Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Michael Heron, Canterbury Christ Church University
michael.heron@canterbury.ac.uk
Vicki L. Hanson, University of Dundee
Ia...
Introduction
• Operating systems have come a long way in
providing accessibility support.
• Most come complete with a rela...
Issues and Difficulties
• Within our research, we focused on older users (N=38, M=15, F=23;
Mean age=67.89, SD=6.02) on Wi...
Computer Configuration
• These results replicate those discussed within the
literature regarding older users and computers...
ACCESS
• Access is an open source, plug-in enabled, cross
platform framework for adaptive accessibility.
• It works by inv...
ACCESS Architecture
• The core of the framework is written in Java.
• It presents itself as a traditional server.
• The fr...
ACCESS – The
Architecture
What does it do?
• The engine is responsible for performing high level
tasks such as managing sockets and threads.
• It’s ...
Weight a Minute
• Each plugin has a weight that represents its likliehood
of being selected.
• When a change is made, the ...
Weights
• Within our testing group, the issue of dynamic
diversity is important.
• Older users rarely have one significant...
Plug-Ins
• We tested several plug-ins, either individually or as
part of a ‘suite’, to determine the effectiveness of
the ...
Results
• Experimental validation of the tool shows several
things:
• Users thought the tool was beneficial
• Users though...
Framework Benefits
• Experimental validation shows that this is a
promising approach for user configuration.
• Though more...
Future Work
• Currently, the framework is limited to changing the
underlying operating system.
• It doesn’t offer real tim...
References
• Trewin, S. (2000). Configuration agents, control and privacy.
In CUU '00: Proceedings on the 2000 conference ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

ACCESS: A Technical Framework for Adaptive Accessibility Support

322 views

Published on

The talk I gave at EICS 2013 in London.

Published in: Software
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

ACCESS: A Technical Framework for Adaptive Accessibility Support

  1. 1. Michael Heron, Canterbury Christ Church University michael.heron@canterbury.ac.uk Vicki L. Hanson, University of Dundee Ian W. Ricketts, University of Dundee {vlh|ricketts}@computing.dundee.ac.uk
  2. 2. Introduction • Operating systems have come a long way in providing accessibility support. • Most come complete with a relatively wide range of options for configuring the user environment. • However, several issues combine to complicate the job of providing accessibility support for novices. • Lower levels of computing literacy • Lower confidence working with computers • Increased anxiety when making changes to the underlying system. • In this paper, we present ACCESS as a proof of concept, possible solution to some of these problems.
  3. 3. Issues and Difficulties • Within our research, we focused on older users (N=38, M=15, F=23; Mean age=67.89, SD=6.02) on Windows XP. • Within this group, we found several issues for significant numbers of participants. • Unsure when presented with jargon, and uneasy about experimenting with settings. • Coupled to this, largely unsure of the terms ‘ease of access’ or ‘accessibility’ • Largely unaware of the possible options within the control panel, and often what the control panel was. • More likely to simply work with a computer as it was presented rather than make any changes. • Unsure of the difference between operating system wide changes, and those specific to applications. • These results were obtained from a questionnaire administered to participants (see Heron, 2011 for a full discussion of this).
  4. 4. Computer Configuration • These results replicate those discussed within the literature regarding older users and computers (c.f. Trewin, 2000; Hawthorne, 2003). • Novice users: • are often unaware of what options are available. • often lack the knowledge of how to make changes. • often lack the confidence to make the changes they know how to make. • Some users may also be operating under additional constraints that frustrate their ability to make changes at all. • The system may be in the wrong language. • The user may have physical restrictions that mean they cannot interact sufficiently to enable support.
  5. 5. ACCESS • Access is an open source, plug-in enabled, cross platform framework for adaptive accessibility. • It works by inverting the traditional responsibility for configuration • It becomes the computer’s responsibility to identify when users are having trouble. • Many of the users within our studies use computers as tools, and simply want them to work. • Much work has already been done on the effectiveness of dynamic accessibility, and the development of tools to test that. • Unfortunately these tools are often tied to a specific context, cannot co-operate with other tools, and require considerable amounts of skill to implement.
  6. 6. ACCESS Architecture • The core of the framework is written in Java. • It presents itself as a traditional server. • The framework contains several operating contexts. • These handle the underlying connections with the operating system. • Each operating system requires a key/mouse listener to be developed. • Proof of concept implementations for these exist for Windows XP, Windows 7, and Linux Mint. • The listeners interpret user input data, and then send it via a socket to the ACCESS engine. • This then passes the stream information into the interested plugins.
  7. 7. ACCESS – The Architecture
  8. 8. What does it do? • The engine is responsible for performing high level tasks such as managing sockets and threads. • It’s also responsible for selecting plug-ins to make an adapation to the user’s operating system. • Each plug-in keeps track of the user input provided and performs any needed calculations. • And every so often, the engine ticks. • It asks each plugin ‘do you want to make a correction?’ • It makes a roulette wheel of those that do • It then spins the wheel and picks a weighted plugin. • That plug-in then makes its adaptation based on its internal calculations. • It does this via the Operating System Context, so it doesn’t need to know where it is running.
  9. 9. Weight a Minute • Each plugin has a weight that represents its likliehood of being selected. • When a change is made, the user is presented with a dialog asking ‘did you like this?’ • If they select ‘yes’, the change is committed and the weight of the plug-in is increased. • If they select ‘no’, the change is committed and the weight of the plug-in is slashed.
  10. 10. Weights • Within our testing group, the issue of dynamic diversity is important. • Older users rarely have one significant issue they will self-identify as a problem. • More often they have a blend of minor ailments that combine to create a unique portfolio • None of which are significant enough to be considered a problem in themselves. • The dynamic weighting adjustment within the framework allows for users to feel as if they are in control. • It also allows for plug-ins to ‘mould’ themselves to a user’s specific preferences.
  11. 11. Plug-Ins • We tested several plug-ins, either individually or as part of a ‘suite’, to determine the effectiveness of the framework. Plug-In Description DoubleClick Identified difficulties in double clicking, and increased the threshold if they were encountered. PointerSize and MouseTrails Identified difficulties in finding the mouse, and either increased the size of the pointer (PointerSize) or switched on/lengthened mouse trails (MouseTrails) DoubleBack Identified doubling back behaviour with mouse interactions, and changes the speed of the pointer. MissedClicks Identified when someone had difficulty clicking on a precise target, and would enable pointer precision. InputRecorder Recorded all input from users in the testing, allowing for it to be played back later in a form that allowed for O/S interaction.
  12. 12. Results • Experimental validation of the tool shows several things: • Users thought the tool was beneficial • Users thought the tool was understandable • Users thought the tool was non-intrusive • Users felt the tool made changes in an appropriate way. • Users would be willing to use a similar tool on their own machines. • Correcting real world interaction difficulties was not a priority of the testing. • However, numerous statistically significant improvements were observed for quantitative measures of speed/accuracy and qualitative measures of task ease (see Heron, Hanson, & Ricketts, 2013a).
  13. 13. Framework Benefits • Experimental validation shows that this is a promising approach for user configuration. • Though more real world testing is required. • The provision of a central framework lowers the development burden of building adaptive plug-ins. • No need to worry about issues of porting, low level events and such. • The provision of a central framework allows for high-level co-operation between adaptations. • The framework lowers the burden of knowledge on users, and allows for a way to resolve issues of confidence in configuration.
  14. 14. Future Work • Currently, the framework is limited to changing the underlying operating system. • It doesn’t offer real time adaptive correction yet. • Before the tool can be deployed in the real world, several issues regarding security and trust must be resolved (see Heron, Hanson and Ricketts, 2013b) • Future work is aimed at addressing both of these issues. • As well as expanding the supported operating systems and power of the operating system contexts. • The tool is available as open source at https:// github.com/drakkos/ACCESS, but is not currently in a very developer-friendly format. • If anyone is interested in working with the tool, please let me know.
  15. 15. References • Trewin, S. (2000). Configuration agents, control and privacy. In CUU '00: Proceedings on the 2000 conference on Universal Usability, pages 9-16, New York, NY, USA. ACM. • Hawthorn, D. (2003). How universal is good design for older users? In CUU '03: Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Universal usability, pages 38-45, New York, NY, USA. ACM. • Heron, M., Hanson, V. L., and Ricketts, I. W. (2013a). Accessibility support for older adults with the ACCESS framework. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, • Heron, M., Hanson, V., and Ricketts, I. (2013b). Open source and accessibility: advantages and limitations. Journal of Interaction Science, 1(1):2. • Heron, M. (2011). The ACCESS Framework: reinforcement learning for accessibility and cognitive support for older adults. PhD thesis, Dundee University, Dundee, Scotland.

×