Usability evaluation of navigation tasks by people with intellectual disabilities: a Google and SAPO comparative study regarding different interaction modalities
Usability evaluation of navigation tasks by people with intellectual disabilities: a Google and SAPO comparative study regarding different interaction modalities
复制标题
智障人士导航任务的可用性评估：Google 和 SAPO 关于不同交互方式的比较研究
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Luís Magalhães
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tânia Rocha;D. Carvalho;M. Bessa;Sofia Reis;Luís Magalhães
本文介绍了一个关于智障人士导航任务可用性评估的案例研究。目的是调查影响可用性的因素，通过比较他们的用户- web交互，并强调观察到的困难。为此，进行了两个不同的研究阶段：第一个阶段包括比较使用两种不同搜索引擎布局（b谷歌和SAPO）的交互，第二个阶段包括初步评估，分析用户如何使用通常的输入设备（键盘和鼠标）执行任务，并提供替代界面，以帮助克服可能的交互问题并增强自主性。对于后者，我们比较了两种不同的接口：基于wimp的接口和基于语音的接口。获得的主要结果表明，用户使用谷歌（布局简单）比使用SAPO（布局复杂）有更好的性能，尽管显示出良好的键盘处理能力，但他们在使用该输入设备时没有表现出自主性（由于在处理该设备时需要读/写）。从这个角度来看，b谷歌的语音识别应用程序确实可以被视为交互的替代方案。然而，我们发现语音识别界面并不像它应该的那样健壮：它可以更精确，更不容易由于单词发音不佳而产生错误。经过这两个阶段的研究，我们认为我们可以推断出一些建议，供开发人员使用，以便为这一群体创建更直观的布局，方便导航，从而促进数字包容。
This paper presents a case study regarding the usability evaluation of navigation tasks by people with intellectual disabilities. The aim was to investigate the factors affecting usability, by comparing their user-Web interactions and underline the difficulties observed. For that purpose, two distinct study phases were performed: the first consisted in comparing interaction using two different search engines’ layouts (Google and SAPO) and the second phase consisted in a preliminary evaluation to analyze how users performed the tasks with the usual input devices (keyboard and mouse) and provide an alternative interface to help overcome possible interaction problems and enhance autonomy. For the latter, we compared two different interfaces: a WIMP-based one and speech-based one. The main results obtained showed that users had a better performance with Google (with a simpler layout) than with SAPO (with a complex layout), and despite displaying a good keyboard handling ability, they did not show autonomy using this input device (due to the need for reading/writing when handling this device). In this perspective, Google’s speech recognition application could indeed be considered an alternative for interaction. However, we found that the speech recognition interface is not as robust as it should be: it could be more precise and less prone to errors due to poor word pronunciation. After this two-phased study, we think we may be able to infer some recommendations to be used by developers in order to create more intuitive layouts for easy navigation regarding this group of people, and thereby facilitate digital inclusion.