REDEFINING ASSUMPTIONS Accessibility and Its Stakeholders

703 views

Published on

REDEFINING ASSUMPTIONS
Accessibility and Its Stakeholders at ICCHP 2010

Published in: Technology, Design
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
703
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

REDEFINING ASSUMPTIONS Accessibility and Its Stakeholders

  1. 1. REDEFINING ASSUMPTIONS Accessibility and Its Stakeholders Rui Lopes, Karel Van Isacker, Luís Carriço rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt
  2. 2. MOTIVATION Solving the problems of accessing information without barriers requires efforts in different fronts. Stakeholders on accessibility face different problems, motivations, solutions. Accessibility field is ineffective if stakeholders target just individually – the whole is bigger than the sum of the parts.
  3. 3. MOTIVATION Surveys show that • Web masters play a critical role on accessibility (Lazar et al., 2004) • Law enforcement tends to work on govt. Websites (Yao et al., 2009) • ... but knowledge and abidance rates are very low (Freire et al., 2008)
  4. 4. PROBLEM Notice that • the few surveys that have been done are focused on one technology domain – the Web. • Stakeholders are studied (almost) independently.
  5. 5. OUR SURVEY developers accessibility service assessors providers public bodies/ people w/ disabilities government (inc. elderly)
  6. 6. METHODOLOGY • Questionnaires for each stakeholder • Online & paper / self-answered & face-to-face interviews •7 languages: cz, en, fr, de, gr, it, pt. • Demographic – comprehension, working, expectation on accessibility – employment – user behaviour with Internet.
  7. 7. RESULTS – GENERAL • Survey took place in several countries, from April to July 2009. • People with disabilities and elderly mostly through face-to-face interviews. • 408 individuals surveyed (76.2% male).
  8. 8. RESULTS – DEVELOPERS 254 participants (25% directors/managers, 65% developers, 10% students/assistants) Acquaintance with individuals who have disabilities 6% unacquainted professionally 70% personally 24%
  9. 9. RESULTS – DEVELOPERS They expressed need for more knowledge about assistive devices & more education through project groups (67%), workshops (53%), and online training (34%).
  10. 10. RESULTS – DEVELOPERS Circa 40% are somewhat aware of standards & guidelines. Familiarity with standards & guidelines (in %) 90 68 Students 45 Directors & developers 23 0 WAI-ARIA WCAG 1.0 WCAG 2.0 Section 508 ATAG
  11. 11. RESULTS – DEVELOPERS Knowledge is (not necessarily) power. “[...] do have a shelf of books on WCAG [...], but hardly any of us uses it as we lack the time. What we all seek for is an embedded validator in our day to day developing tools such as Microsoft Visual Studio [...]” Accessibility simulation + tailored authoring preferred (70%), but traditional assessment tools also (48%). Online & download (49%).
  12. 12. RESULTS – SERVICE PROVIDERS 41 participants (24% men; between 24-60 years old) • Primarily employed on accessible Web design & consulting, mostly working on SME (90%). • 34% have some kind of impairment.
  13. 13. RESULTS – SERVICE PROVIDERS Good awareness of accessibility standards such as WCAG 1.0 (83%) and WCAG 2.0 (61%). Methods & practices (in %) 70 53 35 18 0 Assessment tools User testing AT simulation
  14. 14. RESULTS – SERVICE PROVIDERS • Good awareness of accessibility standards, e.g., WCAG 1.0 (83%) and WCAG 2.0 (61%). • Still, the most eager stakeholder for further advancements, such as accessibility on mobile Web (66%) and better simulation tools (85%). • Want to be updated via online resources (83%), as well tools availability online.
  15. 15. RESULTS – PUBLIC BODIES 18 participants (servants & officials; 28-60 years old; 11 men) • Theywork for public bodies, governmental agencies and public corporations. • Small sample, difficultly obtaining permission through official channels... • ... but all subject to laws and regulations on accessibility.
  16. 16. RESULTS – PUBLIC BODIES • All familiar with (HCI-centric) accessibility, but 75% also associate term with physical properties. • Internal training takes place (56%), but lack of internal expertise identified as a problem (72%). • Big interest on events & database of experts to help them.
  17. 17. RESULTS – PUBLIC BODIES • Evaluation tools are main entry point to ensure some accessibility (67%). • Little to no use of end-users and AT-centric testing. • Highexpectation on certification “stamps”(e.g., WCAG AAA) from their superiors/decision makers (78%).
  18. 18. RESULTS – A11Y ASSESSORS 37 participants (heterogeneous group; 23-54 years old; 24 men) • Accessibility champions in the society: experts, counsellors, consulters, professors. • Most of them have > 10 years of experience. •9 have an impairment. • 11 are members of organisations for people with disabilities (inc. all the 9 above).
  19. 19. RESULTS – A11Y ASSESSORS • High awareness of standards and guidelines (81%). • WCAG 1.0 was particularly mentioned due to being the basis for laws in several countries. • Theyhave an active role on Web accessibility (81%) and desktop (41%).
  20. 20. RESULTS – A11Y ASSESSORS • Evaluation & simulation tools mostly used, with strong feelings for disability (77%) and AT simulation (80%). • Invitations to events on accessibility issues desired (63%). (icchp 2011 shouldn’t have a problem hitting the break-even!!!)
  21. 21. RESULTS – END USERS 67 participants (75% claim to have a disability; 19-75 years old; 38 men) disability awareness 100 75 50 25 0 [..., 29] [30-39] [40-49] [50-59] [60-...]
  22. 22. RESULTS – END USERS • Awareness of Web and other domains (e.g. mobile) are posing severe access barriers (60%). • Despite of that, 75% use technology on an almost daily basis. • No key winner on AT usage. Diversity is king. • Training(60%) falls short of expectations, with reliance on friends to help (70%). • Expressed need (73%) of improvements on AT compatibility with Web pages.
  23. 23. SUMMARY • Need for higher spread of WCAG 2.0. • Willingness for AT and disability simulation. • Advanced IDE integration. • WAI must be replicated on other tech domains.
  24. 24. THANK YOU! Rui Lopes rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt check EU FP7 ACCESSIBLE project for some answers http://www.accessible-project.eu/

×