Design and evaluation of an accessible website developed using SharePoint 2010 by Sonal Kulkarni A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama May 7, 2012 Keywords: Accessibility, SharePoint, Usability, Web Site, W3C Copyright 2011 by Sonal Kulkarni Approved by David.A.Umphress, Chair, Associate Professor of Computer Science and Software Engineering Daniela Marghitu,Coordinator, COMP 100 of Computer Science and Software Engineering Theron Dean Hendrix, Associate Professor of Computer Science and Software Engineering ii Abstract The internet and web applications are growing rapidly. People are, more than ever before, dependent on the web applications and this dependency will continue to increase. A large number of web users have various accessibility needs and hence it is very important to ensure that the web applications are made accessible. This research deals with maximizing the accessibility of web sites. As a part of this research, accessibility was studied in detail. The research aimed at developing an accessible web site using SharePoint 2010. This was the object of a usability study. In this study, the usability of this web site was compared with that of inaccessible web sites. Participants for the usability tests were selected from Alabama Institute of Deaf and Blind. Results confirm that the degree of accomplishment of tasks, confidence level, learnability, and overall reaction of participants were higher while using accessible web sites built using SharePoint 2010 than while using inaccessible web sites. iii Acknowledgments I would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody responsible for the completion of my degree. Firstly, I thank Dr. Daniela Marghitu for her constant support, guidance and co- operation. I would like to thank her for introducing me to the world of web accessibility. Working with her has been a great learning experience. She is a wonderful source of inspiration and I consider myself lucky to have worked with her. I thank Dr. David Umphress and Dr. Theron Dean Hendrix for serving in my committee. I thank Dr.Umphress for his co-operation and also for addressing my doubts and concerns during the course of my research. His comments on the thesis were extremely helpful. Thank you for helping me complete my research in time. I had the privilege to work as a Graduate Teaching Assistant to Dr.Hendrix for a period of almost two years. It was a wonderful experience and I learnt professionalism and discipline and from Dr. Hendrix. I thank him for being in my committee and also for reviewing my thesis. I thank the participants of the usability study at Alabama Institute of Blind(AIDB). A special thanks to Bob, Doug and Joel from AIDB. It would have been impossible to complete the research without their cooperation. I deeply appreciate their consideration. Last but not the least, I thank my mother Shobha Kulkarni and father Shashikant Kulkarni for supporting my decision to pursue further studies and for having unwavering faith in me. I thank my much older and much wiser sister Meenal Kulkarni for planting the bug of higher education in my brain. I thank my husband Ananth for pushing me to work in my lazy moments and iv helping me battle procrastination. I thank him for performing format and spelling check .On a more serious note I thank him for his love, support and guidance. v Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ viii List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... ix List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................ x 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Web Accessibility ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 SharePoint ............................................................................................................. 2 2. Objective ............................................................................................................................. 3 3. Literature Survey ................................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Need for web accessibility ..................................................................................... 4 3.1.1 Ethical Aspect ..................................................................................... 5 3.1.2 Population of people with special needs ............................................... 6 3.1.3 Long term cost saving ......................................................................... 6 3.1.4 Legal responsibility ............................................................................ 6 3.2 Towards accessible web sites .................................................................................. 7 4. Design of accessible web site ............................................................................................... 8 4.1 Background work ................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Web Design ............................................................................................................ 9 vi 4.2.1 Software Process ................................................................................ 9 4.2.2 Design Implementation ....................................................................... 9 5. Usability evaluation ........................................................................................................... 12 5.1 Participants .......................................................................................................... 12 5.1.1 Demographic data of the participants ................................................ 13 5.2 Design .................................................................................................................. 13 5.2.1 Designing the tasks ........................................................................... 13 5.2.2 Designing the questionnaire .............................................................. 13 5.2.3 Selecting inaccessible web site ......................................................... 14 5.3 Test Execution ...................................................................................................... 17 5.4 Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 17 5.5 Equipment and other support ................................................................................ 18 6. Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................... 19 6.1 Quantitative analysis of data ................................................................................ 19 6.2 Qualitative analysis of data ................................................................................... 26 7. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 30 7.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 30 7.2 Future work ........................................................................................................... 30 References ........................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix A -IRB documents ................................................................................................ 34 A1 IRB documents-Consent form ............................................................................... 44 A2 IRB Appendix A-References ................................................................................. 47 A3 IRB Appendix C- Data collection tools ................................................................. 49 vii A4 IRB Appendix E- Permission letter from AIDB to conduct the experiment ........... 69 Appendix B - Calculation of results of the experiment ............................................................ 73 Appendix C ? Demographic data ............................................................................................ 86 viii List of Tables Table 6.1 Participants response to questions pertaining to learnability in accessible web site . 19 Table 6.2 Participants response to questions pertaining to learnability in an inaccessible web site .............................................................................................................................................. 20 Table 6.3 Consolidated participants response to learnability in accessible and inaccessible web site ........................................................................................................................................ 20 Table 6.4 Results of one tail paired t test ................................................................................ 23 Table 6.5 Response to qualitative questions provided by blind participants ............................ 26 Table 6.6 Response to qualitative questions provided by partially blind participants ............... 27 Table 6.7 Response to qualitative questions provided by deaf participants .............................. 28 ix List of Figures Figure 3.1 Chart showing the increase in the number of web users ........................................... 4 Figure 4.1 Screenshot of the home page of the web site developed in this work ..................... 10 Figure 4.2 Screenshot of the event registration form .............................................................. 11 Figure 4.3 Screenshot of the blog page ................................................................................... 11 Figure 5.1 Inaccessible form chosen for usability study for blind users .................................. 15 Figure 5.2 Inaccessible image chosen for usability study for blind users ................................. 16 Figure 5.3 Inaccessible form chosen for usability study for partially blind users ..................... 16 Figure 6.1 Participants response to accessibility related questions ......................................... 25 x List of Abbreviations AIDB Alabama Institute of Deaf and Blind ADA Americans with Disabilities Act HTML Hyper Text Markup Language IRB Institutional Review Board SQL Structured Query Language W3C World Wide Web Consortium XML Extended Markup Language 1 Chapter 1 Introduction The Internet is growing at an ever-accelerating pace and has now become an integral part of human experience. It has been deployed in a wide spectrum of devices ranging from computers and phones to cameras and music players hosting numerous applications. Over the years, the ubiquity of web users and the increasing demand of web applications has led to large growth and improved quality of web applications. Quality of web applications refers to many attributes. Some of them are reliability, speed, security, usability, accessibility etc. Accessibility is one of the lesser-discussed and lesser-emphasized quality attributes of a web application. This thesis discusses the importance of web accessibility. 1.1 Web accessibility Web accessibility means that people with disabilities (such as visual impairment) are able to use the web to access content and information. There are many factors that contribute to making the web accessible. Some of the factors include textual and graphic information in the web site, browser, screen readers, screen magnifiers, assistive keyboards, and finally the web developers themselves. A successful blend of all these features is important in order to make the web accessible. If one of these components is not accessible, it might affect the user experience drastically. For instance, if a web development software tool does not allow or does not make it easy to implement the accessibility guidelines (e.g. adding the ?alt? attribute to images in HTML), the tool would pose an impediment in implementing accessibility. 2 1.2 SharePoint SharePoint is a web application platform developed by Microsoft. [1] It was launched in 2001 as a single replacement for various web applications that support a wide range of enterprise web needs including web content management and document management. As a result of its versatility, SharePoint is a widely used web development platform. In this thesis an accessible web site is designed using SharePoint 2010 and its performance is evaluated by conducting usability studies with subjects having accessibility needs. 3 Chapter 2 Objective Emphasis on web accessibility is increasing rapidly. Hence, understanding and implementing web accessibility, learning how users with disabilities and accessibility needs interact with web sites and developing techniques to enhance accessibility are essential. The objective of this research is to systematically understand and statistically quantify users? efficiency in interacting with an accessible web site. The specific goals of this research work are: 1. To develop a highly accessible and interactive web site with various web components like blog, forms, images and multi-media content using SharePoint 2010 2. To systematically evaluate various components of this web site, such as forms, images, links, navigation etc. and to compare them with that of an inaccessible web site 3. To design usability tests for blind, partially blind, and deaf participants to achieve the abovementioned objective 4. To obtain and analyze quantitative data by measuring the users? degree of accomplishment of tasks, confidence, learnability, and overall reaction to the different aspects and components of the web site. 5. To obtain qualitative data by interviewing the participants of the usability test to obtain feedback. 4 Chapter 3 Literature Survey 3.1 Need for web accessibility Web Technology is one of the fastest growing areas of technology. In addition to traditional devices such as computers, other devices such as cell phones, cameras, music players etc. incorporate web technologies [2]. Figure 1 shows the steep increase in the number of web users since 1995. Figure 3.1: Chart showing the increase in the number of web users since 1995 [3] The popularity and penetration of web technology has made it one of the most powerful tools for communication and interaction. To make this interaction efficient, it is desirable to make web technology inclusive. As the skills and limitations of individuals are varied, accessible 5 technology must be engineered by minimizing the overlap between the user?s shortcomings and the demands of the technology. This can be accomplished by training humans to fulfill the technological demands or by building technology that can accommodate the user?s skills and shortcomings. [4] The term web accessibility refers to an individual?s ability to use all aspects of the web, such as browsers online document editing, media players, internet applications over phone etc. regardless of his/her disabilities. [4] A large number of individuals using the web have variety of special needs, some of which are listed below [5]: ? Visual ? Limited or complete blindness, color blindness ? Hearing - Deafness ? Motor- Inability to use a mouse/ keyboard ? Cognitive - Learning disabilities and distractibility Making web technologies accessible is of paramount importance because of the following reasons ? Ethical aspect ? Population of people with special needs ? Long-term cost saving ? Legal responsibility 3.1.1 Ethical aspect Web accessibility empowers all individuals to be included in the society we live in. Since internet has become an inalienable part of human experience and enrichment, it is extremely 6 important to ensure that a section of the society is not deprived of this experience due to their disabilities. The Internet opens doorways to endless possibilities, and web developers around the globe have the responsibility to ensure that all individuals have access it. [6] 3.1.2 Population of people with special needs Disabilities among some individuals are congenital, but most people develop special needs as they age. Statistics reveal that one in every five individuals over the age of 65 (totaling 53 million) has special needs. Also it is important to note that the population demographics have indicated an increase in the average age of humans around the world. Research shows that 8% of American children have special needs and world over there are 750 million children with disabilities. [7] 3.1.3 Long term cost saving Building accessible web sites can result in long-term cost and time savings because building such web sites involves preparation and research. In addition to that, web accessibility encourages best practices such as separating the presentation of a web site from its content. Hence adhering to accessibility guidelines makes managing and migrating contents cheaper. Such web sites also eliminate the need of alternative accessible formats such as braille, large prints, and transcriptions. [6] 3.1.4 Legal responsibility The US federal government requires that all web sites be accessible. Web accessibility requirements are discussed in three federal laws namely: Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act mandates that all educational programs aided by federal government must be accessible. It also iterates accessibility is a form of civil right and is covered by the 14th 7 amendment of the US constitution. ADA mandates that all public educational institutions must communicate effectively with students with disabilities unless doing so will result in fundamental alteration of the program. Section 508 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires that all web-based information be equipped with the following:[8] ? Text explanation for non-text elements ? Synchronized accessible alternative for multimedia contents ? Accessible alternative for information conveyed by color ? Redundant links for all regions of server side maps ? Client side image maps in place of server side image maps ? Identification of data type in all rows and columns of all tables ? Text for frame identification and navigation ? Assistive technology friendly electronic forms that avoid screen flicker with a frequency greater than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz 3.2 Towards accessible web sites Many researchers have made key contributions in making web sites accessible. To name a few, Petrie and coworkers? report disproves the popular myth that accessible web sites cannot be visually pleasing [9]; Kurniawan and coworkers [10] developed a research driven web- development guidelines for older people; Craven and coworkers? work was aimed at creating awareness to build accessible web sites [11]; Mankoff and coworkers developed a comparative study for accessing webpages that are accessible for the blind [12]; and Lazar and coworkers studied webmaster perception in improving web accessibility [13]. This work develops and evaluates a web site that is accessible to blind, partially blind and deaf users. 8 Chapter 4 Design of accessible web site This chapter discusses the design aspects of an accessible web site developed by the researcher. The web site developed in this work serves as the web presence for Dr. Marghitu at Auburn University and provides information about her research, publications, books, mentoring offered to students with special needs, etc. The web site was created using Sharepoint 2010 and tested for accessibility using an online evaluation tool. 4.1 Background work Before developing the web site, the researcher performed a thorough evaluation of an educational web site (myitlab.com) for accessibility. This process involved checking every page of the web site for accessibility using the following online tools and assistive technologies: ? WAVE (online tool to test accessibility) ? JAWS screen reader ? ZoomText screen reader ? ZoomText screen magnifier This evaluation also listed out the technical errors in faulty pages and described how these errors can be fixed to make the web site accessible. Before the design phase of the web site, the researcher visited Alabama Institute of Deaf and Blind (AIDB) at Talledega, AL to better understand how users with accessibility needs interact with the web using various assistive tools. From these interactions it was hypothesized that even 9 web sites that pass accessibility tests may pose challenges to users. For instance, images in the web sites could have alt attribute that enables it to pass the accessibility guidelines, but it is not of much help to the user if the attribute is not descriptive. The background work provided a basis for developing an intuitive web site that addresses the accessibility needs of users. 4.2 Web design 4.2.1 Software Process The software process used to develop the web site was user-centered design (UCD). At the beginning of the process, the following objectives were identified: A SharePoint site collection was created and a prototype of the web site was developed. The prototype was then tested and verified during weekly research meetings. Toward the end of the development, a pilot test was conducted. Feedbacks obtained from the test were incorporated in the web site. Finally, usability tests were conducted to evaluate this web site. 4.2.2 Design implementation The software used for building this web site included: ? SharePoint 2010 - This software platform was used to develop most parts of the web site. SharePoint allows providing access to users at different levels. Hence it facilitates the contribution of ideas by different people and managing content. Many students were given permission to contribute to the content of the ?Baccalaureate? page. ? SharePoint Designer 2010 ? This was used to understand the implementation of the web site. It was used as an HTML editor and to customize the web site. Understanding this software was necessary to make any customization of the web site. 10 ? InfoPath 2010- This software was used to create XML forms. An event registration form was created using InfoPath. It is implemented in two ways in the web site. In one implementation, a hyperlink is provided for the form. Upon clicking on the link, the form opens up as different webpage. In another implementation the form is implemented as a web part i.e. the form is the part of the web page. ? Microsoft Access 2010 -This was used to make a dynamic search form. The form was linked to an Access database. The content entered in the textbox or selected in the combo box in the form was used to query the database and generate the results. Macros and SQL queries were used to query the database. ? Html Tidy was used to test the web site for accessibility. This tool allowed testing the web site with Priority 1, 2 and 3 accessibility guidelines recommended by the W3C. Figures below show screenshots of the web site developed in this work. Fig. 4.1 provides the screenshot of the home page of the web site created. The interactive web site also has a form page (Fig. 4.2) for the users to register and a blog page (Fig. 4.3) where the users can contribute. Fig. 4.1 Screenshot of the homepage of the web site developed in this work 11 Fig. 4.2: Screenshot of the event registration form Fig 4.3: Screenshot of the blog page 12 Chapter 5 Usability evaluation An experiment was conducted to test the usefulness and efficiency of the web site developed in this work. The participants for this usability studies were chosen from AIDB and the test was administered in a computer laboratory. The subjects were provided with the necessary equipment and software like screen reader, speakers, screen magnifier etc. 5.1 Participants The participants of this study were students from Alabama Institute of Deaf and Blind (AIDB), Talladega, Alabama. A diverse group of participants who had no vision, partial vision and hearing impairment were selected for this study. There were 5 participants from each category, making a total of 15 participants. The selection criteria for the participant population were: 1. The participant must be 19 years or older 2. The participant should have at least one of the following disabilities. a. Completely blind b. Partially blind c. Deaf 3. The participant should know how to use a computer, the Internet, and the necessary accessible software. 4. The participant should not have intellectual disabilities 13 The participants were recruited by contacting the instructors at the Gentry Facility in AIDB. 5.1.1 Demographic Data of the participants The participants were asked to complete a survey before beginning the experiment. This survey consisted of questions about the participants? age, sex and disability. The participants were free to not answer these questions. Subsequently, the survey consisted of questions that captured the participants? grasp of computers, the Internet, use of keyboards, use of assistive software, and the duration for which they have been using them. Detailed demographic information of test subjects can be found in Appendix C. 5.2 Design A within-subject design was used. As a part of this design, the participants were asked to use both accessible and inaccessible web sites. This provided qualitative and quantitative information on their performance in both accessible and inaccessible interfaces. A within-subject design was also used because it helped to work around the problem of limited participant population. 5.2.1 Designing the tasks The tasks assigned to the participants on both the web sites were similar in nature. The tasks for blind participants involved filling forms and accessing images. The tasks for partially blind participants involved navigating and finding information and accessing images. The tasks for deaf participants involved accessing videos and other audible contents. 5.2.2 Designing the questionnaire The tests were designed to gather both qualitative and quantitative data. A Likert scale questionnaire was used to collect quantitative data. Two kinds of questionnaires were designed. One was used to perform a comparative study about both the web sites. This questionnaire had the same set of questions for both the web sites. It gauged the level of ?accomplishment of 14 tasks?, ?confidence?, ?learnability? and ?overall reaction? of the participants. The other questionnaire dealt with questions about features that were unique to the accessible web site. At the end of the test, the participants were interviewed about their experience with the accessible web site. The questionnaire used in this work can be found in Appendix C. 5.2.3 Selecting Inaccessible Web sites The usability tests required inaccessible web sites as a basis for comparison with the accessible web site that was built for the study. Many things had to be taken into consideration before selecting an inaccessible web site. For instance, blind subjects were asked to fill an accessible form and an inaccessible form. It was important to make sure that both forms had similar fields. This would help in making a fair comparison. The characteristics that were required in an inaccessible form were: ? Presence of text field ? Presence of combo box ? Presence of check box or radio button Fig. 5.1 shows the inaccessible form chosen for this study 15 Fig. 5.1: Inaccessible form chosen for usability study for blind users Images without an alt attribute are inaccessible as they cannot communicate with blind users. Fig. 5.2 shows a screenshot of a tourism page that has images without corresponding alt attributes. This image was chosen for this study. 16 Fig. 5.2: Inaccessible image chosen for usability study for blind users The following makes web content inaccessible for users with partial vision ? Images that are not still, e.g. flashing or moving images. ? Images of very dark or light color ? Images with poor resolution The inaccessible image chosen (see Fig. 5.3) for usability study had one or more of the above accessibility conflicts. Fig 5.3: Inaccessible image chosen for usability study blind users 17 Inaccessible web site chosen for deaf subjects had video content with closed captions or subtitles. 5.3 Test execution The usability tests were conducted one participant at a time except for the deaf population. When a participant arrived at the computer laboratory, the IRB consent form was handed out. Participants with low or no vision were given access to a document reader to listen to the consent form and verify it personally. It was reiterated to them that the data was collected in an anonymous fashion and that their privacy was protected. Also, they were allowed to step out of the experiment at any point in time during the experiment. Upon receiving the consent from the participants, the experiment was started. The participants were first asked a few pre-test questions about demographic data and their level of proficiency in computers, keyboards, accessibility software, the Internet etc. Following the pre-test, they were given a list of tasks to perform. An identical set of tasks was assigned for both accessible and inaccessible web sites. The researcher observed the participants performance and made a log of common mistakes. After the completion of tasks, the participants were presented with a Likert scale questionnaire. The participants were also interviewed about their experience with the web sites. 5.4 Evaluation The usability test was measured both qualitatively and quantitatively. It was measured quantitatively through a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree and qualitatively through an interview at the end of the experiment. The evaluation was broken down into three categories: for the blind, partially blind, and deaf. For the blind population the independent variables are blind forms and blind images. The 18 dependent variables are accomplishment of tasks, confidence, learnability and overall reaction. For the partially blind and deaf population the independent variables were accessible and inaccessible web sites, and the dependent variables were accomplishment of tasks, confidence, learnability, and overall reaction. 5.5 Equipment and other support The devices used for conducting this experiment were a computer with Internet connection, a document reader, a screen magnifier, a screen reader and speakers. The deaf participants were provided with sign language translations whenever required. 19 Chapter 6 Results and Discussion 6.1 Quantitative analysis of data The experimental data was collected using a 5-point (1- Strongly Agree to 5-Strongly Disagree) Likert scale questionnaire. Unique questionnaires were formed for each kind of disability. Each questionnaire collected data in four different categories: Level of accomplishment of tasks, confidence, learnability, and overall reaction. The questionnaire had two to five questions pertaining to each category and the average of the responses provided by each participant for questions relating to a particular category was determined for both the web sites. For example, tables 6.1 and 6.2 below show how learnability of blind participants was computed for accessible and inaccessible web sites, and table 6.3 consolidates the average scores for accessible and inaccessible web sites. Table 6.1: Participants? response to questions pertaining to learnability in accessible web site Participant Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Average 1 5 5 5 5.000 2 5 5 5 5.000 3 5 5 5 5.000 4 5 5 5 5.000 5 5 5 5 5.000 20 Table 6.2: Participants? response to questions pertaining to learnability in inaccessible web site Participant Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Average 1 3 2 4 3.000 2 5 5 5 5.000 3 5 5 5 5.000 4 1 2 5 2.667 5 4 1 5 3.333 Table 6.3: Consolidated participants? response pertaining to learnability in accessible and inaccessible web sites Participant Average scores inaccessible web site Average scores accessible web site 1 3.000 5.000 2 5.000 5.000 3 5.000 5.000 4 2.667 5.000 5 3.333 5.000 Using the above technique, average scores for accessible and inaccessible web sites for all four categories were obtained. These average response scores were treated as interval data, permitting use of the paired t-test to analyze the data set. A single tail paired t-test was used because prior to conducting the experiments, it was predicted that the average accessible scores for all categories would be higher than the average inaccessible scores. Using the above technique the following null hypotheses were tested. H01: The degree of accomplishment for task by blind subjects while using forms in inaccessible web site is equal to higher than that of accessible web site. The P-value for the one tail T test was found to be 0.092; hence there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis. H02: The level of confidence of blind subjects while using forms in inaccessible web site is equal to higher than that of accessible web site. The P-value for the one tail T test was found to be 0.036. Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. 21 H03: The overall reaction among blind subjects while using forms in inaccessible web site is equal to higher than that of accessible web site. The P-value for the one tail T test was found to be 0.037. Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. H04: Learnability of blind subjects while using forms in inaccessible web site is equal to higher than that of accessible web site. The P-value for the one tail T test was found to be 0.016. Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. H05: The degree of accomplishment for task by blind subjects while using images in inaccessible web site is equal to higher than that of accessible web site. The P-value for the one tail T test was found to be 0.006. Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. H06: The level of confidence of blind subjects while using images in inaccessible web site is equal to higher than that of accessible web site. The P-value for the one tail T test was found to be 0.002. Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. H07: The overall reaction among blind subjects while using images in inaccessible web site is equal to higher than that of accessible web site. The P-value for the one tail T test was found to be 0.009. Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. H08: Learnability of blind subjects while using images in inaccessible web site is equal to higher than that of accessible web site. The P-value for the one tail T test was found to be 0.007. Since 22 the P-value is less than 0.05, there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. H09: The degree of accomplishment for task by partially blind subjects while using an inaccessible web site is equal to higher than that of accessible web site. The P-value for the one tail T test was found to be 0.007. Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. H010: The level of confidence of partially blind subjects while using an inaccessible web site is equal to higher than that of accessible web site. The P-value for the one tail T test was found to be 0.003. Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. H011: The overall reaction among partially blind subjects while using an inaccessible web site is equal to higher than that of accessible web site. The P-value for the one tail T test was found to be 0.019. Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. H012: Learnability of partially blind subjects while using an inaccessible web site is equal to higher than that of accessible web site. The P-value for the one tail T test was found to be 0.021. Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. H013: The degree of accomplishment for task by deaf subjects while using an inaccessible web site is equal to higher than that of accessible web site. The P-value for the one tail T test was found to be 0. Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. 23 H014: The level of confidence of deaf subjects while using an inaccessible web site is equal to higher than that of accessible web site. The P-value for the one tail T test was found to be 0.011. Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. H015: The overall reaction among deaf subjects while using an inaccessible web site is equal to higher than that of accessible web site. The P-value for the one tail T test was found to be 0. Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. H016: Learnability of deaf subjects while using an inaccessible web site is equal to higher than that of accessible web site. The P-value for the one tail T test was found to be 0.006. Since the P- value is less than 0.05, there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. A summary of the above results is shown in table 6.4. Table 6.4: Results of one-tail paired t-test Disability Null hypothesis tested P-value Reject H0? Blind H01: (Degree of accomplishment while using forms) 0.092 No H02: (confidence level while using forms) 0.036 Yes H03: (overall reaction while using forms) 0.037 Yes H04: (learnability while using forms) 0.016 Yes Blind H05: (Degree of accomplishment while using images) 0.006 Yes H06: (confidence level while using images) 0.002 Yes H07: (overall reaction while using images) 0.009 Yes H08: (learnability while using images) 0.007 Yes Partially Blind H09: (Degree of accomplishment) 0.007 Yes H010: (confidence level ) 0.003 Yes H011: (overall reaction) 0.019 Yes H012: (learnability) 0.021 Yes Deaf H013: (Degree of accomplishment ) 0 Yes 24 H014: (confidence level ) 0.011 Yes H015: (overall reaction) 0 Yes H016: (learnability) 0.006 Yes The accessible web site designed in this work implemented the following features that attempted to enhance accessibility: 1. All images used in the accessible web site had meaningful descriptions. For instance, the image of Dr.Marghitu had its alt attribute as ?image of Dr.Marghitu? as opposed to ?Dr.Marghitu?. This is helpful because the screen reader parses the underlying HTML of a webpage and reads out the alt attribute of an image when pointed at an image. Without such an intuitive description, it is hard and sometimes impossible for a blind participant to know that the object under consideration is an image. The fig (6.1) shows the participants reaction to such a feature. 2. All fields in the forms used in the accessible web site had meaningful descriptions. For instance, the textbox which served as the second address line was read out by the screen reader as ?This is the second address line? as opposed the ?Address line?. Such a detailed description is helpful because, sometimes information, address in this case might run short of space. This feature gives the user a better grasp of the nature of the form. The fig (6.1) shows the participants reaction to such a feature. 3. The closed captions of the video were well synchronized. As indicated by fig (6.1), synchronization of video and closed captions were desired by users with hearing impairment. 4. All the links in the web site had meaningful names. For example, a link called ?click here to create a post? is more meaningful than ?click here?. This is helpful because, partially blind users who use extremely high magnification and blind users can lose the context in 25 which the link was presented or might accidently click on a wrong link. Hence links with appropriate names are helpful. Fig.6.1 shows the participants reaction to such a feature. Fig. 6.1: Participants? response to accessibility related questions The above images indicate that ? Four out of five participants strongly agreed that meaningful descriptions of images enhance accessibility. One person strongly agreed ? Four out of five participants strongly agreed that meaningful descriptions of fields in the form enhance accessibility. One person strongly agreed ? Four out of five participants were neutral about enhancement of accessibility by synchronizing closed captions with videos. One person strongly disagreed ? Four out of five participants strongly agreed that meaningful names of links enhance accessibility. One person strongly disagreed Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Meaningful description of images enhance accessibility Meaningful descriptions of form fields enhance accessibility Synchronizing closed captions with video content enhances accessibility Meaningful description links enhance accessibility 26 6.2 Qualitative analysis The questionnaire provided to the participants also had questions that were qualitative in nature. Tables 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7 summarize the responses of blind, partially blind and deaf participants respectively. Table 6.5: Response to qualitative questions provided by blind participants Participant Problems you generally face while using any web site? Does this web site address your concerns? What are the things you like about this web site? What are the things you don?t like about this web site? Changes recommended 1 Not being able to complete forms Accessing images without description Yes Accessibility Images and forms with description Easy to use None None 2 Inaccessibl e Calendar pages when paying the bill Forms without data Forms that do not read the correct edit box 4 Captchas and their audio Yes Enough description for images and forms but not too much overall accessibility None None 3 Flash content Unlabeled Yes Text labels on everything None None 27 Table 6.6: Response to qualitative questions provided by partially blind participants Participants What are the problems you generally face while using the web site? Does this web site address your concerns? What are the things you like about this web site? What are the things you don?t like about this web site? Do you recommend any changes to this web site? 1 Trying to find the link or information Too much information Yes Was not too cluttered and did not have too much going on None Brighter color 2 Locating information Yes Information was lined up. Collapsible link on the top bar None None 3 Flashing images Unlabeled Yes Links are in columns or in line across top Nothing Darker color links and buttons Unlabeled text edit boxes 4 Information not formatted Not enough description to let the user know what to do Yes Descriptions for everything No room to not know Forms and Images with extra descriptions None None 5 Buttons and Tabs that the screen reader does not read Putting in passwords Yes Ranged in the order of using headings and other short cut key strokes for navigation Takes long time to understand None 28 buttons Chaotic organization of links No flashing images Well labeled links 4 Bright colors Cluttered information Flashy objects Yes Everything was spaced out None None 5 None Nil Links None None Table 6.7: Response to qualitative questions provided by deaf participants Participants What are the problems you generally face while using the web site? Does this web site address your concerns? What are the things you like about this web site? What are the things you don?t like about this web site? Do you recommend any changes to this web site? 1 Audio without subtitles Yes Closed captions Fewer Links Very plain Colorful background 2 Audio without subtitles Yes Closed captions Fewer Links Very plain Attractive background 3 Audio without subtitles Yes Closed captions Fewer Links Very plain More colors 4 Audio without subtitles Yes Closed captions Fewer Links Very plain Colorful 5 No closed captioning Absence of message errors while filling forms Yes Closed captions Fewer Links Slow 1 Background images and colors 2 Background logo 29 The above tables have reiterated the results obtained from the statistical tests. From the above tables it is clear that the web site addresses all the needs of blind population. But, the responses from the partially blind population indicate that they would prefer a color contrast in the color scheme of the web site. However they have indicated satisfaction about images, navigation, and finding information. The responses from the deaf population indicate that they prefer more images, a different background color, and aesthetic appeal of the web site. These findings conclude that every set of population has unique needs. Hence it is the job of the web developer to create an aesthetically appealing web site while complying with all the accessibility standards. In this work, the participant population included 5 candidates from blind, partially blind and deaf categories. Since the population of the test subjects is very small, the statistical power of this work is limited. 30 Chapter 7 Conclusion and Future work 7.1 Conclusion This research aimed at developing an accessible web site with SharePoint 2010 and to test the accessibility of that web site with a disabled population. Usability tests were conducted to establish the efficiency of the web site. The tests were conducted on participants from Alabama Institute of Deaf and Blind (AIDB), Talladega, Alabama. Every aspect of the web site such as forms, images, multimedia content and navigation was carefully examined. During the tests, every accessible aspect was coupled with another inaccessible counterpart. Quantitative and qualitative data was collected. Quantitative data was statistically analyzed. The results of the usability tests showed that an accessible web site increases the degree of accomplishment of tasks, confidence, overall reaction and learnability. These findings were corroborated by the interview responses (qualitative tests) from the participants of the usability tests. In addition, the research made an attempt to enhance the accessibility. This has received a positive feedback from the disabled population. The statistical power of these findings are limited because of a small sample size (N=5; M=15). 7.2 Future Work This research can be enhanced in several ways. The web site can be developed further to include more features and information. The web site is currently hosted on an intranet password protected server. The web site can be hosted live in order to test it with the accessibility tools that 31 accept the URL of a web site as input. Further, the usability tests can be repeated for a larger audience and hence collect substantial data to help make new findings. The usability tests can monitor the time taken to complete each task. This will contribute to the quantitative data and have a higher statistical significance. Finally, the usability tests can have an error log that documents all the pit falls of the user during the course of task completion. 32 References 1. Oleson, J., 7 Years of SharePoint - a History Lesson. Joel Oleson's Blog - SharePoint Land. MSDN Blogs (Microsoft Corporation), 2007. 2. Software & Information Industry Association Trends Report 2001: Trends Shaping the digital economy. 2001; Available from: http://www.trendsreport.net. 3. Group, M.M. (Jan 2008) internetworldstats.com. 4. Raskin, J., ed. The humane interface: new directions for designing interactive systems 2000, Addison Wesley. 5. Waldrop, J. (2000) Population profile of the United States, US Census Bureau. 2000. 6. Bonner, P. (May 7, 2002) And websites for all. PC Magazine, IP01-IP03. 7. World Health Organization: Future trends and challenges in rehabilitation. June 18, 2002; Available from: http://www.who.int/ncd/disability/trends.htm. 8. Patrick, D., Correspondence from Assistant Attorney General Deval Patrick to Senator Tom Harkin. Sep 9, 1996. 9. Petrie, H., F. Hamilton, and N. King, Tension, what tension?: Website accessibility and visual design, in Proceedings of the 2004 international cross-disciplinary workshop on Web accessibility (W4A). 2004, ACM: New York City, New York. p. 13-18. 10. Zaphiris, P., S. Kurniawan, and M. Ghiawadwala, A systematic approach to the development of research-based web design guidelines for older people. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2007. 6(1): p. 59-75. 33 11. Craven, J., Electronic access for all: awareness in creating accessible websites for the university library. 12. Mankoff, J., H. Fait, and T. Tran, Is your web page accessible?: a comparative study of methods for assessing web page accessibility for the blind, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 2005, ACM: Portland, Oregon, USA. p. 41-50. 13. Lazar, J., A. Dudley-Sponaugle, and K.-D. Greenidge, Improving web accessibility: a study of webmaster perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 2004. 20(2): p. 269-288. 34 Appendix A IRB Documents 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Appendix A1 IRB Documents - Consent Form 45 46 47 Appendix A2 IRB Appendix A - References 48 References 1. Microsoft SharePoint 2010: Building Solutions for SharePoint 2010, By Sahil Malik 2. Microsoft Office SharePoint Designer 2007, By Robert T. Grauer, Daniela Marghitu 3. Web accessibility for people with disabilities, By Michael G. Paciello 4. Web accessibility: a foundation for research, By Simon Harper, Yeliz Yesilada 5. http://www.w3.org/WAI/ 49 Appendix A3 IRB Appendix C Data Collection tools 50 Pre Test Survey 1. Age- 2. Disability- a. Completely Blind b. Limited vision c. Hearing Impairment d. Other(Please explain) e. Choose not to disclose 3. Sex a. Male b. Female c. Choose not to disclose 4. Which of the following best describes the duration for which you have been using computers? a. 0-3 months b. 4-6 months c. 7-12 months d. More than 12 months 5. Which of the following best describes the duration for which you have been using computers? a. 0-3 months b. 4-6 months c. 7-12 months d. More than 12 months 6. Which of the following best describes your keyboard skills? a. Very proficient b. Proficient c. I am not very proficient d. I have no idea how to use it 7. How proficient are you when using the mouse? a. Very proficient b. Proficient c. I am not very proficient d. I have no idea how to use it 8. How proficient are you when using the screen reader? a. Very proficient b. Proficient c. I am not very proficient d. I have no idea how to use it 9. How proficient are you when using the screen magnifier? a. Very proficient 51 b. Proficient c. I am not very proficient d. I have no idea how to use it 10. Which of the following best describes your computer skills? a. Very proficient b. Proficient c. I am not very proficient d. I have no idea how to use it 11. Which of the following best describes your internet skills a. Very proficient b. Proficient c. I am not very proficient d. I have no idea how to use it 52 Questionnaire for the blind on forms Accomplishment of tasks 1 I was able to accomplish most of the tasks 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 2 It was easy to accomplish the tasks 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Confidence level 1 I felt confident using this form 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 2 I felt confused using this form 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Learnability 1 Learning to use this form was easy. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 53 2 Learning to perform the tasks associated with this form was straightforward. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 3 I need more skills to access this form 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Overall Reaction 1 I find this web site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Terrible Wonderful NA 2 I find this web site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Difficult Easy NA 3 I find this web site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frustrating Satisfying NA 54 Questionnaire for the blind on images Accomplishment of tasks 1 I was able to accomplish most of the tasks 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 2 It was easy to accomplish the tasks 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Confidence level 3 I felt confident using the webpage with images 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 4 I felt confused using the webpage with images 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Learnability 1 It was easy to learn to spot images on this web site 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 55 2 Upon pointing the cursor on an image it was easy to understand that the object under consideration was an image 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Overall Reaction 1 I find this web site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Terrible Wonderful NA 2 I find this web site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Difficult Easy NA 3 I find this web site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frustrating Satisfying NA 56 Accomplishment of tasks 1 I was able to accomplish most of the tasks 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 2 It was easy to accomplish the tasks 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Confidence level 1 I felt confident using the media content 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 2 I felt confused using the media content 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 57 Questionnaire for the deaf Learnability 1 Learning to use the web site was easy. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 2 Learning to perform the tasks was straightforward. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 3 I need more skills to access this web site 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Overall Reaction 1 I find this web site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Terrible Wonderful NA 2 I find this web site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Difficult Easy NA 58 3 I find this web site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frustrating Satisfying NA 59 Questionnaire for the partially blind Accomplishment of tasks 1 I was able to accomplish most of the tasks 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 2 It was easy to accomplish the tasks 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Confidence level I felt the webpage was cluttered with too much information 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree I had to use the scroll bars extensively 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree I thought the information was well organized and categorized 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 60 The images were distracting. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree I felt confident using this web site 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree I felt confused using this web site 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Learnability 1 Learning to use this web site was easy. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 2 Learning to perform the tasks in this web site was straightforward. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 3 I need more skills to access this web site 1 2 3 4 5 61 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Overall Reaction 1 I find this web site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Terrible Wonderful NA 2 I find this web site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Difficult Easy NA 3 I find this web site 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frustrating Satisfying NA 62 Questionnaire exclusively on forms and images in the accessible web site. The below questionnaire was designed for the blind participants FORMS 1 I thought the description of the fields in the form was very helpful 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 2 All the fields in the form had a description 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 3 Meaningful description of fields in the form is more important than just a description for the fields in the form e.g. (a comment saying ?this is the last address line? as opposed to ?this an address line?) 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 4 I feel descriptive tags for all fields in the form are very important 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 5 Having descriptive tags make me feel more confident while filling the form 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 63 6 All areas of the form are reachable. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 7 I thought the form was very easy to use. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree IMAGES 8 I thought the description of the images was very helpful 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 9 Meaningful description of the image is more important than just a description of the image e.g. (a comment saying ?image of Dr.Marghitu? as opposed to ?Dr.Marghitu?) 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 10 I feel descriptive tags of images are very important 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 64 11 Having descriptive tags for images make me feel more confident while using the web site 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 65 Questionnaire exclusively on the video content of the accessible web site. This was used for deaf participants VIDEOS 1 The absence of sound alerts helped me use the web site 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 2 The closed captions were well synchronized with the video. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 3 I was able to locate the closed captions easily 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Questionnaire about links and images of the accessible web site. This was used for partially blind participants 1 The links had meaningful names (e.g. A link saying ?Create a post? is more useful than a link saying ?click here?) 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 66 2 The absence of flickering images helped me 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree A general questionnaire about the accessible web site. This was used for all participants. 1 I thought the web site was easy to use. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 2 Do you think it is easy for people to learn to use this web site? 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 3 I felt very confident using this web site 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 4 I need to learn a lot about this web site before I could effectively use it. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 67 5 I thought it was easy to navigate around the web site 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 6 I thought it was easy to locate the links in the web site 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 7 I will never be able to learn how to use this web site 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 8 I find the information on this web site well organized 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 9 There was too much information on one page 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 68 10 There were too many links on the page 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 11 I was able to find the information on the web site 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 12 I find this web site easy to use 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 69 Appendix A4 IRB Appendix E Permission letter from AIDB to conduct the experiment 70 71 72 73 Appendix B Calculation of results of the experiment 74 Accomplishment of tasks for accessible forms for the blind Data1 Data2 Diff t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means 0.05 5 3.5 1.5 5 5 0 Data1 Data2 5 5 0 Mean 4.8 4.1 4 4 0 Variance 0.2 0.8 5 3 2 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation 0.0625 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 4 t Stat 1.606 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.092 Accept Null Hypothesis because p > 0.05 (Means are the same) T Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.184 Accept Null Hypothesis because p > 0.05 (Means are the same) T Critical Two-tail 2.776 Confidence for accessible forms for the blind Data1 Data2 Diff t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means 0.05 4.5 2 2.5 5 5 0 Data1 Data2 5 5 0 Mean 4.9 3.3 5 2 3 Variance 0.05 2.45 5 2.5 2.5 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation 0.464286 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Df 4 t Stat 2.426 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.036 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are 75 Different) T Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.072 Accept Null Hypothesis because p > 0.05 (Means are the same) T Critical Two-tail 2.776 Learnability for accessible forms for the blind Data1 Data2 Diff t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means 0.05 5 3 2 5 5 0 Data1 Data2 5 5 0 Mean 5 3.8 5 2.67 2.33 Variance 0 1.256 5 3.33 1.67 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation #DIV/0! Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Df 4 t Stat 2.395 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.037 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.075 Accept Null Hypothesis because p > 0.05 (Means are the same) T Critical Two-tail 2.776 76 Overall Reaction for accessible forms for the blind Data1 Data2 Diff t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means 0.05 8 4.67 3.33 8 5.67 2.33 Data1 Data2 7.67 7 0.67 Mean 7.866667 4.533333 7.67 0.67 7 Variance 0.033333 5.588889 8 4.67 3.33 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation 0.270299 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Df 4 t Stat 3.211 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.016 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.033 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical Two-tail 2.776 Accomplishment of tasks for accessible images for the blind Data1 Data2 Diff t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means 0.05 5 4 1 5 2 3 Data1 Data2 5 4 1 Mean 4.9 2.7 4.5 2 2.5 Variance 0.05 1.45 5 1.5 3.5 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation 0.324967 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 77 Df 4 t Stat 4.274 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.006 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.013 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical Two-tail 2.776 Confidence for accessible images for the blind Data1 Data2 Diff t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means 0.05 4.5 2.5 2 5 2 3 Data1 Data2 5 4 1 Mean 4.9 2.7 5 2 3 Variance 0.05 0.7 5 3 2 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation 0.133631 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Df 4 t Stat 5.880 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.002 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.004 Reject Null Hypothesis because p 78 < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical Two-tail 2.776 Learnability for accessible images for the blind Data1 Data2 Diff t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means 0.05 5 1 4 5 2 3 Data1 Data2 5 5 0 Mean 5 2 5 1 4 Variance 0 3 5 1 4 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation #DIV/0! Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Df 4 t Stat 3.873 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.009 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.018 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical Two-tail 2.776 Overall Reaction for accessible images for the blind Data1 Data2 Diff t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means 0.05 7.67 1.33 6.33 8 4 4 Data1 Data2 8 7 1 Mean 7.866667 3.066667 7.67 0 7.67 Variance 0.033333 7.188889 8 3 5 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation 0.817127 79 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Df 4 t Stat 4.235 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.007 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.013 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical Two-tail 2.776 Accomplishment of tasks for accessible multimedia content for the deaf Data1 Data2 Diff t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means 0.05 5 1 4 5 1.5 3.5 Data1 Data2 5 1.5 3.5 Mean 4.9 1.4 4.5 1.5 3 Variance 0.05 0.05 5 1.5 3.5 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation -0.25 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Df 4 t Stat 22.136 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) 80 T Critical Two-tail 2.776 Confidence for accessible multimedia content for the deaf Data1 Data2 Diff t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means 0.05 5 2 3 3 1 2 Data1 Data2 3 1 2 Mean 3.4 1.6 3 1 2 Variance 0.8 0.8 3 3 0 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation 0.25 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Df 4 t Stat 3.674 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.011 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.021 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical Two-tail 2.776 Learnability for accessible multimedia content for the deaf Data1 Data2 Diff t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means 0.05 5 2.333333 2.666666667 5 2.333333 2.666666667 Data1 Data2 5 2.333333 2.666666667 Mean 5 2.066667 5 2.333333 2.666666667 Variance 0 0.355556 5 1 4 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation #DIV/0! Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 81 Df 4 t Stat 11.000 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000 Reject Null Hypothes is because p < 0.05 (Means are Different ) T Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000 Reject Null Hypothes is because p < 0.05 (Means are Different ) T Critical Two-tail 2.776 Overall Reaction for accessible multimedia content for the deaf Data1 Data2 Diff t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means 0.05 8 0.33 7.67 7 3.33 3.67 Data1 Data2 6 1.67 4.33 Mean 6.666667 2.466667 6.33 2.67 3.67 Variance 0.722222 2.366667 6 4.33 1.67 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation -0.6374 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Df 4 t Stat 4.307 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.006 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are 82 Different) T Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.013 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical Two-tail 2.776 Accomplishment of Tasks for the accessible web site for the partially blind Data1 Data2 Diff t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means 0.05 5 3.5 1.5 4 2 2 Data1 Data2 5 3.5 1.5 Mean 4.6 2.9 5 2 3 Variance 0.3 0.675 4 3.5 0.5 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation 0.166667 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Df 4 t Stat 4.185 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.007 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.014 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical Two-tail 2.776 83 Confidence for the accessible web site for the partially blind Data1 Data2 Diff t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means 0.05 4.83 3.17 1.67 4.5 2.33 2.17 Data1 Data2 4 2.67 1.33 Mean 4.533333 2.5 5 1.5 3.5 Variance 0.158333 0.402778 4.33 2.83 1.5 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation -0.41249 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Df 4 t Stat 5.183 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.003 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.007 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical Two-tail 2.776 Learnability for the accessible web site for the partially blind Data1 Data2 Diff t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means 0.05 5 3.33 1.67 4 2.67 1.33 Data1 Data2 4 4 0 Mean 4.4 3.06666 7 5 2.33 2.67 Variance 0.3 0.41111 1 4 3 1 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation -0.33221 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Df 4 t Stat 3.068 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.019 Reject Null 84 Hypoth esis because p < 0.05 (Means are Differe nt) T Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.037 Reject Null Hypoth esis because p < 0.05 (Means are Differe nt) T Critical Two-tail 2.776 OverallReaction for the accessible web site for the partially blind Data1 Data2 Diff t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means 0.05 6 5.666667 0.33 8 3 5 Data1 Data2 7.33 4 3.33 Mean 7.4 3.6 8 0 8 Variance 0.688889 5.188889 7.67 5.333333 2.33 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation -0.65821 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Df 4 t Stat 2.938 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.021 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical one-tail 2.132 85 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.042 Reject Null Hypothesis because p < 0.05 (Means are Different) T Critical Two-tail 2.776 86 Appendix C Demographic Data 87 Deaf participants 1 2 3 4 5 Age 24 46 28 21 30 Disability Deaf Deaf Deaf Deaf Deaf Sex Female Male Female Female Male Duration of using computers More than 12 months More than 12 months More than 12 months More than 12 months More than 12 months Duration of using internet More than 12 months More than 12 months More than 12 months More than 12 months More than 12 months Proficiency in using keyboard Very proficient Proficient Proficient Very Proficient Very Proficient Proficiency in using mouse Very proficient Proficient Very Proficient Very Proficient Very Proficient Proficiency in using screen reader NA NA NA NA NA Proficiency in using screen magnifier NA NA NA NA NA Proficiency in using computers Proficient Proficient Proficient Very Proficient Very Proficient Proficiency in using internet Proficient Proficient Proficient Very Proficient Very Proficient 88 Partially Blind participants 1 2 3 4 5 Age 42 39 39 36 19 Disability Partiall y Blind Partially Blind Partially Blind Partially Blind Partially Blind Sex Female Male Male Female Male Duration of using computers 7-12 months More than 12 months More than 12 months More than 12 months More than 12 months Duration of using internet 4-6 months More than 12 months More than 12 months More than 12 months More than 12 months Proficiency in using keyboard Profici ent Very proficient Not very proficient Very proficient Proficient Proficiency in using mouse Profici ent Very proficient Very proficient Very proficient Very proficient Proficiency in using screen reader Not very Profici ent Very proficient Magnificati on of 24x Very proficient Very proficient NA Proficiency in using screen magnifier Profici ent Very proficient Very proficient Magnific ation of 3x Very proficient Magnification of 6x Proficient Proficiency in using computers Profici ent Very proficient Proficient Very proficient Very proficient Proficiency in using internet Not very profici ent Proficient Very proficient Very proficient 89 Blind Participants 1 2 3 4 5 Age 49 40 38 42 Not disclosed Disability Blind Blind Blind Blind Blind Sex Female Female Male Male Male Duration of using computers More than 12 months More than 12 months More than 12 months More than 12 months More than 12 months Duration of using internet More than 12 months More than 12 months More than 12 months More than 12 months More than 12 months Proficiency in using keyboard Very proficient Very proficient Proficient Proficient Proficient Proficiency in using mouse NA Not proficient Not very proficient NA NA Proficiency in using screen reader Very proficient Very proficient Proficient Proficient Proficient Proficiency in using screen magnifier NA Not very proficient NA NA NA Proficiency in using computers Very proficient Very proficient Proficient Proficient Proficient Proficiency in using internet Very proficient Very proficient Proficient Proficient Proficient