A unified methodology for the evaluation of accessibility and usability of mobile applications

Billi, Marco; Burzagli, Laura; Catarci, Tiziana; Santucci, Giuseppe; Bertini, Enrico; Gabbanini, Francesco; Palchetti, Enrico

doi:10.1007/s10209-009-0180-1

Cited by 83 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The advent of mobile phones, in particular smartphones, has piloted a new era of connectivity where users are afforded information access "almost any time and in any place" 14 . Such devices are no longer just telephones, but now offer an impressive cluster of features in a compact, portable form 64 .…”

Section: Mobile Assistive Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobile assistive technologies for the visually impaired

Hakobyan

Lumsden

O’Sullivan

et al. 2013

Survey of Ophthalmology

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link AbstractThere are around 285 million visually-impaired people worldwide, and around 370,000 people are registered as blind or partially sighted in the UK A . On-going advances in information technology (IT) are increasing the scope for IT-based mobile assistive technologies to facilitate the independence, safety, and improved quality of life of the visually impaired. Research is being directed at making mobile phones and other handheld devices accessible via our haptic (touch) and audio sensory channels. We review research and innovation within the field of mobile assistive technology for the visually impaired and, in so doing, highlight the need for successful collaboration between clinical expertise, computer science, and domain users to realize fully the potential benefits of such technologies. We initially reflect on research which has been conducted to make mobile phones more accessible to people with vision loss. We then discuss innovative assistive applications designed for the visually impaired that are either delivered via mainstream devices and can be used while in motion (e.g., mobile phones) or are embedded within an environment that may be in motion (e.g., public transport) or within which the user may be in motion (e.g., smart homes).

show abstract

Section: Mobile Assistive Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobile assistive technologies for the visually impaired

Hakobyan

Lumsden

O’Sullivan

et al. 2013

Survey of Ophthalmology

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…some papers pursue theoretical perspectives where they outline opportunities or challenges of conducting field or lab-based evaluations. For example several papers are extensive paper reviews [1,3,7,10,11,20,55]. As an illustrative example, Carter et al describe a comprehensive study on ecological validity in ubiquitous computing stressing that we as designers and researchers should focus on evaluation methods, and prototyping tools, that support realistic use in realistic settings [11].…”

Section: Discussing Lab and Field Studiesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Kray et al discusses lab studies using immersive video as a technique [42] and Lumsden et al explore how to conduct meaningful lab-based usability evaluations of mobile systems [46], which is also proposed by Dahl et al [13,14] who suggest to simulate the use setting and environmentin their particular case they explore the role of fidelity in recreating hospital settings in laboratories, like in [36]. Finally, Billi et al propose a methodology for evaluating usability of mobile system including mobile heuristics [7].…”

Section: Discussing Lab and Field Studiesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Secondly, several researchers point to the fact that field studies are nevertheless costly in terms of time and effort spent [53,54]. Thus, partly as a result of these challenges, some papers work with, and argue in favor of lab evaluations for mobile computing for example [7,13,14,42,46]. Kray et al discusses lab studies using immersive video as a technique [42] and Lumsden et al explore how to conduct meaningful lab-based usability evaluations of mobile systems [46], which is also proposed by Dahl et al [13,14] who suggest to simulate the use setting and environmentin their particular case they explore the role of fidelity in recreating hospital settings in laboratories, like in [36].…”

Section: Discussing Lab and Field Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Was it worth the hassle?

Kjeldskov

Skov

2014

Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction With Mobile Devices &Amp; Services

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation is considered one of the major cornerstones of human-computer interaction (HCI). During the last decade, several studies have discussed pros and cons of lab and field evaluations. Based on these discussions, we conduct a review to explore the past decade of mobile HCI research on field and lab evaluation, investigating responses in the literature to the "is it worth the hassle?" paper from 2004. We find that while our knowledge and experience with both lab and field studies have grown considerably, there is still no definite answer to the lab versus field question. In response we suggest that the real question is not if -but when and how -to go into the field. In response we suggest moving beyond usability evaluations, and to engage with field studies that are truly in-the-wild, and longitudinal.

show abstract

“…9 However, Billi and others point out that there is no general agreement in the literature about the significance or usefulness of the difference between laboratory and field testing of mobile applications. 10 One compromise between field studies and laboratory experiments is the use of a smartphone emulator: an emulator mimics the smartphone interface on a desktop computer and is recordable via screen capture. However, desktop emulators mask some usability problems that impact smartphones, such as an unstable wireless connection or limited bandwidth.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%