very interesting solutions to accessibility in the near and distant future.

 

I also looked at two papers in some detail Allen et al (2008), which showed how domain experts are involved in designing assisted technology, and Newell et al (2007), which showed how to use older people in the design process. I found the Newell paper more interesting. Older people require different methods for collecting data, including more social events and the use of trained actors in some cases to increase involvement.

Week 2: Universal Usability

This week we looked at universal usability, the idea that we could make technology accessible and usable for everyone in society, regardless of culture, language, impairment, etc. The concept was pioneered by the computer scientist Ben Schneiderman and is now a huge area of research in the HCI field. Universal usability is in fact an incredibly challenging task (in fact I think true universal usability may be impossible). For example since symbols are almost always culture/language specific, how do we create symbols that everyone relates the same semantics to? Also how do blind users understand the 2D/3D space of a system interface? One interesting possibility for blind people is multimodal technology. Research has shown that through the use of a head mounted camera and a touch simulator on the back or tongue, the visually impaired user is able to represent visual information tactically, a truly interesting feat that demonstrates an incredible possibility for technology, and more incredibly the adaptiveness of the human mind. It seems to me that the best way to achieve universal usability is simplicity in design and transparency between the user and interface. No user should have to think about how to use technology; it should come to them like an instinctive sense. Technology such as haptics and Direct Brain Interface are surely then important areas of research!

Course start

I've created this blog to post my learning diary entries for a module I'm taking this year; HCCS advanced topics. I will link my other blogs to it and  comments from any readers are welcome on anything I muse, comment or rant on.

We have been told to look out for usability and accessibility issues in the real world throughout our studies to serve as discussion points in class, and also I guess to get us thinking in the right way. Two things I can think off already. Firstly, I bought a new sound system for my laptop a few weeks ago and you can only turn it on and off and adjust EQ levels with the remote. So if I or any other unfortunate person who invested £50 in it loses it they are in trouble!  Secondly, I lost my passport the other day and the online lost passport form requires you to know your passport number to continue to the next screen. Who designs these things????