Subasi Ureq Semantic Accessiblity Final


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Subasi Ureq Semantic Accessiblity Final

    1. 1. User requirement analysis for a railway ticketing portal for “older users” International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility Leitner I Subasi I Höller I Geven I Tscheligi April 2009
    2. 2. Aim of the Project (Paper) <ul><li>In this paper we present results concerning universal accessibility </li></ul><ul><li>for older users of a nationwide railway ticket and travel </li></ul><ul><li>Information portal. </li></ul><ul><li>The aim of our study is to reveal relevant findings, which are </li></ul><ul><li>currently affecting the usage of this portal negatively. </li></ul><ul><li>Website of the Austrian Railways: </li></ul>
    3. 4. Content <ul><li>User Requirement analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Literature survey </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interviews </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Questionnaire </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Analysis of Findings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Portal related results </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User group related results </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Conclusions on Usability and Accessibility </li></ul>
    4. 5. Literature Survey <ul><li>General: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Demographics in Austria </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparative studies with Europe </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Internet Usage in Austria </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparative results within Europe </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Austrian Railways specific: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reports from other research projects (transport, railways…) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reported requests from users </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Guidelines: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>General requirements, older user specific requirements, ticketing portal related requirements. </li></ul></ul>
    5. 6. Literature Survey (Results & Indicators) <ul><li>The target group of future users shall not be a homogenous group . </li></ul><ul><li>Ticketing process must be technically and more importantly semantically accessible to this inhomogeneous user group </li></ul><ul><li>Process must be understandable and logical for all user groups in all levels </li></ul><ul><li>Sublevels of the system must be consistent with the process </li></ul><ul><li>Users must have the chance to get help in needed points according to their needs </li></ul>
    6. 7. Portal analysis <ul><li>The design and usage of interactive elements, color coding, numbering </li></ul><ul><li>Vertical process vs horizontal process (consistency in sub-levels) </li></ul><ul><li>Start page, orientation, data request from user </li></ul><ul><li>Help systems (visual, text, audio, video), placement </li></ul><ul><li>Help systems: technical, contextual (help icons) </li></ul><ul><li>Help systems : Choosing the contrast, type size, audio help </li></ul><ul><li>Best practice of tables, navigation elements </li></ul><ul><li>Importance of buttons: „Back“, „Cancel“ and „Continue“ </li></ul><ul><li>Importance of price and trade –off </li></ul><ul><li>Placement of terms of use </li></ul><ul><li>Reservation systems </li></ul><ul><li>Connection to related materials (Stops, train specifications…) </li></ul>
    7. 8. Interviews <ul><li>Interviews in railway station </li></ul><ul><li>20 People (10 older then 60 yeas, 10 between 45 and 60) </li></ul><ul><li>Objectives of the interviews </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Language specific questions (wordings) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>R easons for consulting the counter personnel (why buying at the counter and not in the internet/ticket machine) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Information needs on railway tickets </li></ul></ul>
    8. 9. Results from interviews (1/3) <ul><li>Importance of correct language, wording and natural sentences </li></ul><ul><ul><li>People mostly do understand the often english-based web language but would prefer german based wordings </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reasons for consulting the counter personnel: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Learn about different options for price and travel opportunities which the internet cannot provide </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learn about possibilities for “non-routine trips” which the internet is currently not able to provide </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Other Findings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Importance of information about train connections and services in buying process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tariff information, discount possibilities, terms of use must be introduced in earlier stages in a clear way </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Different information needs for different types of tickets </li></ul></ul>
    9. 10. Results of interviews (2/3) Information relevant for buying (online) Tickets
    10. 11. Results of interviews (3/3) Why people buy tickets at the counter
    11. 12. Focus Groups <ul><li>Focus Group with 14 elderly customers </li></ul><ul><li>All users were internet affine and had used the existing online portal at least once (at least bought one ticket online) </li></ul><ul><li>Objectives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Discuss user experiences and impressions using the site </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discuss improvements and limitations of the site </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Overall: gather age specific knowledge on using ticketing and buying processes </li></ul></ul>
    12. 13. Results of focus groups <ul><li>Elderly people in principle appreciate the use of online systems </li></ul><ul><li>Users report positive experiences with the portal </li></ul><ul><li>Age related findings: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Elderly people report fear of loosing control especially in buying process (credit card use) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>First usage (with little internet know-how) is problematic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advertisements in the context of information and ticketing processes is wanted as far as it is tailored information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advertisements (and ticket offers) provide knowledge the let users browse and explore their possibilities </li></ul></ul>
    13. 14. Online Questionnaire <ul><li>Questionnaire Outline: </li></ul><ul><li>21 Questions </li></ul><ul><li>1 Month online duration </li></ul><ul><li>Over 1200 valid responds </li></ul><ul><li>Parts and Aims: </li></ul><ul><li>Age, education, internet usage, technology usage </li></ul><ul><li>Why/why not buying online tickets </li></ul><ul><li>Perception of website matrix (attractiveness, clearness…) </li></ul><ul><li>Free comments, recommendations </li></ul>
    14. 15. Sample Results of Online Questionnaire (1/2) Figure 3: Why people buy rail tickets online (1 = totally agree; 5 = totally disagree)
    15. 16. Sample Results of Online Questionnaire (2/2) Figure 3: Why people DO NOT buy rail tickets online (1 = totally agree; 5 = totally disagree) 1 2 3 4 5 because buying online is complex/tricky/uncomfortable because I like buying at the counter more because online payment is complex because of privacy reasons (stay anonymous) <59 60+
    16. 17. Overview: Ticketing portal related results <ul><li>Online Ticketing portal gives to less information on “non-routine trips” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For routine trips information is currently adequate </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Tailored information vs. advertisement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Information increases the attractiveness of website </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cross linking of different kind of information to increase the possibilities to explore (“elderly users are explorers”) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Standard structure of ticketing process is urgently needed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Clear identification where process starts and ends (buying) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clear identification of actual progress </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Context relevant help is important </li></ul><ul><li>Use of “non-web” language increases the accessibility to information (especially for elderly) </li></ul>
    17. 18. Overview: User group related results <ul><li>Older users do not show general antipathy towards the medium “internet” </li></ul><ul><li>Once they have been in contact they appreciate the services even stronger than younger users </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Eg.: elderly users appreciate online payment more than younger users significantly </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Older users expect realistic Feedback: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ a confirmation for payment” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ a guide that indicates what to do next” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Older adults are less concerned and less critical with technical problems as long as the system is consistent </li></ul>
    18. 19. Final Conclusions Identified issues WCAG 2.0 Addition Organization of information is complicated 3.1 Readable and 3.2 Predictable Investigate further on older peoples reading habits and cognitive problem solving processes Older Users tend to not report problems 3.3 Input Assistance (context aware) Add context aware output assistance for problem reporting in the time the user faces a problem
    19. 20. Final Conclusions Identified issues WCAG 2.0 Addition End-decision making in online processes is uncomfortable, especially in online purchase systems 3.3.4 Error Prevention 2.4 Navigable Support users awareness on critical information and sequence changes and make feedback recognizable to the older user Names of navigation elements are not clear 3.1 Readable and 2.4 Navigable Set older user specific requirements for linking and naming including link number, link size, language, etc.
    20. 21. Final Conclusions Identified issues WCAG 2.0 Addition Tailored information/ advertisement is not perceived as promotion but as contextual and useful information Define and standardize the placement of tailored information with rules on the page in relation with its relevance Older users are explorers and often expect to get a wider range of information on websites Investigate older users purposes to use your site (e.g. purchase tickets in contrast to purely information purpose) and provide a tailored information pool if necessary
    21. 22. Final Conclusions Identified issues WCAG 2.0 Addition Older adults want to take real feedback like “a guide that indicates what to do next”. 3.3 Input Assistance Set rules for the language and placement of assistance in an understandable way. Older users do not have problems with interaction as long as they can control interaction.
    22. 23. Future Work <ul><li>The system and technical specifications are still considered as basics when creating a website and they are treated as non- changeable facts. </li></ul><ul><li>An accessible web is for all people and it should consider the end user from the very first step, users must be the starting point. </li></ul><ul><li>Guidelines must be evaluated with end users and collected & merged. </li></ul><ul><li>Collected data can be counted as basics for all and the control of this part can be automated. </li></ul>
    23. 24. Future Work <ul><li>Websites and web experience must be grouped according to user’s needs and perceptions. </li></ul><ul><li>Basic websites like websites from governmental institutions e-health which are needed at first hand must have standardized interaction styles and orders. </li></ul><ul><li>Older users are not likely to report problems but they are likely to solve these problems themselves, these patterns can be collected and analyzed. </li></ul>
    24. 25. <ul><li>THANK YOU </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>