• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Reading card 4
 

Reading card 4

on

  • 317 views

Reading card 4 for Usability, Accessibility and User Centered design course @TLU #IMKE

Reading card 4 for Usability, Accessibility and User Centered design course @TLU #IMKE

Statistics

Views

Total Views
317
Views on SlideShare
200
Embed Views
117

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 117

http://argoimke.wordpress.com 117

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Reading card 4 Reading card 4 Presentation Transcript

    • Reading card 4 accessibility
    • Reference Brajnik, G., Yesilada, Y., & Harper, S. (n.d.). Guideline Aggregation : WebAccessibility Evaluation for Older Users Categories and Subject Descriptors. Interfaces, 127-135.
    • Summary statement All accessibility guidelines must be metto gain compliance in order to achieve “universal accessibility”.
    • Key concepts An accessibility barrier is any conditionthat makes it difficult for people to achieve a goal when using the website in the specified context. A barrier can be described in terms of: i) the user category involved, ii) the type of assistive technology being used, iii) the goal that is being hindered, iv) The features of the pages that raise the barrier, and v) further effects of the barrier on payoff functions.
    • Key arguments and relationships Some barrier types are morereproducible than others. This is probablydue to interpretation and/or application of some barrier types being more difficult or more subjective than others.
    • Key findings and contributions Older users are a diverse group, often experiencing multiple functionallimitations; therefore devising a universal strategy for improvingtheir Web experience is not a trivial task.
    • Ideas, observations and critiques Which accessibility problems areidentified and how their severity is rated are two aspects of accessibility investigations that lack substantial standardization, leading to low reproducibility of results.
    • General ideasIdeally, a good method is a dependable tool that yields accurate predictions of all the accessibility problems that may occur in a website.
    • Conclusion: By evaluating accessibility must be taken into account all kind of possible barriers. Disabilities, age- relatedspecs., background, hardware, softwar e, network speed etc.